Should houses be built behind the buffers?

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From Kent Online

Network Rail wants to put the buffers on plans to build 45 apartments next to a railway line in Faversham - as it fears the homes could be crashed into.

The claims have been rubbished by developers behind the Station Road scheme, who argue the proposals are completely safe and beneficial to the town’s housing market.

[snip]

The strongest claim comes in the form of concerns that residents’ lives will be put at risk if there is an accident on the tracks.

Network Rail’s objection states: “Units are located in a direct line behind the buffers of a siding creating a significant safety risk in the event of a train crashing through the buffer and into the units.”

In defence of their scheme, Whitstable-based firm George Wilson Developments says the company’s concerns are unfounded.

Josh Wilson said: “They are worried about trains crashing into two units. But it makes no sense as we are going to be building them on the exact same spot where a derelict building has stood for years.

“Network Rail housed workers in there for 40 years without any crashes.

[broadgage]

In my view, houses or similar should not be built behind buffers, unless at a considerable distance.

Not only the very small but real risk of accident, but two other factors.
Firstly such house building "locks in" present train lengths rather than permitting future moving of the buffers to permit of longer trains.
Secondly, future occupants of the new homes may object to noise or disruption, and if these objections are upheld, then railway operations could be restricted.

In todays troubled world I perceive a small but real risk of a terrorist deliberately crashing a train through the buffer stops to take life and destroy property.
Observe for example the terrorist attack in  France that used an HGV as a weapon, a train would be more effective.