Proposed new footbridge at Copmanthorpe (York)

This forum is for news and announcements concerning the LNER, or this website.

Moderators: 52D, Tom F, Rlangham, Atlantic 3279, Blink Bonny, Saint Johnstoun, richard

User avatar
Dave
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 1679
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 9:33 pm
Location: Centre of the known universe York

Proposed new footbridge at Copmanthorpe (York)

Post by Dave »

Network Rail have posted a letter to local residents asking for comments regarding closing the signaled/gated foot crossing on the footpath from Copmanthorpe to Bishopthorpe over the ECML. They are proposing to replace the crossing with a footbridge.
PinzaC55
LNER A3 4-6-2
Posts: 1375
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: Proposed new footbridge at Copmanthorpe (York)

Post by PinzaC55 »

How many accidents have been recorded there and how much will the footbridge cost?
PinzaC55
LNER A3 4-6-2
Posts: 1375
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: Proposed new footbridge at Copmanthorpe (York)

Post by PinzaC55 »

How many accidents have been recorded there and how much will the footbridge cost?
cambois
GNSR D40 4-4-0
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 10:04 pm
Location: Dunblane

Re: Proposed new footbridge at Copmanthorpe (York)

Post by cambois »

My recollection is that Network Rail are funded in the current Control Period (to 31 March 2014) to remove a number of level crossings on the East Coast Main Line. It should be relatively "easy" in that there is no road to close, only a footpath, and the pedestrian risk over 4 intensively used high speed tracks is quite high. Previous accident history is not the only factor NR will be considering. They will be using their level crossing risk model.

So is Copmanthorpe the first of a number to be closed/replaced over the next 4 years? Anyone one any information on other proposed closures?
User avatar
Dave
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 1679
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 9:33 pm
Location: Centre of the known universe York

Re: Proposed new footbridge at Copmanthorpe (York)

Post by Dave »

I don't no any costs for the proposal , nothing stated in the letter.

The crossing has poor visibility to the south due to the bend and has badly positioned LED lights for pedestrians. In day light you can`t see whether they are on red or green when you are at the gate. The old lights were great you could always see the lens.

This crossing was used by farm vehicles until about 2 years ago when it was altered.

There have been no accidents there as far as I know.
PinzaC55
LNER A3 4-6-2
Posts: 1375
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: Proposed new footbridge at Copmanthorpe (York)

Post by PinzaC55 »

cambois wrote:My recollection is that Network Rail are funded in the current Control Period (to 31 March 2014) to remove a number of level crossings on the East Coast Main Line. It should be relatively "easy" in that there is no road to close, only a footpath, and the pedestrian risk over 4 intensively used high speed tracks is quite high. Previous accident history is not the only factor NR will be considering. They will be using their level crossing risk model.

So is Copmanthorpe the first of a number to be closed/replaced over the next 4 years? Anyone one any information on other proposed closures?
Sounds to me like they will be wasting £1-2 million to prevent a risk which will never happen.Meanwhile railway investments which could produce a benefit or revenue (such as reopening Copmanthorpe station) will not happen.
cambois
GNSR D40 4-4-0
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 10:04 pm
Location: Dunblane

Re: Proposed new footbridge at Copmanthorpe (York)

Post by cambois »

Given costs elsewhere £1-2million soumds about right.
The problem with "safety" investment is that no-one kinows where or when the risk will become reality. But the whole industry has become very sensitive to safety issues, with some excellent outcomes, as the railway is safer than ever before. The difficulty is that the demand from outside of continious improvements to safety is now resulting in decreasing returns and the sort of effort that goes into use the "use the handrail" messages from train operators as slips, trips & falls are now the one of the biggest causes of public injury for TOCs.
Level crossings come top of the industry risk model as most likely to cause death & serious injury, especially with possible train derailment. So Copmanthorpe probably looks like a potentially risky crossing (see comments above) at a busy place on the network where any incident will cause massive disruption, apart from any injury. And as I said, the work is likely to be fairly quick to deliver, unlike one or two high risk sites I know where progress is slow due to road closure/land ownership issues.And remember the accident at the crossing near Loversall Carr Jn which subsequently saw a foot bridge erected as a result of public comment)
So it looks like an obvious starter for NR
However there is still a reluctance by the railway to consider level crossing safety in the same way as for example signal sighting (which is now probably over-managed, which is odd as signals are used by a trained and disciplined workforce (train drivers) and level crossings are used by relatively untrained, and undiscplined road vehicle drivers. Something like 95% of level crossing accidents are caused by road users.
For anyone with an interest in Level Crossings the recently closed consultation by the Law Commission is a good start
PinzaC55
LNER A3 4-6-2
Posts: 1375
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: Proposed new footbridge at Copmanthorpe (York)

Post by PinzaC55 »

The real problem is that Level Crossings have been demonised by the media over the last few years in the same way Asbestos was with the result that you have to approach Asbestos as though it was Plutonium.
I'm a member of the nascent Yorkshire Wolds Railway which hopes to reopen part of the Malton & Driffield Railway and it's inevitable that at some stage in the future we'll have to tackle one or more level crossings. No matter that conventional manual level crossings with full width gates have a near 100% safety record - we'll have to jump through hoops.
cambois
GNSR D40 4-4-0
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 10:04 pm
Location: Dunblane

Re: Proposed new footbridge at Copmanthorpe (York)

Post by cambois »

I agree that modern full barriers are pretty safe these days. But HMRI (or ORR as they now) are will not normally permit new level crossings on the network. Neither of Borders or Airdrie-Bathgate have any level crossings. The Alloa reopening only managed to retain some because it was never formally closed at the west end up to Cambus, but east thereof all the former crossings were removed. Kincardine, an existing crossing, had to be upgraded.

So something you will need to address early and logically with ORR. Good luck.
cambois
GNSR D40 4-4-0
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 10:04 pm
Location: Dunblane

Re: Proposed new footbridge at Copmanthorpe (York)

Post by cambois »

I agree that modern full barriers are pretty safe these days. But HMRI (or ORR as they now) are will not normally permit new level crossings on the network. Neither of Borders or Airdrie-Bathgate have any level crossings. The Alloa reopening only managed to retain some because it was never formally closed at the west end up to Cambus, but east thereof all the former crossings were removed. Kincardine, an existing crossing, had to be upgraded.

So something you will need to address early and logically with ORR. Good luck.
PinzaC55
LNER A3 4-6-2
Posts: 1375
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: Proposed new footbridge at Copmanthorpe (York)

Post by PinzaC55 »

I wasn't referring to full lifting barriers I was referring to old style "full width" manual wooden crossing gates locally worked. It's crazy to compare a set of half barriers on a 100MPH mainline to a set of full width conventional gates on a 25MPH top whack preserved railway. Unfortunately crazy rules apply now.
User avatar
Bullhead
LNER Thompson B1 4-6-0 'Antelope'
Posts: 633
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:40 pm
Location: 52D

Re: Proposed new footbridge at Copmanthorpe (York)

Post by Bullhead »

PinzaC55 wrote:Conventional manual level crossings with full width gates have a near 100% safety record
Actually, some of the UK's worst level crossing accidents have been at staffed crossings fitted with conventional gates or barriers. See, for example, Balmuckety Farm, Naworth and Burton Agnes. The latter two were, as it happens, both on the LNER. However, the NNR's recent success in reopening the level crossing at Sheringham indicates that it is possible to do these things so you shouldn't be too despondent.
So - did anyone dare tell Stephenson, "It's not Rocket science"?
rob237
NBR D34 4-4-0 'Glen'
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 6:33 pm
Location: 62723

Re: Proposed new footbridge at Copmanthorpe (York)

Post by rob237 »

Can clearly recall the dreadful incident north of Newark in the early 60's, at the manned/gated Norwell crossing, when a father and young son - cycling to work and school - were let through the small side gate by the keeper in early morning foggy conditions, and were both obliterated by a Deltic on the up 'White Rose'.
Forever seared on my memory, as I accidentally came across the horrendous aftermath - some 20 minutes later.
Cheers
Robt P.
PinzaC55
LNER A3 4-6-2
Posts: 1375
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: Proposed new footbridge at Copmanthorpe (York)

Post by PinzaC55 »

Bullhead wrote:
PinzaC55 wrote:Conventional manual level crossings with full width gates have a near 100% safety record
Actually, some of the UK's worst level crossing accidents have been at staffed crossings fitted with conventional gates or barriers. See, for example, Balmuckety Farm, Naworth and Burton Agnes. The latter two were, as it happens, both on the LNER. However, the NNR's recent success in reopening the level crossing at Sheringham indicates that it is possible to do these things so you shouldn't be too despondent.
Those are not good examples. In the case of Balmuckety a motor bus burst through the gates. This would still happen now but barriers would put up far less resistance than wooden gates I think.
At Naworth it was caused by slack working and the gates being left open.Again in the case of half barriers this would still occur.
At Burton Agnes it was caused by a train driving through the gates, not the fault of the gates. In the case of barriers there'd be nothing for the train to drive though!
Also these accidents are VERY old (1926,1946,1947) and many of the conditions (such as gates not being interlocked with signals) no longer apply.
My understanding of the Sheringham setup is that it has neither barriers or road signals and is a "tram style" arrangement and is only to be used for about 12 trains a year. However at least someone in authority had the nous to to give it the go ahead!
I was just reading that the South Tynedale Railway are planning their extension to Slaggyford which will involve a level crossing at the station.It'll be interesting to see how they get on?
User avatar
richard
LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
Posts: 3385
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:11 pm
Location: Wichita Falls, Texas
Contact:

Re: Proposed new footbridge at Copmanthorpe (York)

Post by richard »

Last week I was reading an article about US grade crossings. The Feds are actively encouraging the railroads to remove them. The BNSF alone have closed many thousands in the past ten years. Sort of different scale, eh?

Many of these are as a part of re-alignments. A few public road ones have been undertaken as lone projects (a small local BNSF yard has had road duck-unders added, but then one of the grade crossings was right across the end of the yard throat!). However most are private or farm roads. They're even going as far as paying for a farmers' access roads to be moved to join with different roads and avoid grade crossings.


Richard
Richard Marsden
LNER Encyclopedia
Post Reply