Great Western Coffee Shop

That information should be in the Western Sectional Appendix. Google is your friend.  ;)

I'd look myself on your behalf but only have phone to hand and it's a rather large pdf to go searching on a phone.

100mph on the down Westbury and 100mph, falling to 90mph for a short section at the eastern end over Heywood Road Junction, in the up direction. 

Not sure you'd get much more out of it without very major work as it's on a bit of a curve, though the short 90mph could be raised up to 100/110 fairly easily.

Don't forget that there has been a long term 50mph 'Temporary Speed Restriction' (TSR) on the Up Avoider due to sighting issues associated with a footpath crossing.  Also, the turnout speeds on/off the Avoider lines are less at 50mph at Heywood Road Junction at the East End and 40mph at Fairwood Junction at the West End.

A bit off topic, but have often wondered why it is that the actual B&H route is not shown in the Sectional Appendix? (as far as I can see)

Raises an interesting question. When is a TSR not a TSR.

Just checked the current on-line one - it's the same, route GW500 starting on page 213.

One of the sites like Realtraintimes or Opentraintimes did used to show a list of TSRs - it is one of the Network Rail datafeeds - but I cannot find one showing it now.

They are posted on the Railway Performance Society's forum.  This weeks list is at http://www.railperformancedata.org.uk/index/siteforum-list-action/post.3398/title.tsrs-15th-21st-october-

From that it seems that there are two separate 50 mph TSRs on the Up Westbury Avoiding Line.  One as stated above due to crossing safety an the other due to track condition.  Considering there is only 1 mile and 24 chains between the end of one and the start of the other, I wonder how much the driver s able to accelerate before they have to start braking again.  It can't be that far between the T board for the first and the warning board for the second.

Dear Xxxx,

I'm answering your feedback from the recent meeting of the Westbury Area Board of Wiltshire Council, and the follow up research I have done.

** Background

The TransWilts CIC promotes rail and other public transport and sustainable travel to, from and within Wiltshire, and the TransWilts Community Rail Partnership, which is a part of that, concentrated particularly on the rail service from Swindon to Westbury with some onward service and connections to Salisbury. Our service has a significant passenger traffic of commuter traffic joining Swindon-bound trains at Westbury, and returning there in the evening. Commuters who live in Westbury use other commuter lines to - the main flow to and via Bath Spa, but also via Newbury and Reading, and via Warminster.  Those commuters who live with the urban area of Westbury typically walk to the station, which also has a substantial number of car parking places.

Westbury Station is a designated Community Rail Station on the Heart of Wessex line, and the West Wilts Rail User Group also has some 'adoptive rights'. Both organisation have a long standing and continuing positive active involvement, with TransWilts available to support them as appropriate as well as looking at interests and matters specifically raised by Swindon service passengers, as initially in the current case.

*** Walking routes to Dilton Marsh and Oldfield Road - Geography

Last Friday, I took a look around at Westbury station with reference to the walkway which leads from the station entrance past the car park and railyard where it forks, one leg leading to Dilton Marsh and the other leg to Oldfield Road.

To Oldfield road, the route is in a number of sections:
a) Station entrance / box junction with parking opposite
b) Public Road from front of the station to the right, leading to Westbury Station car park
c) A continuation of the public road as a road to the railyards
d) A stretch of about 50 yards of footpath to the fork, between hedges
e) A footpath across a field
f) A pedestrian level crossing over the railway line

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/wsbpathx.jpg)

This route from Westbury Station to residences on and near to that section of Oldfield Road is significantly shorter than the alternative route via the Station Approach Road and B3097. It appears to be well worn / significantly used throughout.

The look around was prompted by a request from Westbury community members and people who work in Westbury, concerned that section (d) has been obstructed even though (I believe) it had been in use without incumberance for many, many years.

Correspondence indicates that sections (c) and (d) are not considered to be public rights of way, and that the through route has been blocked off due to concerns about heavy lorries and pedestrians sharing section (c).

Planning proposals are in the offing for section (e) for a housing development, with the footpath becoming a residential street leading onto the B3097 near the Railway Inn. An extension of this street is proposed to rise and cross the railway line to the west.

*** In the short term

I have been informed that the blocking of walkway (d) is allowed and legal as it is not a public right of way, but also that this legallity has not been tested. There is some doubt due to the very long time this path has been used.  Whichever way it is, it would be a long and difficult thing to sort out at expense to various sides if they remain in active dispute.

I have also been informed that the closure of walkway (d) is because of the danger of lorries and pedestrians mixing on road section (c). "Heavy lorries on a narrow road mixing with pedestrians".  However, pedestrians and lorries routinely mix on quite narrow roads throughout the UK, and I do find it difficult to believe that if the lorry drivers take care there is any greater danger here - in fact there is a far greater danger from the same heavy lorries directly in front of the station entrance at (a), where pedestrians spill out and short term pickup is directly opposite.

Preventing access from southern end of (c) to the northern end of (e) would also eliminate most pedestrian use of (e) and (f) as they would become just part of a looping path from Oldfield Road to Dilton Marsh, which journey can be made much easier by other routes.  Foot crossing (f) is a particular issue, as it's on a 100 m.p.h. section of express railway line, which has a temporary but long standing speed restriction in the middle due to poor sighting on the crossing, and I'm sure that Network Rail would love it if that crossing could also be closed.  As a heavily used right of way, that would not be easy to justify, but as a lightly used right of way for which a shorter alternative was available, the case may be easier to make and less public concern would be raised.

*** In the longer term

Access from the station approach through the car park / area around road (c) and walkway (d) to what becomes a residential street at (e) would be a significant benefit to new residents living on the street at (e) in the new development.  The develops should be encouraged to provide such access, which will be a significant value to their customers and have a positive effect on the house prices. Such a move would (in the long term) eliminate the need for access through (c) and (d).

The foot crossing at (f) potentially remains or becomes even more of a problem if it still exists, being a right of way between two areas of housing. The next (road and walk) bridges to the east and west may not be close enough to be realistic replacements, the cost or providing a disable bridge may be rather high, and the idea of having Plymouth to London trains reduce to half speed on a fast section of track will not be attractive, let alone the increased traffic (road and pedenstian) that would be expected.

*** Suggestion

1. That there's engagement on the issue of both station access and access to Oldfield Road with the developers, with a view to providing a safe, accessible, long term public walkway from Oldfield Road to the station through their development.  Easy foot access from the development to the station will enhance the value of housing there due to excellent public transport proximity.

2. That as an interim measure and gesture of goodwill / demonstration of positive intent, Network Rail re-open the connections (c) and (d) as a permissive path to be closed for 1 day a year, or provide the Area Board of Wiltshire Council with documentary evidence that the road (c) offers a greater risk than the junction (a) if they have such evidence that we have missed.

Is there reasonable proof that NR is the culprit here? (signs etc with their name on?)

Once sure who the culprit is, the local town/parish council can explore with trhe culprit the legality of closure & progress the reopening if not legal. If legal, they can also work with said culprit in order to try & find a path etc that could be used.

It is my understanding - but you would need to check this with the County Council's footpath officer, that use through "custom & practice" of at least 7 years can lead to the way being declared public as it hasn't been blocked etc for that time.

But what's this got to do with Avoiding line speed limits? :-)

My personal feeling is that the footpath closure has something to do with the output of the footpath crossing risk assessment and possibly seen as a way of eliminating the risk (with the added bonus of reducing train delay and associated costs) :P

Am I the only one who noticed the rather unfortunately named lane close to the top edge of the above map?!  ;D

Looks like the second one is between Clink Road Junction (Frome) and Fairwood Junction (Westbury) as its a 4 mile stretch.  The track on that part has been getting worse for the past few years (all those heavy stone trains) and it looks as though its got to the point of 'no return' :P  Going that way on Sunday so will find out.

Coal I suspect, rather than ladies of the night.

That should keep grahame quiet for a few minutes ...  :P ;) :D ;D

I've never known 'slag' to be linked to coal. It's the waste material from the separation or smelting of metal from ore.

Correct. The proper term for useless waste mined with the desired material is "spoil", both for coal and ore. Although during my time as a tin miner (South Crofty, 1973-74, or was is 1793-94?) it was given a less polite sobriquet by grizzled Cornishmen. ("Spent all mornin' shovellin' s*** wi' a banjo, me 'ansum!")

Ah but up north we had slag heaps by our old coal mines - must be a regional thing. One near Standish, just to the west of the M6 was continuously burning until they finally took it away - sometime in the late eighties.  We missed it when it had gone!

Twas in mining myself but not in this country.  There they were just spoil heaps or waste dumps - not nearly as colourful.

Yes. The name Slag Lane derives from Westbury Iron Works which were situated nearby.

... the most likely thing that I can think of would be increased foot traffic from the recent housing development south of Oldfield Lane – or a change in attitude.  ....

Unless it's a response to a recent incident, which is really another aspect of change of attitude (to safety). So what could be done to make the crossing safer? Barriers, lights and alarms, like a road crossing? Or do NR feel that would be setting a precedent against their policy of no new LCs? Could the developer of the new housing be persuaded to build a footbridge as condition for planning permission?

If the problem is actually lorries on the access road, I agree with the white line suggestion. At one lorry every 8-10 minutes, two lorries in opposite directions are unlikely to meet, so effectively a pedestrian area and a vehicle area.

I thought I had explained about the crossing protection earlier in the thread here http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=17549.msg202872#msg202872

Not sure what happened there.

Story posted on December 9, 2020

LOCAL MP, Dr Andrew Murrison MP, has visited the level crossing in Oldfield Road to see for himself the gates, the speed of the passenger and freight trains and the extent of the development on the other side of the track.

Westbury town councillors have been very critical of Wiltshire Council, Linden Homes and Network Rail, saying the new housing development being built does not address children?s routes to local schools, nurseries and community projects over the railway tracks. Councillors have said that the risk to life is too great by doing nothing.

WESTBURY councillors, who wrote to the developers of a new housing estate near the sailing lake late last year, with concerns about the lack of a safe route across the railway line, particularly for children, have received a response.