Melksham musings: then, the wider issue of station access

[whole diary]

[Mark A]

Access through from Foundry Close will transform the status and useage of Melksham station. Then, double track plus a second platform will transform it again.

But... Melksham Station is not alone. Access is a repeating issue for stations across the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) too, particularly for stations that have a blind side - and it's something that doesn't necessarily improve over time - it can easily go into reverse. (Wallington in South London - level access to the down side was good but via a supermarket car park. Level access isn't currently a thing for a few months as the supermarket has closed the site for redevelopment. Wading through the planning application - DM2021/01802 - it's revealing that there's little mention of the possibly legally hairy question of the station access there via the supermarket car park).

I'm now recalling rocking up to catch a train at the single platform Caersws station - quite tricky from the opposite side to the platform as access to the station is across the level crossing, which, at times when people turn up for a train, may be closed because of the approach of the, er, train that they intend to catch.

Mark

[bobm]

Similar issues when trying to join a train at Midgham or Kintbury on the Berks & Hants Line.   Both stations have pubs which could be the "wrong" side of the line separated by a level crossing, depending which direction you want to go.

[Mark A]

... with the additional complication with busier double track crossings that access to the station may be impeded, unpredicably from the intended passenger's point of view, by trains on the second track, leading to tragedies such as the one at Elsenham. Awkward that staffed crossings were phased out at a time when railways were seen as in decline, which might have been one aspect that took the impetus out of providing footbridges (though to replace a flat crossing like for like in terms of function and meet disability requirements, lifts would be needed too, so, ££££££)

Mark

[grahame]

Out of area, I have personal experience of Waterbeach and Bow Brickhill - both double lines with a level crossing (for vehicles as well as pedestrians).   In both of these two examples, the train stops at the platform after it has crossed the road, so there is a need for the passenger on the "wrong" side to cross the track significantly before the train arrives.  On the other hand, for the road vehicle user, it means that the crossing can be reopened with minimum delay to car traffic while station duties take place.

I suspect that if the platform was on the approach side of the crossing, the signal would need to be situated a way back in case of overrun by the train, or the crossing closed early anyway.  Not a level crossing, but there's an example of the signal being set well back at Saltash because the line singles immediately on exit from the station in the direction of Plymouth.

[grahame]

Access through from Foundry Close will transform the status and useage of Melksham station. Then, double track plus a second platform will transform it again.

Indeed.  The first requirement that is missing at the moment is a reliable service.

Then it can be transformed further
* Additional Access
* Bus services to connect with train
* Double track, second platform, more services

Additional access could be relatively cheap, but needs to be rather more than just paralleling current access



1. Current access (in orange) - footway via subway towards town centre

2. Across TransWilts Car Park and Spencer club, then Scotland Road.
Brings club / bar to easy access to station
Along Scotand Road and across the river to the residential area of Melksham Forest
Also links up to the national cycle network

3. To Foundry Close
Brings McDonalds and Aldi close to station, and Leekes superstore closer
Links to residential areas of Foundry Close, and Portman Road and Avon Road.
Links to bus stops on service x34 for Lacock, Semington and Hilperton

4. From a second platform to Bath Road
For residential areas of Southbrook, Adison and Scholars Way
Links to bus stops on services 271/2/3 and 68/9 for Corsham, Box, Atworth, Bowerhill and Devizes

5.From a second platform to new housing
For 112 residential properties currently in planning on the old good yard
For residential area of Dunch Lane via that new housing

6. From original platform to Bath Road
For residential areas of Southbrook, Adison and Scholars Way
Links to bus stops on services 271/2/3 and 68/9 for Corsham, Box, Atworth, Bowerhill and Devizes
For 112 residential properties currently in planning on the old good yard
For residential area of Dunch Lane via that new housing

The new 112 homes provide for level independent access to a second platform and leave passive provision for a footbridge at a future date.

[ChrisB]

Anyone know whether section 106 money was obtained at the time planning permission was given for those 112 properties? If not, why wasn't it/isn't it? Good start towards funding those proposals of Graham's

[grahame]

Anyone know whether section 106 money was obtained at the time planning permission was given for those 112 properties? If not, why wasn't it/isn't it? Good start towards funding those proposals of Graham's

Approval not yet given (unless it has been in the last few days).    In the melting plot there are elements in 106 and CIL which are helpful towards station access along blue numbered route(s).  As chair of the Town Council's economic development and planning committee I have attended various meetings about the development including the public ones.  The Town Council has the power to request and suggest but that's our limit - it's up to the Unitary Council to make the decision(s).  But everyone wants to partner for a locally supported and useful solution to the power of suggestion is a stronger one than the wording suggests;  Town and Unitary rarley disagree on a planning outcome.