walkhighlands

This forum is for general discussion about walking and scrambling... If writing a report or sharing your experiences from a route, please use the other boards.

Dalwhinnie Level Crossing - Network Rail piece, May 2022

Re: Dalwhinnie Level Crossing - Network Rail piece, May 2022

Postby Essan » Thu May 26, 2022 2:04 pm

Girl Outdoors wrote:
With a safe and secure secondary access only 200 metres to the
south, which also connects into the same path leading from the level crossing


Well someones not telling the truth here then!


The underpass may be 200m away as the crow flies.

But pedestrians can't fly - and therefore have to follow the road to access it. Making it a 1.5km detour.

I doubt whoever wrote the report has actually been to Dalwhinnie - or even knows where it is!
User avatar
Essan
 
Posts: 598
Munros:98   Corbetts:52
Fionas:7   Donalds:2+0
Sub 2000:4   Hewitts:88
Wainwrights:24   Islands:5
Joined: Jul 1, 2010
Location: Evesham, Worcs

Re: Dalwhinnie Level Crossing - Network Rail piece, May 2022

Postby simon-b » Thu May 26, 2022 3:14 pm

Nobody is denying the truth. Just as Booking.com are quite correct when they say accommodation in Dores is only 6 miles from Drumnadrochit.
User avatar
simon-b
Munro compleatist
 
Posts: 2347
Munros:282   Corbetts:30
Fionas:7   Donalds:12
Sub 2000:1   Hewitts:155
Wainwrights:214   Islands:4
Joined: Jan 2, 2012
Location: Wakefield, West Yorkshire

Re: Dalwhinnie Level Crossing - Network Rail piece, May 2022

Postby davekeiller » Thu May 26, 2022 9:20 pm

It's probably about 200m in a straight line, and it *does* link in to the path on the Ben Alder side. However, on the village side it's probably about a mile. If cycling, you've got 2 slightly awkward right turns to get onto and off the main road, rather than a simple crossing over a quiet level crossing.
The reason people are annoyed is that Network Rail summarily closed the crossing without consulting anyone. There don't seem to have been any accidents there in over 100 years and it was generally assumed it was a right of way. The local community were furious at the way this was handled, and lots of walkers are (probably rightly) worried about how many more level crossings are suddenly going to get closed on "health and safety" grounds.
davekeiller
 
Posts: 987
Munros:154   Corbetts:31
Fionas:4   Donalds:3
Sub 2000:11   Hewitts:19
Wainwrights:20   
Joined: Oct 25, 2013

Re: Dalwhinnie Level Crossing - Network Rail piece, May 2022

Postby TheRealLurlock » Thu May 26, 2022 10:17 pm

It's knee-jerk reactionism in its highest form. Someone at Network Rail saw footage of someone being a fool on the crossing. Instead of drawing the conclusion that being foolish is dangerous, Network Rail drew the conclusion that the crossing itself is dangerous, to fools and non-fools alike. If you took the same attitude to the highways, you would have to outlaw crossing a road anywhere except at a specified crossing point (as I believe is the case in certain parts of the US, even if this law isn't enforced).

This attitude feeds a vicious cycle whereby public bodies, fearing litigation, take blanket measures to disallow 'risky' activities. These measures then reinforce the mindset amongst certain members of the public that it is in fact these public bodies who are responsible and liable for their personal safety, rather than themselves. Therefore, if you do something stupid and suffer the natural consequences of your stupidity, it is actually the relevant public body that is to blame, since by adopting all these risk reduction policies they have clearly demonstrated that it is not up to you to look after yourself. The public body in question responds to this by getting even more afraid and further restricting what the public are allowed to do, and the cycle continues.
TheRealLurlock
Backpacker
 
Posts: 37
Munros:1   Corbetts:1
Joined: Mar 7, 2022

Re: Dalwhinnie Level Crossing - Network Rail piece, May 2022

Postby Paul Webster » Fri May 27, 2022 10:06 am

Your help is needed! If you want to help with getting evidence together on it being a Public Right of Way, you can submit a questionnaire - and either a gpx file or a map with the route drawn on - to Scotways, who have evidence of it being used historically as a right of way but need evidence for the last 2 decades.

https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/news/scotways-calls-on-public-for-help-with-dalwhinnie-crossing-evidence/
User avatar
Paul Webster
Site Admin
Mountain Walker
 
Posts: 5826
Munros:282   Corbetts:222
Fionas:71   Donalds:45+17
Sub 2000:121   Hewitts:133
Wainwrights:135   Islands:92
Joined: Jan 6, 2007
Location: Highland
Walk wish-list

Re: Dalwhinnie Level Crossing - Network Rail piece, May 2022

Postby Sunset tripper » Fri May 27, 2022 12:40 pm

Girl Outdoors wrote:
With a safe and secure secondary access only 200 metres to the
south, which also connects into the same path leading from the level crossing


Well someones not telling the truth here then!


Yes, that appears to me as false information regarding the 200 metres, even if you walk down the railway to the underpass it is around 500 metres (I dont think Network Rail recommend this)

Here's a map showing the distance between the 2 points.
Screenshot_20220527-082008_Gallery.jpg



It is a good bit longer going round by the road.

Looks like Network Rail are planning to put big jaggy fences up to further deter walkers from going over at this point.

I realise that many have the view - why not use the underpass? I've used it before myself, but it may be the thin edge of the wedge and the Balsporran crossing may well be next, where the alternatives are not so great.
User avatar
Sunset tripper
 
Posts: 2965
Joined: Nov 3, 2013
Location: Inverness

Re: Dalwhinnie Level Crossing - Network Rail piece, May 2022

Postby BigTed » Sat May 28, 2022 1:29 pm

Why not either a new pedestrian bridge or a new footpath to link with the nearby station where there is already a bridge?

As for other crossings? Where next. Achnasheen has a crossing. Etc.

I see Network Rail were recently boasting about a new cheaper bridge design to

"replace high-risk rural footpath crossings – as part of our ongoing drive to make the railway safer and easier for pedestrians to cross. "

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-commercial/research-development-and-technology/research-and-development-programme/innovative-modular-footbridge-design/
BigTed
Mountain Walker
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Aug 18, 2017

Re: Dalwhinnie Level Crossing - Network Rail piece, May 2022

Postby Giant Stoneater » Sat May 28, 2022 3:17 pm

At Arbroath pedestrian railway crossing there is a traffic light system in operation along with a intermittant sound, green light safe to cross cross, red light train coming do not cross, a very simple solution if people were to head the warning which is not always the case.
Giant Stoneater
Scrambler
 
Posts: 916
Joined: Aug 2, 2014

Re: Dalwhinnie Level Crossing - Network Rail piece, May 2022

Postby codenascher » Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:06 am

I walked from Ben Alder to Dalwhinnie in mid april. After a long and uncomfortable walk for my feet, I was standing in front of the closed railway crossing. The Scotrail sign was also posted here. The diversions to the station is indicated here with 1.5km, a hint I would have liked to have seen already at the dam... Instead of turning around, I climbed over the two barriers (including putting down my rucksack), which took less than 30 seconds.
codenascher
Munro compleatist
 
Posts: 4
Munros:49   Corbetts:6
Fionas:1   
Joined: Sep 29, 2015

Re: Dalwhinnie Level Crossing - Network Rail piece, May 2022

Postby AyrshireAlps » Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:39 am

At Arbroath pedestrian railway crossing there is a traffic light system in operation along with a intermittant sound, green light safe to cross cross, red light train coming do not cross, a very simple solution if people were to head the warning which is not always the case.


Exactly, or change the signal to make these types of crossings a low speed limit for trains, would only take a few seconds longer for the train to get to it's destination.

Heaven forbid we prioritise pedestrians over vehicles.
User avatar
AyrshireAlps
Stravaiging
 
Posts: 809
Joined: Nov 10, 2020

Re: Dalwhinnie Level Crossing - Network Rail piece, May 2022

Postby gaffr » Wed Jun 01, 2022 4:11 pm

Yes, as we found last year no problem for bikers...park up at the car slots arranged by tha estate just prior to the closure. ....then bike along to the underpass. Spoke to one of the folks working on the estate that they have an alternative way into the estate for big vehicles that don't fit at the underpass.
I don't think that we should let the rail folks know about the crossings, that I use, one at Newtonmore and the other close to the forbidden one.
User avatar
gaffr
Munro compleatist
 
Posts: 2258
Munros:281   Corbetts:203
Fionas:33   Donalds:14
Sub 2000:11   Hewitts:25
Wainwrights:11   Islands:17
Joined: Oct 25, 2009
Location: Highland.

Re: Dalwhinnie Level Crossing - Network Rail piece, May 2022

Postby Robert Haynes » Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:04 am

TheRealLurlock wrote:What nonsense. Let's translate this into what it really means:

"The risk of a lawsuit and negative publicity due to an incompetent member of the public lacking common sense and taking a stupid risk, ending up injured or dead, and then blaming Network Rail for allowing such a crossing to exist, no longer makes business sense."

No, what it really means is that there's a high risk of a member of the public getting killed as a result of not being able to get out of the way of an oncoming train. Network Rail is an exceptionally safety-conscious organisation, as is the rail industry as a whole.
BigTed wrote:Why not either a new pedestrian bridge or a new footpath to link with the nearby station where there is already a bridge?

Because, as they noted in their response, there is a permitted route to the south, so that the cost of providing a footbridge would be disproportionate.
Giant Stoneater wrote:At Arbroath pedestrian railway crossing there is a traffic light system in operation along with a intermittant sound, green light safe to cross cross, red light train coming do not cross, a very simple solution if people were to head the warning which is not always the case.

Network Rail explain in their response why this is not feasible in this location. In essence, it is because the crossing is too close to the station so would create unsafe interactions with the signalling system.
gaffr wrote:Spoke to one of the folks working on the estate that they have an alternative way into the estate for big vehicles that don't fit at the underpass.

As permitted users of the crossing, the estate should be unaffected by the decision to secure it against unauthorised use. Network Rail state clearly in the report that access has been preserved for the Ben Alder estate, as the sole authorised user, and for the emergency services.

As I expected, Network Rail have reiterated the view that they did not need to consult on preventing unauthorised use of the private crossing, or provide an alternative means of access, because the crossing is not, and never has been, open to the public. They have acknowledged that other organisations have a right to challenge their view, but believe that their position is legally correct and would oppose on safety grounds any attempt to open the private crossing to public use.

I'm unsure how they've arrived at the '200m' figure for the distance to the underbridge, though 1.5km is equally unrepresentative. It's true that it's 1500m from the private crossing to the underbridge along the road. But it would not be sensible for someone to attempt to use the private crossing, given that the closure has now received significant amounts of publicity. The largest reasonable figure is an additional 1km, for walkers arriving (or leaving) by rail. If arriving by road, the additional distance is just 400m from the respective parking areas to the point where the two routes meet. Obviously this isn't ideal, but in Network Rail's view anyone other than the Ben Alder Estate using the private crossing was trespassing on the railway anyway.

Given the situation at the crossing, I suspect that the best outcome which can be expected is that a new footbridge at the station, with an approach path to the west, will be constructed, open to the public and to rail users. A new bridge will be required in due course anyway, since the existing bridge does not have adequate clearance for planned electrification and is not accessible to people with reduced mobility. If this course of action is taken, it's likely that the bridge would not form part of a right of way.
Robert Haynes
Walker
 
Posts: 41
Munros:7   Corbetts:3
Fionas:1   
Joined: Jul 26, 2021

Previous



Can you help support Walkhighlands?


Our forum is free from adverts - your generosity keeps it running.
Can you help support Walkhighlands and this community by donating by direct debit?



Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests