Griffin lane proposed crossing closure

I see from Google maps that a footpath connects to the adjacent road bridge, i guess that's why the closure is proposed?

Do they want to improve line speed on that section of track?

I have left a message on the google site with reference to this thread.

[a href="https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/griffin-lane-crossing/fuQClqjpjhE[1-25]"]https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/griffin-lane-crossing/fuQClqjpjhE[1-25][/a]

its becoming to be "coming soon to a crossing near you" these crossings are important links in local communities and should not be subject to withdraw on a whim of apparent nervousness.its unrealistic to take this view and things do need to be seen in a realistic perspective.

network rail has to live with fact as once said i think by whistlekiller we don't live in a perfect world.

Is it perhaps the camera was installed to obtain accurate usage figures?

Furthermore, to me the "notice" pinned to the tree looks more like something created by an aggrieved crossing user rather than Network Rail themselves; surely a Network Rail notice would include their logo and contact details in a similar manner to the letter to local residents?

Maybe they have not yet posted official notices on the path as they are still seeking "views" not formal objections. If they go ahead and close the crossing without posting the required notices, then yes, you are right to have a rant.

Speaking of which, why isn't this thread in the rant section? After all it's not really about the Underground of Overground. #JustSaying

Each crossing will be taken on its own merits. At least some of those 600 will have been replaced by new bridges/underpasses. Most other rights of way will have been diverted only a short distance, as the plan is to do here. Sometimes the crossings will have fallen into disuse completely, for example due to land use or ownership changes, new roads being built. Other crossings will have been merged (e.g. 2 close crossings replaced by one safer one). Also remember that not all crossings are public rights of way (accommodation crossings).

The problem here is that the adjacent bridge isn't adequately linked to the existing paths so it will be far more disruptive than it would initially appear. This is why there is a consultation period - so that the people who know the local factors can have these factors into consideration. Indeed as rincew1nd says, it could just be at the stage of "We're thinking about closing this crossing, please tell us the things we need to take into account when making a decision.". If there is no formal proposal yet then the only input from the local council may have been a high level non-objection in principle - possibly even at county level.

As for the policy of closing crossings, under health and safety legislation they have a legal duty to make the risks associated with the railway as low as is reasonably practical. Level crossings are one of, if not the, biggest single risk to the railway in terms of both safety (to railway users and non-users) and network reliability, so it is absolutely right that they seek to reduce this risk. In most, but not all, cases the best way to reduce the risk is to replace level crossings with grade-separated crossings; in other cases the level crossings are upgraded but there is not a crossing type in existence that cannot be misused (wilfully or otherwise).

Do also remember that while Network Rail are not (yet) subject to the freedom of information act, councils and the DfT are.

the order will not go unopposed,signs still appear necessary and on to the secretary of state of state for the environment in such cases.those figures are from 2008-2009 this is a pedestrian crossing not a vehicle crossing as such and figures can be improved with barrier replacment and other warning systems.

something just doesn't seem right over 600 closures in two years seems a high number given processes involved.

i must admit it didn't seem like a diversion to me the gradient to pedestrians at the bridge is quite large and having to descend the other side particularly loaded with shopping in icy weather must be considered also,its not an equal arrangement in those regards.consideration must be given to the disabled who require level access as well as the elderly and infirm,these vulnerable groups must be considered as priority.

these crossings were placed originally for a reason,its unfair that national rail can come along with scare stories regardless to try and justify closing sections of footpath.

Thanks Chris M i know what your saying but there does not appear to be an easy alternative route i have taken more pictures

the crossing



a look back to the crossing



i turn approximately 45 degrees to my right the look up the gradient.



a look back down from the top,this is quite steep.



at the end of the barrier at the bridge end i turn appropriately 90 degrees to my left



this is a view back form the path back up



i took this photo approximately 90 degrees to my left



there appears to be evidence here of undesirable activity such as fly tipping and other behavior
this is back under the bridge and is a potential risk area at this point i turn to my right and walk along another section before rejoining the original path.

its a very poor redirection,its time consuming/isolated/unsuitable for easy access to two housing estates,it is not disability friendly or favorable to a number of groups'.



i disagree,where the rail divides at the buffer its two lines to baker street and beyond.

This looks really bad.indeed this closure proposal may well be unlawful against disabled people.

It is of the utmost surprise that if true bucks county council would have given a green light to this proposal given the location of this crossing,the terrain of the redirection and the distress to the local users many might not notice the small sign placed in the tree.

Regarding the safety of the actual crossing, you still haven't posted the view from the decision points (should be 4 views, one each way from each decision point), although the first photo in this set shows what might be one decision point. If that is the decision point, then that appears to be a potentially restricted view and/or a counter-intuitive decision point (the view that enables you make the decision isn't at the last place of safety). If that is the case (and I stress here that it isn't possible to know from those photos and that I'm not a professional and have never been trained to asses such things) then that should be improved if the crossing is to remain open beyond the short term.



Off-topic for this thread, but I can recommend reporting the flytipping, graffiti, pavement in need of repair, etc at FixMyStreet (each as a separate item). It doesn't always guarantee it gets fixed, but it does guarantee that the relevant authority is aware of them (the site works out who to send it to based on location and type of problem).

And you can be sure all the relevant people within Network Rail are fully aware of that. It's probably one of the reasons why they're asking for views at this point. Think of the current state of play as being Network Rail saying "We'd like to divert the right of way via the existing road bridge so we can close the level crossing to improve the safety of the railway. As locals, you know the area better than we do, so please could you tell us what the issues are we need to consider and address.".

Level access is not required, otherwise ramps would be outlawed. Even when boarding trains, ramps are perfectly legal, it's just that level access is preferred because it's far less disruptive for the train service. Ramped access to bridges and underpasses are perfectly legal ways of providing the means for the mobility impaired to cross railways, even if they replace level crossings. IANAL, but what matters is that the replacement is equally available for people of all mobilities. If the gradient is too steep, then it isn't but that's the sort of thing NR as asking people to make them aware of so they can incorporate it into their planning.

You are still missing the point - the letter is all but explicitly asking "If we close the crossing, is our proposed diversion acceptable? If not, please tell us why."

It isn't the level crossing that is the important part of the community, it's the link between the communities that is important. Network Rail are trying to make that link safer. Work with Network Rail to get improvements to the diversionary route, don't fight to get the crossing kept. The crossing will close because there is a safer route adjacent - even if the bridge requires work to make it as convenient and accessible as the level crossing, it is better that the money be spent on upgrading that route (and possibly even cheaper) than spending the money on making the level crossing less unsafe.

Level crossing are significantly more dangerous than zebra crossings for several reasons:

• Cars can stop within the distance they can see is clear, trains cannot
  
• Cars can swerve out of a pedestrians way, trains can't.
  
• Train speeds are much higher so there is less warning of one approaching
  
• Trains are generally quieter, so there is less warning of one approaching
  
• People are much more familiar with zebra crossings and so mistakenly use their experience of them to judge when it is safe to cross at a level crossing (they underestimate the train speed and stopping distances)
  
• In a collision between a train and a pedestrian the latter is significantly more likely to be killed or seriously injured than in a collision with a car (due to higher speeds and greater mass)
  
• In a collision between a train and a car the occupants of both vehicles are much more likely to be killed or seriously injured than in a collision between road vehicles (due to higher speeds, greater mass and other factors)
  

So, comparing level crossings to pelican and zebra crossings is not relevant.

Read the RAIB reports into level crossing accidents - most of my list above comes from the report into the fatal accident at Needham Market, Suffolk (15/2012) but other relevant reports include: Mexico Footpath Crossing, Penzance (10/2012) and Victory Level Crossing, Taunton (18/2010) which involved a wheelchair user having to pull themselves out of their chair to avoid a train after their wheel got stuck. See aib-cms.co.uk/sites/raib/publications/reports_by_type_of_railway/heavy_rail/level_crossings.cfm for all the reports related to heavy rail level crossings.

The bottom line is that level crossings are not, and can never be, safe. The goal of the industry is to close all of them as soon as an adequate and affordable replacement is found for each location. You may remember that I'm often vocally very against actions done in the name of safety that have little benefit and much disbenefit, and I'm all for risk in life - people need it. However, the goal to close level crossings is not an example of this - far from it - it is an overdue necessity.

I don't understand what your saying. If the area subject to flooding then surely a bridge is better than a level crossing? As for the Y-shape, new paths can be built - and the technology to build dry paths through floodplains has existed since at least the bronze age so it should be no problem to build some in the 21st century and it is likely to be far better value for money to do so than to upgrade the crossing. If you work with Network Rail you stand a far greater chance of getting them than if you just insist they keep the crossing.

It was part of the Metropolitan Railway (and subsequently LU) from 1891 to at least 1948. (Incidentally, I know the Met north of Amersham transferred to BR when electrification reached there, but was the whole line to Verney Junction still in LT ownership up to that point, or was the section north of Aylesbury transferred earlier?)

But when exactly? According to CULG there was a Met service as far as Quainton Road until May 1948. The Met & GC Joint railway was a separate legal entity until, like the Big Four, the Underground, and the various joint lines, they were all merged into the British Transport Commission in January 1948.

1935-11-30 Brill to Quainton Road (MR) closed
1936-07-04 Verney Junction to Quainton Road (MR) closed
Quainton Road (MR) to Aylesbury withdrawn
1943-05-03 Quainton Road (MR) to Aylesbury restored
1948-05-29 Quainton Road (MR) to Aylesbury withdrawn
1961-09-10 Aylesbury to Amersham withdrawn
Last passenger steam services on LU withdrawn
1962-06-16 Last BR passenger steam services over the Metropolitan withdrawn
1963-03-02 Quainton Road station closed
1966-09-03 Quainton Road to Aylesbury closed

"withdrawn"/"restored" refers to LU services, "closed" refers to all passenger services - the line remains open for freight to this day