Lewisham2221
Established Member
Yes, I can. It has a pair of of railway tracks running between the platforms. What a thoroughly stupid, badly thought out and dangerous design...
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Low Moor station put back another year to 2015
- Thread starter Dewedin
- Start date
- Status
Yes, I can. It has a pair of of railway tracks running between the platforms. What a thoroughly stupid, badly thought out and dangerous design...
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
RichmondCommu
Established Member
Living in south west London the cost of land prohibits me from building / buying a bungalow.
Secondly, this thread doesn't concern stations built in the 19th century but stations which are being planned for the future. Currently there is no station at Low Moor.
Strawman arguments are very popular on line, aren't they?
The main argument on this thread is against the delays to infrastructure projects, however small, by 'processes'.
Health and Safety regulations should be guidelines, not chains.
Again I ask what is unsafe about the station I linked pictures to which was designed in the 1980s? Or what's unsafe about more modern stations such as Glasshoughton? If these designs remain safe (and I can see no reason why they're not) then what advantage is there to insisting on even more stringent safety standards when the outcome is that projects become much harder to approve?
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Glasshoughton was constructed with far more substantially-built platforms, whereas some stations that were constructed in both West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester in the same 1980's period received stilt-supported platforms that were far cheaper to construct, but some of these have now begun to show signs of degradation in recent years,
So the question becomes why can't we just build a station like Glasshoughton? It seems perfectly safe but I assume that it doesn't meet latest safety standards. But you have to ask what advantages are those safety standards bringing when the result is delaying projects and making them more unlikely in the first place due to cost?
eastdyke
Established Member
So from the original feature:
' ... has cited extra expense incurred from changes in engineering safety requirements for building platforms on a curve, ... '
There must be somebody on here who can tell us just exactly what these changes in engineering safety requirements are? Please?
Of course if 99.999% 'safe' stations could be built for half the money there would be a possible business case for far more stations. We wouldn't want that would we?
Anybody here ride a bike?
' ... has cited extra expense incurred from changes in engineering safety requirements for building platforms on a curve, ... '
There must be somebody on here who can tell us just exactly what these changes in engineering safety requirements are? Please?
Of course if 99.999% 'safe' stations could be built for half the money there would be a possible business case for far more stations. We wouldn't want that would we?
Anybody here ride a bike?
i don't think you quite understand the phrase "grandfather rights".
by the same logic, would you be happy for a train builder to churn out new stock with the same safety standards as a pacer, after all they're still allowed to run using grandfather rights?
tbtc
Veteran Member
It really doesn't work like that.
Should we be allowed to build buses in 2012 that only conform to 1980s emission requirements? Should we be allowed to build stations in 2012 with no disabled access?
Got to face facts - the fact that existing things are allowed to continue doesn't mean newly built versions can get away with those standards. For example, many/ most of the Underground stations in the middle of London aren't DDA complaint - does that mean we should build more inacessible ones today?
Railways exist in the real world.
Joseph_Locke
Established Member
Too many points to reply to individually ...
Low Moor does not exist today, so any station which is built (and the new one won't necessarily be where the old one was for ease of access) will be, under the rules, a new station.
This means that the restrictions on track gradient in platforms (though the relevant RGS requirement has gone and the TSI doesn't restrict non-high speed lines), track curvature, roll space, stepping distance, tactile paving, platform width, access, cross fall, drainage, evacuation, fire, staff accomodation, lighting, CIS, CCTV, help-points, shelters, fencing, parking spaces for MIPs, highway access, bike racks, sustainability, energy efficiency, etc. all apply in full unless a derogation to standards can be agreed.
Network Rail can continue to use an existing station which does not comply to today's standards provided it is not positively dangerous and it (NR) takes all reasonable precautions to manage the risks (so, on-train "take care" annoncements, mind the gap signs, the barring of certain rolling stock, etc.).
However, there are two sets of rules here: Infrastructure and Passenger safety.
NR must actively provide a safe infrastructure (e.g. not banging trains into platforms) but this can conflict (particularly on sharply curved platforms) with the requirements for Passenger safety (e.g. stepping distances).
In summary, NR would have to jump through many hoops to build anything like, for example, Bushey, so it is easier to build a station that complies.
As to the whines about bureaucracy, all railway rules are retrospective and were generally imposed by Governments bending to
outraged public opinion - so it's your ancestors' faults ...
Low Moor does not exist today, so any station which is built (and the new one won't necessarily be where the old one was for ease of access) will be, under the rules, a new station.
This means that the restrictions on track gradient in platforms (though the relevant RGS requirement has gone and the TSI doesn't restrict non-high speed lines), track curvature, roll space, stepping distance, tactile paving, platform width, access, cross fall, drainage, evacuation, fire, staff accomodation, lighting, CIS, CCTV, help-points, shelters, fencing, parking spaces for MIPs, highway access, bike racks, sustainability, energy efficiency, etc. all apply in full unless a derogation to standards can be agreed.
Network Rail can continue to use an existing station which does not comply to today's standards provided it is not positively dangerous and it (NR) takes all reasonable precautions to manage the risks (so, on-train "take care" annoncements, mind the gap signs, the barring of certain rolling stock, etc.).
However, there are two sets of rules here: Infrastructure and Passenger safety.
NR must actively provide a safe infrastructure (e.g. not banging trains into platforms) but this can conflict (particularly on sharply curved platforms) with the requirements for Passenger safety (e.g. stepping distances).
In summary, NR would have to jump through many hoops to build anything like, for example, Bushey, so it is easier to build a station that complies.
As to the whines about bureaucracy, all railway rules are retrospective and were generally imposed by Governments bending to
outraged public opinion - so it's your ancestors' faults ...
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
As to the whines about bureaucracy, all railway rules are retrospective and were generally imposed by Governments bending to
....or to make a pun on a saying on this thread, were your "grandfathers right"?...:roll:
eastdyke
Established Member
Too many points to reply to individually ...
Low Moor does not exist today, so any station which is built (and the new one won't necessarily be where the old one was for ease of access) will be, under the rules, a new station.
This means that the restrictions on track gradient in platforms (though the relevant RGS requirement has gone and the TSI doesn't restrict non-high speed lines), track curvature, roll space, stepping distance, tactile paving, platform width, access, cross fall, drainage, evacuation, fire, staff accomodation, lighting, CIS, CCTV, help-points, shelters, fencing, parking spaces for MIPs, highway access, bike racks, sustainability, energy efficiency, etc. all apply in full unless a derogation to standards can be agreed.
Network Rail can continue to use an existing station which does not comply to today's standards provided it is not positively dangerous and it (NR) takes all reasonable precautions to manage the risks (so, on-train "take care" annoncements, mind the gap signs, the barring of certain rolling stock, etc.).
However, there are two sets of rules here: Infrastructure and Passenger safety.
NR must actively provide a safe infrastructure (e.g. not banging trains into platforms) but this can conflict (particularly on sharply curved platforms) with the requirements for Passenger safety (e.g. stepping distances).
In summary, NR would have to jump through many hoops to build anything like, for example, Bushey, so it is easier to build a station that complies.
As to the whines about bureaucracy, all railway rules are retrospective and were generally imposed by Governments bending to
Yes, so what in particular were the changes from here relevant to the price for Low Moor being recently increased please?
This doesn't appear to have anything to do with disability access, and besides disability access is legislation; it doesn't state that this has anything to do with legislation, just 'changes in engineering safety requirements' which could be Network Rail or some other organisation issuing guidelines.
If something is unsafe then obviously it should not be used or built, but being unsafe is not the same as theoretically not being as safe as something else and if the something else costs a lot more then the latter isn't necessarily the best option.
tbtc
Veteran Member
I was responding to your specific point that if things are still allowed to be used then they must be safe - the fact that they haven't been closed/ rebuilt/ withdrawn proves that they are safe - so we should be allowed to build more of the same (forgive me if I paraphrase).
The fact is that there are some things in existence that would be "unfit" to build today - like the emissions on a 185 - that doesn't mean that 185s are so polluting that they require withdrawl (clearly they don't), but nor does it mean that you could build more identical 185s.
It's not as simple as saying that everything currently open/ running/ working must be safe (therefore we can have more like it).
I find it an interesting subject (hence this thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=53955 ) because there are a lot of things on the railway still in operation that you couldn't build nowadays.
Joseph_Locke
Established Member
<disclaimer> I am involved in a related scheme but not in Low Moor itself </disclaimer>
My guesses would be (in ascending order cost impact)
- AFA (access for all)
- Scope creep (things not previously included but now railways are fashionable again ... like car parks)
- The original estimate(s) was/were not based on a design
(in summary - nothing to do with standards changes. Platform design standards haven't fundamentally changed in the last ten years)
eastdyke
Established Member
Thank you, disclaimer accepted!
I am trying to get at the reasons for the cost increases. As far as I can tell the cost in July 2010 was to be £5.5m and WYITA plans have included for this sum (from the various sources).
The article has quoted vague reasons, it would be good to get the whole story!
Cheers.
Last edited:
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I would suggest that the reasons set out for the honourable member for Barnsley & Attercliffe at #41 & #46 will be correct.
The dreaded scope creep is the bane of many projects! I would also add the catch all costs of "project management" to the list
The dreaded scope creep is the bane of many projects! I would also add the catch all costs of "project management" to the list
eastdyke
Established Member
No doubt more will emerge in time. I suspect that a Planning Application has yet to be made to Bradford Council.
In the meantime I will accept the cost only if it includes all the 'extras' on the right
:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...CqdUPu5EIeR0AXG9oGQCQ&ved=0CFUQ9QEwCg&dur=297
(picture from Bradford Model Railway Clubs website)
In the meantime I will accept the cost only if it includes all the 'extras' on the right
:http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...CqdUPu5EIeR0AXG9oGQCQ&ved=0CFUQ9QEwCg&dur=297
(picture from Bradford Model Railway Clubs website)
I think the difference with rolling stock is that it is the "software" of the railway, therefore it has a limited lifespan anyway. Yes, a pacer isn't built to the same safety standards as a modern train, but over time, it will be replaced by something presumably safer than a "modern" train today.
A station with curvy platforms could be in use for perpituity, therefore the same "upgrade" of all stations over time doesn't necessarily apply. In these circomstances, it seems more logical to decide either that curvy platforms are dangerous, in which case they all need to be altered, or they're not, in which case it is safe to build new ones.
Making a distinction between platforms built in the 19th century as being ok whereas those potentially built tomorrow seems to be illogical, because the age of the platform has no bearing on how long it will remain in use.
Andyjs247
Member
Slightly off-topic but it is now almost 3 years since Workington North was built in just 6 days (and presumably was perfectly safe). Clearly the circumstances in Workington were exceptional, but if there's enough will surely it should be possible to open Low Moor? I do think Health & Safety has gone mad sometimes.
Well, they are getting on for thirty years old, and yes, bits will need replacing. But that's thirty years of those locations having a working railway station and frankly, WY Metro's will have more than recouped its investment in terms of social benefit in that time.
tbtc
Veteran Member
There are a lot of things where standard change over the years. You couldn't build the house I live in today - it has a doorstep that wouldn't meet current standards, that kind of thing.
Similarly, you couldn't build many stations today because they aren't fully DDA compliant etc. Doesn't mean we close all of the old ones, just that we can't build any new ones like that.
That's certainly true, and there are many reasons why house construction standards change over time. Take energy efficiency standards for example. Even if older properties are still leaking energy, building new houses to higher standards does lead to the country as a whole having lower carbon emissions than would otherwise have been the case.
However, when we are talking about safety, the fact that there are so many curved platforms in use, day in day out, without incident, leads me to the logical conclusion that curved platforms (at least to the extent that we have them on the network today) aren't inherently dangerous. If they were, the existing ones would need to be reconstructed.
eastdyke
Established Member
But is this situation (about Low Moor) actually that platforms cannot (as of now) be built on a (any) curve or simply that it will cost more (than originally estimated) to do so?
PS
The Arup drawing for Euston rebuilt for HS2 shows curved platforms:
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-maps-20120110/hs2arp00drrw05300issue2.pdf
PS
The Arup drawing for Euston rebuilt for HS2 shows curved platforms:
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-maps-20120110/hs2arp00drrw05300issue2.pdf
Last edited:
Writing as one who can well remember the old Low Moor station, which not only had four platforms based on a steady curve but also saw the hourly dividing/joining of Bradford/Leeds portions of Manchester and Liverpool expresses, plus a junction down to the Spen Valley line through Liversedge and a large engine-shed, I wonder how we all survived and grew-up to be so sane! {the last is a matter of opion, I suppose }
}
eastdyke
Established Member
Writing as one who can well remember the old Low Moor station, which not only had four platforms based on a steady curve but also saw the hourly dividing/joining of Bradford/Leeds portions of Manchester and Liverpool expresses, plus a junction down to the Spen Valley line through Liversedge and a large engine-shed, I wonder how we all survived and grew-up to be so sane! {the last is a matter of opion, I suppose
Five platforms, there was a bay at the MPD end. See picture at post 49!
lancastrian
Member
York and Bristol come to mind immediately, not forgetting the Midland side platforms at Birmingham New Street.
If they spent as much time on the actual planning as they do on the amount wasted by over the top Health & Safety, we would have an excellent rail system.
This, this, this, this, this.
RichmondCommu
Established Member
Now hang on a minute, the whole point of this thread is to highlight the safety issues concerning new stations which are planned to be built on a curve. Now as far as I can see none of the stations which you have quoted are on curved track which makes your argument irrelevant.
- Status