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.