|
IndustryInsider
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: November 10, 2013, 10:08:45 » |
|
There already seems to be a bridge only about 50 metres away. A new ramp from that providing access into the allotments should be all that is required.
There already is an access ramp which leads to the a different entrance to the allotments. The problem is that it is a detour from where the allotment owners park (near to the crossing) and will add 200-500 metres to the walk required from the car to the allotment, depending on which plot they've got. Boo-hoo.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
ellendune
|
|
« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2013, 13:14:13 » |
|
With one or two new ramps to the existing footbridge this could be reduced.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2013, 21:09:49 » |
|
Yes, I guess you could cut a little bit off of the access walk either side of the bridge if new ramps were installed. Doubt that'd be good enough for Ian Salisbury though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
stebbo
|
|
« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2013, 20:31:14 » |
|
I understood Network Rail were going to provide ramps for the bridge.
By the way, see also the thread on today's SECOND accident in a year at Yarnton Lane crossing
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JayMac
|
|
« Reply #19 on: June 14, 2014, 13:50:51 » |
|
From the Oxford Mail (14/06/2014): THE leader of Oxford City Council has threatened to scupper one of Network Rail^s schemes if it does not provide ^disabled-friendly^ bridges in South Oxford.
Bob Price has said he would allow the company to close the Aristotle Lane level crossing in North Oxford, but only if it played ball with the Hinksey and Whitehouse Road footbridges.
As part of its ^1bn electrification scheme, Network Rail wants to close the level crossing, which leads to some allotments, as well as demolish the nearby bridge and replace it with a higher one.
It also wants to demolish the two bridges in South Oxford and make them taller.
The city council has objected to the fact that the bridges in South Oxford will not have ramps and so will be inaccessible for the disabled and those with buggies.
Mr Price said: ^The two footbridges are very important links and when they were first put there in the 1920s they didn^t accommodate for people who had disabilities or pushbuggies. We think it is perfectly reasonable to link the two issues. If, on the one hand, it would be sensible to close the crossing, it would also be sensible to accommodate the disabled at these two bridges.
^Since they have stuck to their guns, we are going to stick to ours.^
The city council refused prior approval to Network Rail to demolish the two bridges and both have since gone to appeal.
A government planning inspector supported Network Rail with the Hinksey footbridge while a decision is still pending on the Whitehouse Road bridge.
Meanwhile, Network Rail has submitted a planning application to demolish the Aristotle Lane footbridge and replace it, which would in turn allow it to close the nearby level crossing.
But the city council is the owner of the crossing rights to the private footpath and Network Rail must ask it to surrender those rights so the crossing can be closed for safety reasons.
Allotment holder, Frenchay Road resident and former city councillor Jim Campbell said: ^Anything that is done to keep the level crossing open in my opinion is a huge benefit.
^If the level crossing is closed it will take me a lot longer to get to my plot.^
Hayfield Road resident Jonathan Clark, who also has a plot, said: ^If Bob Price is using the level crossing as a negotiating strategy then good for him but it is slightly ironic because he was supporting the closure.
^I don^t think it is dangerous. If you are quick to cross, it is fine.^
Network Rail has said that it wants to demolish and replace the footbridge to enable the construction of a new passenger line between Oxford and Wolvercote.
Bringing this line back into use means it can run freight and passenger services on separate lines to reduce disruption and making the railway more reliable.
A Network Rail spokesman said: ^We will continue to work with Oxford City Council on our plans to improve and modernise the railway across the region.^
A decision on Network Rail^s planning application will be made by a committee of city councillors at a date yet to be set.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
- Sir Terry Pratchett.
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #20 on: June 14, 2014, 15:06:33 » |
|
Cannot these changes be done within permitted rights? It may not be the case here, but I'm often puzzled why NR» goes through a planning process if it doesn't need to.
As an example, when the planning application for the new ramps at Nailsea & Backwell station was put in, NR's response was:
Notwithstanding this support to this planning application, it is Network Rail^s view that these works are permitted development under Part 17A of the (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.
So why bother making applications and running the risk of complications? It could prove to be a very expensive gesture at being a good neighbour.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #21 on: June 14, 2014, 15:08:24 » |
|
It's the closure over the level crossing that's the problem here - the City Council have rights across it....it has to be negotiated
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #22 on: June 14, 2014, 18:07:49 » |
|
Cannot these changes be done within permitted rights? It may not be the case here, but I'm often puzzled why NR» goes through a planning process if it doesn't need to.
As an example, when the planning application for the new ramps at Nailsea & Backwell station was put in, NR's response was:
Notwithstanding this support to this planning application, it is Network Rail^s view that these works are permitted development under Part 17A of the (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.
So why bother making applications and running the risk of complications? It could prove to be a very expensive gesture at being a good neighbour.
Generally NR will go through the local planning office even with permitted developments, minor items are usually done by a letter informing the local authority more major items are usually presented to the planning officer. The reason for take items through the planning officer it keeps them on side so when planning permission is needed the local planner tend to be more receptive. It's the closure over the level crossing that's the problem here - the City Council have rights across it....it has to be negotiated
With a level crossing NR can just go to the ORR» to get it closed, if there is already an acceptable alternative or NR are funding one for that location and NR have held local consultations the ORR will grant the closure, the ORR want to reduce the number of level crossings. The councillor may not be able to force the changes he wants his planning officer and executive officer will not support it if there is no legal reason; I am sure NR's stance on the existing bridges would be if the local authority fund the MIP access then they would do the work. (MIP = Mobility Impaired Persons) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #23 on: June 14, 2014, 18:25:04 » |
|
Agreed.
However, the City is always 'hard up' with no budget for these things, hence trying to get NR» to pay as it is they that want a closure. The ORR» can't act yet as there is no *acceptable* alternative to the rights holder
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chris from Nailsea
|
|
« Reply #24 on: June 15, 2014, 14:13:17 » |
|
I've taken the opportunity to move and merge a couple of topics here, as they cover the same ongoing issues. CfN.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
William Huskisson MP▸ was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830. Many more have died in the same way since then. Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.
"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner." Discuss.
|
|
|
|
ellendune
|
|
« Reply #25 on: June 15, 2014, 16:27:13 » |
|
Agreed.
However, the City is always 'hard up' with no budget for these things, hence trying to get NR» to pay as it is they that want a closure. The ORR» can't act yet as there is no *acceptable* alternative to the rights holder
If I understand correctly there are two separate issues that the city council are trying to bring together. The first is Aristotle Lane (north of Oxford Station) where NR wish to close a level crossing and in that case they are going to have to provide an alternative access suitable to the existing users including provision for mobility impaired people. The second is two existing footbridges south of the station where NR need to replace the existing footbridges at a higher level. What NR are saying is that since the existing footbridges do not have ramps they will not install ramps on the new ones unless the City Council pay the difference. If NR have to do this for every footbridge they replace then no wonder the electrification costs are over budget. In this case how about NR making passive provision for ramps to be installed in the future when money comes available? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #26 on: June 15, 2014, 21:54:17 » |
|
Agreed...but it has to ve 'acceptable' to the rights holder to get sign off. Otherwise probably need a court decision if the rights holder refuses sign off
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
