Level crossing stupidity...

[Michael Hodgson]

47 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

Which is why men such as the Duke of Wellington were so opposed to railways.

 

So we named the biggest station in the country after a battle he won 😄.

[woodenhead]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

So we named the biggest station in the country after a battle he won 😄.

I thought it was because of the daily carnage of the people attempting to leave the station via the underground meeting the people trying to exit the underground into the station.

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I thought it was because of the daily carnage of the people attempting to leave the station via the underground meeting the people trying to exit the underground into the station.

 

I can just hear the shout of command on the concourse "Form square and prepare to receive Northern Line commuters".

[Michael Hodgson]

14 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

I thought it was because of the daily carnage of the people attempting to leave the station via the underground meeting the people trying to exit the underground into the station.

Yes, it's about ttime they learned you're supposed to meet under the clock.

[SM42]

33 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

So we named the biggest station in the country after a battle he won 😄.

 

Wasn't is so we could rub it in with the  French when they arrived there by train from Paris. 

 

Andy

[Wickham Green too]

... and then rub it in further by making them walk / bus / taxi across the adjacent bridge after which the stations is actually named ....... sacré bleu !

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

So we named the biggest station in the country after a battle he won 😄.

No - it was entirely due to foresight on the part of the railway company involved who had worked out that one day their station would host  trains running to & from France and Belgium.  Thus they clearly understood that the name would please the latter, and mightily p*ss off the former.

[Derekl]

2 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

Which is why men such as the Duke of Wellington were so opposed to railways. They had the foresight to realise that they meant the end of the feudal system, much to their disadvantage.

Not sure he was - he was t the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester and direct witness to Huskisson being run over by Rocket, after which the Duke wanted to abandon the journey. Encouraged by his fellows he went on to Manchester, there to be greeted by a crowd with some derision - his politics were not popular in Manchester (something that might have been foreseen). The railway was also unpopular and was guarded by the military on opening day (and perhaps later).

Now, there is off topic!!

[burgundy]

3 hours ago, SM42 said:

 

Wasn't is so we could rub it in with the  French when they arrived there by train from Paris. 

 

Andy

Surely any right minded Frenchman would arrive at either Victoria  (from Newhaven or Dover) or Charing Cross (from Dover or Folkestone).

Best wishes 

Eric  

[PhilJ W]

5 hours ago, Derekl said:

Not sure he was - he was t the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester and direct witness to Huskisson being run over by Rocket, after which the Duke wanted to abandon the journey. Encouraged by his fellows he went on to Manchester, there to be greeted by a crowd with some derision - his politics were not popular in Manchester (something that might have been foreseen). The railway was also unpopular and was guarded by the military on opening day (and perhaps later).

Now, there is off topic!!

This was the reason he wasn't popular in Manchester.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre

[Jeremy Cumberland]

9 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

This was the reason he wasn't popular in Manchester.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre

It's only an indirect link. Mancuniuns were angry with not having any politcal representation, apart from the two County MPs for a county of over a million people. This was why the St Peter's Field rally took place in 1819, and was also why, eleven years later, Wellington, who by then was Prime Minister and an opponent of electoral reform, was the target of Mancunian's anger. But Wellington was not involved in the Peterloo Massacre in any way, as far as I am aware.

Edited August 9 by Jeremy Cumberland

[The Stationmaster]

4 hours ago, burgundy said:

Surely any right minded Frenchman would arrive at either Victoria  (from Newhaven or Dover) or Charing Cross (from Dover or Folkestone).

Best wishes 

Eric  

Depends where you started from in France - and if it was Normandy you'd have taken ferry to Southampton and then train to Waterloo (or Paddington in some distant years)

[F-UnitMad]

19 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

So we named the biggest station in the country after a battle he won 😄.

 

19 hours ago, SM42 said:

 

Wasn't is so we could rub it in with the  French when they arrived there by train from Paris. 

 

Andy

Oh. I thought it was so that Ray Davies could later write a catchy popular tune that would come to sum up Swinging 60s London...? 🤔😁👍

[62613]

21 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

Which is why men such as the Duke of Wellington were so opposed to railways. They had the foresight to realise that they meant the end of the feudal system, much to their disadvantage.

Again, going way off topic, the feudal system in England was effectively finished by the Black Death in the 14th Century (if by that you mean that ordinary agricultural workers being 'tied' to a particular lord). Labour became so scarce that the peasants could name their price; farmers became rent - payers, and so on. 

[corneliuslundie]

But there was still strong control by the landlords, including expecting their tenants to vote for them when  they stood for Parliament (or be evicted if they didn't), and even creating "fake" tenancies for their mates to give them votes.

Jonathan

Off topic but a whole very interesting aspect of history they don't tell you about in school.

[62613]

22 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

But there was still strong control by the landlords, including expecting their tenants to vote for them when  they stood for Parliament (or be evicted if they didn't), and even creating "fake" tenancies for their mates to give them votes.

Jonathan

Off topic but a whole very interesting aspect of history they don't tell you about in school.

Provided they met the property qualification.

[fulton]

24 minutes ago, 62613 said:

Provided they met the property qualification.

Sobering to remember It was not until 1968 that the last remains of this system was finally abolished in Northern Ireland.

[KingEdwardII]

49 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

But there was still strong control by the landlords

That was already crumbling by 1819 due to the effects of industrialisation hoovering people away from rural districts into the booming towns - which gradually had its effects with the 1832 reform bill and later the repeal of the corn laws. Put simply - money talks and the money being generated by industry began to talk with a very loud voice. So much so that Robert Peel, son of an industrialist, became PM in 1834.

 

Yours, Mike.

[kevinlms]

56 minutes ago, 62613 said:

Provided they met the property qualification.

And by being MALE!

[johnofwessex]

23 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

And by being MALE!

 

Funnily enough it wasnt  specified that you had to be male until 1832 and I believe a few women had managed to vote in the 18th & early 19th Centuries

Edited August 9 by johnofwessex

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, 62613 said:

Provided they met the property qualification.

 

Wandering seriously OT, one could vote in every constituency in which one met the property qualification. There was a clergyman who made a hobby of this and at one general election managed to vote in twelve constituencies. It must have been a long day in the saddle - if horses had had the vote...

[RJS1977]

On 29/07/2024 at 11:02, SM42 said:

Close the foot crossing, but you can guarantee that it will still be used by those who find it easier to vandalise a fence so they don't gave to walk an extra 500yds and *anyway the old route is more convenient even if you do have to squeeze through a gap in the fence, walk over ballast and squeeze through another gap.

 

Oh yes far easier than the safer alternative 

 

Andy

 

*sarcasm mode turned on at this point

Actually 500 yards (over a quarter of a mile) is quite a lengthy detour for a pedestrian, especially if said pedestrian is not quite as mobile as they used to be.

[RJS1977]

On the subject of "spoiling the view", but relating it to level crossings:

 

I know of a heritage railway which has a farm track that crosses the railway line (user worked crossing) at 45 degrees before cutting off the corner of an adjacent field and terminating at a farmhouse.

 

A few years ago (pre pandemic), the farmer got some funding to plant part of his farmland with trees, so he planted out the corner of the field between the farm track and the railway with trees.

 

Now train crew can't see him (or delivery drivers going to/from the house) approaching the crossing, and they can't see the trains....

Edited August 10 by RJS1977
Edited to remove name of the railway concerned

[62613]

2 hours ago, johnofwessex said:

 

Funnily enough it wasnt  specified that you had to be male until 1832 and I believe a few women had managed to vote in the 18th & early 19th Centuries

Again, off topic (but has been alluded to); before they set off to the meeting in St Peters Field (Peterloo), the Saddleworth contingent had a debate, in which their womenfolk took part, about including giving women the vote

[SM42]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

This is an awkward area.  regrettably RSSB in their infinite wisdom have removed the original classification of such crossings and now simply refer to them as 'user worked' (UWC) and the most recent standard goes on about 'phones.    One possibly useful reference is this one from RAIB -

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/summary-of-learning-1-design-and-operation-of-user-worked-level-crossings/summary-of-learning-1-design-and-operation-of-user-worked-level-crossings

 

This might also be helpful (I think it can be accessed without an RSSB log-in but someone on the Railway should have an RSSB log-in in any case) -

 

https://www.rssb.co.uk/safety-and-health/level-crossings

 

This is guidance for crossing users -

 

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/user_worked_railway_level_crossings.pdf

 

Additionally RIS-0793-CCS, currently in draft form and available from RSSB might contain something relevant but it certainly doesn't stand out froma reading of the contents page.

 

So what I can't find is anything fully definitive in respect of intervisibility standards for what are now classed as UWCs  Providing 'phones - apart from the cost - would be slightly daft on the C≀ such is the nature of the railway's operations that crossing users would quickly get used to totally ignoring any 'phones which are provided .

 

So  - having made sure that there is proper reference to this crossing in the Railway's Rule Book etc and having, before that, carried out an intervisibility check and risk assessment at the crossing and taken them into account in the operating Rules - I would suggest calling in a member of the Railway Inspectorate to seek their ruling in respect of this crossing.     Such ruling might be to the railway's potential disadvantage but if there is any sort of identified potential risk associated with this crossing the Railway has a legal obligation to deal with it.

 

I'm wondering if there would a legal right under something like the Regulation of Railways Acts or similar to be able to do something or compel the landowner to do so. 

 

Obvioisly the best  is to try and negotiate a solution to the problem to  everyone's satisfaction

 

A not too dissimilar thing occurred with a CCTV crossing hereabouts ( although the trees grew naturally,) 

A crossing with a history of abuse. 

 

On a bright sunny day they cast a shadow making  it very difficult to check that part of the crossing was clear. 

 

Not sure how it was resolved but the trees have gone, possibly they would have anyway as the site was redeveloped. 

 

It does though throw up some interesting dilemmas when the environment around crossing is changed. 

 

Should the railway be consulted by planning authorities?

Are they advised as to matter of course being adjacent landowners or is it pot luck that somone, somewhere picks up on it?

 

 

Andy