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!
Can we please try to stick to the topic please; if anyone wishes to discuss other topics, such as roads, feel free to create a new thread.
Also, just a gentle reminder that if anyone is submitting a post in relation to something that was read/heard from an external source, please do ensure that our forum rules are followed in this area; similarly for the posting of images, videos etc.
Could we please remember that Restore your Railway was an initiative of the last Prime Minister but 3 in a brief period when normal value for public money appraisal was considered boring and a good slogan plus news headline was the most important thing. That is behind us.
Now look at the standard appraisal process being followed and you'll understand how far this will get. Whether someone likes it or not, the only funding available is as public transport not a heritage railway scheme.
The prelim study is low on numbers, as you would expect, so the next step would involve a load of video surveys plus bus ticketing data and so on. For instance, while not critical to the conclusions, using Strava to guess cycle routing is ridiculously inappropriate but video counts at a few places will sort that out.
Could we please remember that Restore your Railway was an initiative of the last Prime Minister but 3 in a brief period when normal value for public money appraisal was considered boring and a good slogan plus news headline was the most important thing. That is behind us.
Now look at the standard appraisal process being followed and you'll understand how far this will get. Whether someone likes it or not, the only funding available is as public transport not a heritage railway scheme.
The prelim study is low on numbers, as you would expect, so the next step would involve a load of video surveys plus bus ticketing data and so on. For instance, while not critical to the conclusions, using Strava to guess cycle routing is ridiculously inappropriate but video counts at a few places will sort that out.
RYR was for the Telegraph reading old Tories who still whine on about Beeching.
Hopefully now not even going to waste the relatively small amounts of money the patronising ‘lets fund another desktop study’ pats on the head cost.
I met a man by chance at the pedestrian level crossing at Coney Green in Oswestry on a mobility scooter this morning. The crossing is just south of Oswestry Railway Station and is used by Cambrian Heritage Railways to shunt trains and rolling stock out of their works yard, on to the branch line and platform allowing them to run services down to Weston Brewery.
The man was complaining about the poor standard of the crossing and wanted to know who to complain to. I'll post a couple of pictures of the crossing below as an illustration. The Coney Green crossing is a much used pedestrian route from a largely residential area of Oswestry into the town centre. This man was explaining that his only other route was to do a large detour around to the medical centre crossing, and even that can get clogged up with parked cars.
I explained that the track bed was owned by Shropshire Council but the line had been leased to the rail operator, Cambrian Heritage Railways, and wished him luck trying to pin someone down to take respondibility as each organisation would probably pass the buck to the other. But the encounter set off a memory...
I'm including here a transcript of a document dated circa November 2017 to me from The Office of Rail and Road concerning not only the Coney Green Pedestrian Level Crossing, but all the other level crossings on the Oswestry Branch Line route leased to Cambrian Heritage Railways.
My question to the ORR was: "Given that, legally, no one takes responsibility for the maintenance of the Coney Green level crossing in Oswestry (as the railway operator doesn't actually employ anyone), does the same position apply to the other level crossings along the same line, namely the access route to the Cambrian Medical Centre, the access route to the Children's Funhouse, over the A5, over the A483, over the A495 and at School Lane?"
The Senior Executive of the Correpondence Service Team of the ORR responded: "The simple answer is that you are in principle correct regarding responsibility for maintenance of the crossing, but only in terms of responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
The fact that the ownership, management and operation of the railway is configured in a manner which makes application of the HSW Act highly questionable (i.e. Government appointed inspectors cannot exercise enforcement powers), has no bearing on the Civil Liability of the railway and those with responsibility for it. Under civil law the 'duty of care' not to put others at risk remains and were there to be a failure of that duty by those responsible for the railway, then the railway (or leastways it's insurers) may be open to action in the Civil courts .
So it is not that there is no legal responsibility for the crossings you mention, it is just that as the railway does not appear to employ anyone there is no evidence upon which to determine either an employer or self-employed person to which the duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 may be directed."
Below are two photographs of the Coney Green Pedestrian Level Crossing as of today, 25th July 2024.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This situation raises a question that I need to put out to members on this site who may have knowledge of heritage railway operators in other areas of the country:
Would Cambrian Heritage Railways be liable should an incident occure through poor maintenance of the level crossings on the A5 and A483?
I requested a copy of the lease from Shropshire Council many years ago but my authority turned me down. However, I did get a copy of the Oswestry Light Railway Order 1995 from the Department for Transport in Auguest 2015. I include the pdf below.
The reason I requested this document was because I was aware that Cambrian Heritage Railways were operating a limited passenger service over the Coney Green Pedestrian Level Crossing at that time, prior to the granting of the TWAO. I wanted to know if the service stuck to to the terms of the Light Railway Order.
According to today's Sunday Times all "restoring your railways" projects apart from the two already under construction (the Northumberland Line and B'ham - King's Norton) are to be scrapped by the new government. The "Restoring Your Railways" Fund is being closed.
According to today's Sunday Times all "restoring your railways" projects apart from the two already under construction (the Northumberland Line and B'ham - King's Norton) are to be scrapped by the new government. The "Restoring Your Railways" Fund is being closed.
That boat has already sailed, Tomos. Cambrian Heritage Railways won their application for "Restoring Your Railways" funds and spent the money on a Strategic Outline Business Case which the Department for Transport who agreed to "fund to delivery".
Does anyone remember Scott Wilson Railways?
They were commissioned to write a report titled "The Chester - Wrexham - Shrewsbury Line Study" published on 19th March 2007. It was partly funded by Shropshire County Council and Oswestry Borough Council, amongst others. I've attached here the pages that refer to the potential restoration of the Oswestry Branch Line, and I quote from it:
"Part of the remit of this study was the ‘identification of the potential market for rail along this corridor
to and from the Chester –Shrewsbury Line, when the heritage railway is established and running from
Gobowen through Park Hall to Oswestry.’ We believe there is little potential market for passenger
traffic on this line, for the following reasons:
• Both Oswestry and Gobowen are well served by several bus companies. Oswestry has recently
constructed a bus station which offers passengers a ten-minute journey to Gobowen at at least
half-hourly intervals throughout the day Monday through Saturday.
• The line from Oswestry to Gobowen crosses the A5 at a train-operated level crossing. This
crossing was installed when the road was far less busy than it is now. Crossing this road would
add several minutes to the journey between Oswestry and Gobowen, and put it at a severe
disadvantage in comparison to bus service.
• While we have no passenger demand information for a heritage railway on this line, we believe
the effect of nearly a dozen other heritage railways in the immediate area (including the wellknown
and highly developed Ffestiniog and Talyllyn Railways) will be significant in either
increasing or reducing demand. On one hand, a proposed Oswestry line may draw passengers
who have already chosen to visit the area to see other railways; on the other hand, it is possible
that the heritage railway market in the area is saturated, and demand is likely to be filled by older, more well known and more developed attractions."
RYR was for the Telegraph reading old Tories who still whine on about Beeching.
Hopefully now not even going to waste the relatively small amounts of money the patronising ‘lets fund another desktop study’ pats on the head cost.
You only need to look at posts on this site to see that reopening closed railways has plenty of support from older people across the political spectrum.
I said earlier in the thread that the only solution to the road crossing is Cambrian heritage using it for empty rolling stock movements in the early hours of the morning. A bridge would kill any business case of any reopening either by network rail or Cambrian. There is no chance of a level crossing with a frequent service.
You only need to look at posts on this site to see that reopening closed railways has plenty of support from older people across the political spectrum.
I said earlier in the thread that the only solution to the road crossing is Cambrian heritage using it for empty rolling stock movements in the early hours of the morning. A bridge would kill any business case of any reopening either by network rail or Cambrian. There is no chance of a level crossing with a frequent service.
To actually pin down the political side of this project, here are the details:
Owen Paterson, Conservative MP, first proposed purchasing the Oswestry Branch Line from Network Rail. He later resigned over a lobbying scandal. Shropshire County Council, later becoming Shropshire Council owns the land. Historically they are a Conservative dominated council. The Mayor of Oswestry Council submitted a letter of support for the "Restoring Your Railways" bid. His name is Duncan Kerr and he was a Green counciller. Finally, our current North Shropshire MP is Helen Morgan, a LibDem. She is a strong supporter of the restoration project.
That boat has already sailed, Tomos. Cambrian Heritage Railways won their application for "Restoring Your Railways" funds and spent the money on a Strategic Outline Business Case which the Department for Transport who agreed to "fund to delivery".
However - as has been pointed out on this and other threads many, many times before, a Strategic Outline Business Case does not mean a line will get built. All it does is assess whether or not it is viable against a set of parameters.
It is *highly* unlikley this one is going to meet the requirements, particularly when there are other measures which could be implemented more quickly, at a fraction of the cost which would yield the majority of the benefits - in this case a dedicated 'rail-coach' link running from Gobowen - Jones & Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital - Oswestry with through ticketing and connections.
However - as has been pointed out on this and other threads many, many times before, a Strategic Outline Business Case does not mean a line will get built. All it does is assess whether or not it is viable against a set of parameters.
It is *highly* unlikley this one is going to meet the requirements, particularly when there are other measures which could be implemented more quickly, at a fraction of the cost which would yield the majority of the benefits - in this case a dedicated 'rail-coach' link running from Gobowen - Jones & Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital - Oswestry with through ticketing and connections.
I'm half way reading through the Strategic Outline Business Case and it has already stated a few times that the railway operator rejects the option of a dedicated 'rail-coach' line.
It's worth pointing out that the Scott Wilson Railways "Chester - Wrexham - Shrewsbury Line Study" of 2007, an extract of which I've uploaded a couple of posts above, rejects the idea of restoring the Oswestry Branch Line. Since then money has been poured into the restoration project - most of it public money.
I'm half way reading through the Strategic Outline Business Case and it has already stated a few times that the railway operator rejects the option of a dedicated 'rail-coach' line.
A dedicated coach from Gobowen makes very little sense. A dedicated coach from Shrewsbury however would have far more operators to choose from (not that it needs a rail operator to run it, AIUI) and be able to offer far better connectivity.
It's worth pointing out that the Scott Wilson Railways "Chester - Wrexham - Shrewsbury Line Study" of 2007, an extract of which I've uploaded a couple of posts above, rejects the idea of restoring the Oswestry Branch Line. Since then money has been poured into the restoration project - most of it public money.
I'm half way reading through the Strategic Outline Business Case and it has already stated a few times that the railway operator rejects the option of a dedicated 'rail-coach' line.
It's worth pointing out that the Scott Wilson Railways "Chester - Wrexham - Shrewsbury Line Study" of 2007, an extract of which I've uploaded a couple of posts above, rejects the idea of restoring the Oswestry Branch Line. Since then money has been poured into the restoration project - most of it public money.
Whether the "operator" rejects it is both interesting and irrelevant. The "operator" doesn't have to pay the bills. With any Business Case it's whether or not it meets certain criteria against a given set of parameters. The issue of crossing the A5 will kill this stone dead financially - not that I think it stood much chance even without that.
Oswestry is a small town (sub 20k population) and is less than 4 miles from the station at Gobowen - to put that in context, where I live on the edge of a major town, my house is *further* from the town's railway station than Oswestry is from Gobowen's.
If I were looking for a parallel, I'd say Witney (which is another scheme that gets peddled from time to time) - which is twice the size of Oswestry and is slightly further to its nearest station at Hanborough - the likelihood of that one happening is virtually zero as well.
For reasons best known to yourself, you seem to be ignoring the points people are making and seem to believe this scheme will happen - yet the reality of the business case suggests otherwise.
A dedicated coach from Gobowen makes very little sense. A dedicated coach from Shrewsbury however would have far more operators to choose from (not that it needs a rail operator to run it, AIUI) and be able to offer far better connectivity.
I'd probably agree - but the campaigners won't accept that as a substitute even though as you say it offers much better connectivity and better journey options.
I'm half way reading through the Strategic Outline Business Case and it has already stated a few times that the railway operator rejects the option of a dedicated 'rail-coach' line.
It's worth pointing out that the Scott Wilson Railways "Chester - Wrexham - Shrewsbury Line Study" of 2007, an extract of which I've uploaded a couple of posts above, rejects the idea of restoring the Oswestry Branch Line. Since then money has been poured into the restoration project - most of it public money.
Part of the remit of this study was the ‘identification of the potential market for rail along this corridor to and from the Chester –Shrewsbury Line, when the heritage railway is established and running from Gobowen through Park Hall to Oswestry.’ We believe there is little potential market for passenger traffic on this line
The line from Oswestry to Gobowen crosses the A5 at a train-operated level crossing. This crossing was installed when the road was far less busy than it is now. Crossing this road would add several minutes to the journey between Oswestry and Gobowen, and put it at a severe disadvantage in comparison to bus service.
That boat has already sailed, Tomos. Cambrian Heritage Railways won their application for "Restoring Your Railways" funds and spent the money on a Strategic Outline Business Case which the Department for Transport who agreed to "fund to delivery".
It's fundamental to the British constitution that Parliaments and, by extention, Governments cannot bind the hands of their successors. A commitment by the DfT, under a previous administration, is meaningless unless contractors have been appointed and work has already started. My understanding is that there are no contracts let or spades in the ground when it comes to this project and that it's therfore moot.
I'm not from the area so I'm happy to stand corrected!
It's fundamental to the British constitution that Parliaments and, by extention, Governments cannot bind the decisions of their successors. A commitment by the DfT, under a previous administration, is meaningless unless work has already started and my understanding is that there are no contracts let or spades in the ground when it comes to this project.
I'm not from the area so I'm happy to stand corrected!
From what I've read in the Strategic Outline Business Case so far, they recommend a new, updated TWAO as a first step. This would be to sort out the "grey" area of the level crossing to the medical centre in Oswestry. The SOBC actually suggests that as the branch line is outside the main network, safety considerations at level crossings needn't be as rigid. I'm not yet aware of other avenues the railway operator may be pursuing regarding rights and chasing finance.
Elsewhere, both Oswestry Station and Gobowen Station are both currently undergoing restoration (see photos eleswhere on this thread) and concrete sleepers have been piled up at Gobowen Station. That said, no actual work is taking place on the line itself.
From what I've read in the Strategic Outline Business Case so far, they recommend a new, updated TWAO as a first step. This would be to sort out the "grey" area of the level crossing to the medical centre in Oswestry. The SOBC actually suggests that as the branch line is outside the main network, safety considerations at level crossings needn't be as rigid. I'm not yet aware of other avenues the railway operator may be pursuing regarding rights and chasing finance.
Elsewhere, both Oswestry Station and Gobowen Station are both currently undergoing restoration (see photos eleswhere on this thread) and concrete sleepers have been piled up at Gobowen Station. That said, no actual work is taking place on the line itself.
Thank you. Just out of interest, have the internal politics of the heritage railway been sorted out? I seem to remember that there were two rival groups at one time and that that was hindering the project.
I do hope the project succeeds eventually but occasional false starts and mis-steps are inevitable!
I very much doubt the market potential for restoration of passenger services on the Oswestry to Gobowen branch has improved significantly since 2007. The capital costs alone of eliminating the A5 level crossing with a road flyover or a railway tunnel simply don't make sense to allow a shuttle to run over a 2.5 mile long branch. The case for doing this for a heritage railway is even less obvious.
I am sure there are many other examples up and down the country but unfortunately Oswestry is a victim of what, with hindsight , were bad decisions. The first was the decision not to build the Shrewsbury to Chester line through the town, although at least demonstrates how influential NIMBYs could be in the 1840s.
The second was the decision to build the Oswestry bypass with two level crossings. Bridges were in fact planned, but dropped as an economy measure. However, it is easy to understand the decision. Rail seen as being in managed decline when the bypass was being planned, so very few people could have realistically thought passenger services would ever return to the branch. Building two flyovers to enable single freight train to pass in each directions clearly also made no financial sense.
Any prospect of returning Oswestry to the national network was effectively ended when the bypass opened. Up until that point it would have been fairly straightforward to do, at least infrastructure wise, if not financially.
Of the two, the 1840s decision is the one that has and unfortunately will continue to have the most far reaching consequences. Oswestry being on the mainline and not at the end of a short branch would have ensured a rail connection remained. The Shrewsbury and Chester line may well have higher passenger numbers as a result as well, although I'd not wish to speculate by how much.
Being entirely cynical, the Tories losing to the North Shropshire seat to the Lib Dems might a bigger factor in Oswestry being included on the Restoring Your Railways list.
Thank you. Just out of interest, have the internal politics of the heritage railway been sorted out? I seem to remember that there were two rival groups at one time and that that was hindering the project.
I do hope the project succeeds eventually but occasional false starts and mis-steps are inevitable!
aha! You are absolutely right, there were two antagonistic heritage railway groups using seperate sections of the Oswestry Branch Line and never the twain did meet.
You may know, Tomos, that Shropshire County Council brought the two sides together to form "Cambrian Heritage Railways Ltd" and all was peace and harmony, on the surface. But seething tensions remain underneath. So I would say no, the internal politics are still there but very much buried.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
For reasons best known to yourself, you seem to be ignoring the points people are making and seem to believe this scheme will happen - yet the reality of the business case suggests otherwise.
I'm not ignoring people. I'm reading with interest. I'm pointing out that this restoration project has come so far and there is a momentum to it which, frankly I feel is frightening because all the public money that has already been spent on it. The issue of crossing the A5 was there for all to see almost 20 years ago, yet step by step, local authorities, MPs, government departments, highway authorities, and rail regulators have aloud this project to move forward. Is that because money moving from department to department looks good, or are people too scared to raise questions about it?
That's my position on the financial side of things, but there's another aspect that really concerns me. My understanding is that the Transport & Works Act Order, granted to the railway operator 7 years ago, gives them responsibilty for the maintenance of all rail over and rail under structures. Does that mean this little railway heritage charity has to repair any decay on level crossings over the A5 and A483 that may present a material danger to road traffic?
I'm not ignoring people. I'm reading with interest. I'm pointing out that this restoration project has come so far and there is a momentum to it which, frankly I feel is frightening because all the public money that has already been spent on it. The issue of crossing the A5 was there for all to see almost 20 years ago, yet step by step, local authorities, MPs, government departments, highway authorities, and rail regulators have aloud this project to move forward. Is that because money moving from department to department looks good, or are people too scared to raise questions about it?
That's my position on the financial side of things, but there's another aspect that really concerns me. My understanding is that the Transport & Works Act Order, granted to the railway operator 7 years ago, gives them responsibilty for the maintenance of all rail over and rail under structures. Does that mean this little railway heritage charity has to repair any decay on level crossings over the A5 and A483 that may present a material danger to road traffic?
So, just taking the example of the Coney Green Pedestrian Level Crossing, situated just outside the Cambrian Heritage Railways yard and is used as a main walkway from a residential area into the town centre. In 2017 I represented the wife of an elderly couple who lived close to the crossing and used it regularly. She stumbled and fell on the crossing because it was uneven and poorly maintained (for walkers and mobility scooter users). She wasn't the first person to have had problems on the crossing as press cuttings around that time can testify. I approached the Office of Rail and Road to try and pin them down on the matter of responsibility for maintenance (council or railway operator?). I sent them an email and will quote from an edited transcript of their response which I received in October 2017:
"Firstly the accident that you raised relating to Coney Green Crossing involved the Cambrian Heritage Railway (CHR) which operates trains over the crossing and the Shropshire Local Authority which has responsibility for any right-of- way. HM Inspectors of Railways, can exert their enforcement powers and authority only as permitted under the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority for Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 2006 where there is the activity of ‘operation of a railway’ taking place.
Clearly while Cambrian Heritage Railway is involved in ‘operation of a railway’, the local authority has no such involvement and so consequently I cannot exercise any enforcement power on the LA to make any changes to the crossing.
Secondly, as far as ORR has been able to establish, the CHR has no ‘employees’; neither it appears, does anyone work on or in connection with the railway, in a ‘self-employed’ capacity; i.e. the CHR appears to be run entirely by volunteers. This immediately constrains the avenues HM Inspectors of Railways can pursue. While an activity may take place from time to time which constitutes ‘operation or a railway’; HM Inspectors of Railways powers and authority stem from the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 where the meaning of “work” is set out. (I include it below for clarity).
52 Meaning of work and at work.
(1)For the purposes of this Part—
(a) “work” means work as an employee or as a self-employed person;
(b) an employee is at work throughout the time when he is in the course of his employment, but not otherwise;
(c) a self-employed person is at work throughout such time as he devotes to work as a self-employed person;
and, subject to the following subsection, the expressions “work” and “at work”, in whatever context, shall be construed accordingly.
In straightforward terms, for the Health and Safety At Work etc Act 1974 to apply there has to be ‘work’ as defined taking place and in the case of the CHR ‘work’ as defined does not appear to be taking place as no-one is being paid as either an employee or a self-employed person. As it has not been possible to establish that ‘Work’ (as defined above) is taking place there is an extremely limited legal basis upon which we might exercise powers and authority towards the railway to carry out changes that may be considered relevant or appropriate to the issue you raise.
The primary allegation you made was that the gaps between rails were such as to cause problems for users of the crossing. The law requires that a person in charge of premises where work is taking place must take reasonable steps to ensure such premises are safe and the steps they implement to achieve this must in their own right be considered as ‘reasonably practicable’. The CHR has correctly asserted that there is no inherent failure on its part to meet existing published standards relating to level crossings.
In summary because no ‘work’ is taking place it is not possible to follow the normal enforcement routes to bring about improvement under the Health and Safety At Work Act 1974 and even were it to be possible, the railway has a basis to argue that it is doing all that it is ‘reasonably practicable’ to do, and is not in breach of existing published guidelines.
The consequence is that there is nothing in terms of enforcement that ORR can draw upon to make the CHR change the crossing because the lack of ‘work’ limits the application of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and the published guidance is being adhered to insofar as it can be applied.
That being said ORR has nonetheless been in contact with both the railway and the Local Authority and advised them of possible approaches they might consider which may go some way towards reducing further the risks or a recurrence of the accident suffered by your friend. At least this way the CHR and its membership cannot claim they are unaware of the problem or of other ‘reasonably practicable’ actions they might take to address the issues you raise.
The suggestions made to CHR that ORR believes might address the issue include:
· Installing streetworks style flat ‘mats’ over the crossing such that flangeways are covered during non -operating days of the railway; or
· Infill to the flangeways with Strail hard rubber strips or at least removing and replacing the wooden battens that hold back the tarmac on the inside of the rails against the flangeway.
As previously advised any future correspondence should be addressed to our Customer Correspondence Team (CCT), email contact.cct@orr.gsi.gov.uk .
Yours sincerely
Keith Atkinson
HM Principal Inspector of Railways"
...and now we come back to 31st July 2024 (the present day at the time of typing), and no work has been done to improve the crossing for pedestrians (7 years since the ORR contacted the authority and the rail operator with their suggestions).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It's 5th August 2024 and I'm well over half way through reading the Strategic Outline Business Case for the restoration of the Oswestry Branch Line of 2023 and have come across more details on the level crossings between Oswestry and Gobowen. The following is quoted from section 2.2.7 of the document, a copy of which I will attach below:
"There are several footpath crossings along the length of the route which would have to be risk assessed to establish, what, if any, additional protection is required. There are also 2 town centre crossings, one of which is on Thomas Savin Road does not have a formal status and thus is strictly speaking illegal. However, this crossing serves a popular retail and leisure development at the former Cambrian Works and is important to the economic wellbeing of Oswestry. The stakeholder engagement suggested that its existence is now accepted even though it does not have the proper permissions in place. Therefore, whilst this crossing would need to be upgraded and potentially formalised if a regular passenger service is introduced, it is not in itself a barrier to the scheme. In addition, the status of the former Davies & Metcalf level crossing, which is an accommodation crossing allowing access to the former railway works site, will need to be considered as its use is now completely different to that when it was in use to give occupants of the works access to their premises. The location of 2 public road level crossings in such a short distance adds complexity to both railway and road operations."
First, the crossing on Thomas Savin Road is NOT an access to a "popular retail and leisure development" as the SOBC states. It's an access route to the Cambrian Medical Centre. It also serves as access for ambulances to Minor Injuries Unit at the Centre. It is also controlled with traffic lights for a pelican crossing serving 2 roads, namely Station Road and Beatrice Street. So, who has priority here, abulance or tram?
Second, how is the level crossing on Thomas Savin Road "illegal"? It's a relatively new build and does not have barriers, but is fenced off.
ahh...memories! And I note that the ORR's response of "...currently determining the legality of these works and Inspectors will be visiting Oswestry in the near future to discuss this matter with the Railway and Highway Authority" is dated 13th August 2015, almost 9 years ago, and the question about legality still stands today.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Perhaps now would be a good time to go back to the very start of this restoration project, to a document dated 20th October 2003 that details talks between my local MP Owen Paterson (who later had to resign because of a lobbying scandel), Shropshire County Council, Network Rail and a number of other interested parties. I have uploaded a copy of the agenda below.
Refering to a pre meeting regarding the sale of the branch line to Shropshire County Council the document says in part "...It would also potentially unlock the impasse with Network Rail over the level crossing access into the 5 acre development site owned by Advantage West Midlands. In summary SCC would become the vehicle to enable delivery of the various needs and aspirations."
So, in 2023 (twenty years on, the SOBC identifies the Thomas Savin Road level crossing as "illegal" when right at the very beginning, even before it was built, Network Rail, the Strategic Rail Authority, HM Railway Inspectorate and all of my local authorities and MP were involved.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I would expect funding to completion to say ‘funding for delivery’, ‘funding for construction’ or ’funding to implement’.
‘Funded to delivery’ sounds to me very much like “funding up to a point where a decison is taken on delivery”.
If it was funded for construction at this point, based on the SOBC, it would be a first for any rail project of this size or type, let alone one with suspect cost estimates. It would also break several rules about funding for capital investment by Government.
I received an email from Network Rail yesterday in response to my request for clarification of the term "funding to delivery" as used in the Department for Transport's reply to the Strategic Outline Business Case for the restoration of the Oswestry Branch Line. I received the email yesterday (9th August 2024), and it says in part:
"Whilst we cannot confirm the DfT’s commitments, we are currently only progressing a funding request to cover the next stage of development for the line reopening, not for full delivery of the reopening.
In the Network North announcement in October, the then Prime Minister committed to reopening the line; however, all of the schemes committed to under Network North were subject to a business case process to establish whether they were affordable and value for money. At this time, further development would be required to get to that stage.
It's 13th August 2024 and I've just finished reading and digesting the Oswestry - Gobowen Strategic Outline Business Case on behalf of Cambrian Heritage Railways prepared by Stantec UK Limited dated September 2022.
Below are some of the main points I took from the document:
Cambrian Heritage Railways doesn’t have the backing of Whittington Parish Council for the restoration of the Oswestry Branch Line, despite approximately one third of the railway passing through the parish, and crucially, over the A5 on the level.
There’s a high voltage power line over and close to the level crossing on the A5. That is why an underpass is favoured over a bridge.
There are questions regarding the elevation of any new over or underpass. That is why a very light railway is favoured over a heavy one. That said, CHR have long term ambitions to take freight from Blodwel Quarry along the line. This would also involve the construction of a bridge over the A483.
The SOBC identifies patients, staff and visitors to and from the hospital out of the normal operating hours of the regular bus services as a main market for the restoration project.
The SOBC recommends any new service timetable integrated with the main network, including ticketing.
The problem of the level crossing in Gobowen is identified that may cause delays as some travellers (particularly in wheelchairs) have to use it when changing from the mainline to the branch. The barriers come down for the mainline leaving people stranded. A pedestrian bridge with lifts is recommended.
Any rolling stock would have to make provision for wheelchair users, an identified customer base for hospital travellers.
The existing Park Hall Halt near the hospital would need to be relocated closer to the hospital car park and a golf buggy style service added to carry passengers to reception.
Cambrian Heritage Railways would contract out operation of the railway to a third party – possibly Transport for Wales. There are NO standalone contracts of this nature in the UK.
Although the ORR have said no to use of the level crossing over the A5, it is hoped that an agreement could be made with the Highways Agency to use the crossing as the branch line would be separate from the main network. This would require a new TWAO.
The new service would operate 2 or 3 trains per hour on the single-track line.
A battery-operated lightweight vehicle is recommended with a purpose-built charger station based at Gobowen.
Network Rail still want to retain a crossover section of the branch line as back-up for Kronospan freight.
It is assumed that a 6-minute journey time is enough to carry passengers from Oswestry to Gobowen with one stop at the hospital.
The SOBC mentions reduction of CO2 emissions as a key part of the restoration project but admits the use of the A5 level crossing and the knock-on effect on road traffic may offset this, as would delays and diversions caused by the construction of an under or overpass.
It is estimated that the level crossing on the A5 can be operated for the passage of a shuttle service between 30-45 seconds. This could happen up to 6 times per hour.
The SOBC makes an error in its identification of the use of the level crossing on Thomas Savin Road in Oswestry; it states that it is an access route to a retail centre and residential accommodation. In fact, it is the access route to the Cambrian Medical Centre car park and ambulance entrance to the minor injuries unit. It is traffic light controlled with Station Road and Beatrice Street. As to i’s legality, it was the local authority that authorised its construction to gain access to a 5-acre site they wished to develop.
The restoration project is scheduled to be completed (including infrastructure) by 2025.
The SOBC identifies patients, staff and visitors to and from the hospital out of the normal operating hours of the regular bus services as a main market for the restoration project.
I read that list in post #146 and think there is more chance in reopening Aberystwyth to Carmarthen than this line.
There are so many points that are just pie in the sky.
I read that list in post #146 and think there is more chance in reopening Aberystwyth to Carmarthen than this line.
There are so many points that are just pie in the sky.
Your observation echoes many who have commented here on this restoration project. And, although I have seen no official anouncement about withdrawal of funding has yet been made, I'm guessing that Cambrian Heritage Railways are currently looking for alternative streams.
However, there are a couple of points I'd like to make:
The charity operates a heritage service in Oswestry down a short stetch of track. I see no reason why they couldn't, with some investment, operate a shuttle service between Gobowen Station and a rebuilt platform close to the hospital.
They still have a further 40 years of lease to use the line, and they have the strong support of local authorities.
I, as a rate and tax payer who walks, drives and cycles on local roads and pavements, have some difficulty with this, what I would describe as a blind attitude. I've attached here 2 pages of minutes from a Shropshire County Council meeting dated 18th May 2004 (twenty years ago) which details the conditions to the acquisition of the Oswestry branch line, and says at item 16 "...If the proposal contained in this report comes to fruition it is important that both Borough and Town Council commit their long term political and financial backing to the project to minimise the risk of failure of the railway operator."
However, there are a couple of points I'd like to make:
The charity operates a heritage service in Oswestry down a short stetch of track. I see no reason why they couldn't, with some investment, operate a shuttle service between Gobowen Station and a rebuilt platform close to the hospital.
They still have a further 40 years of lease to use the line, and they have the strong support of local authorities.
I, as a rate and tax payer who walks, drives and cycles on local roads and pavements, have some difficulty with this, what I would describe as a blind attitude. I've attached here 2 pages of minutes from a Shropshire County Council meeting dated 18th May 2004 (twenty years ago) which details the conditions to the acquisition of the Oswestry branch line, and says at item 16 "...If the proposal contained in this report comes to fruition it is important that both Borough and Town Council commit their long term political and financial backing to the project to minimise the risk of failure of the railway operator."
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
![IMG_2069[1].JPG](/data/attachments/157/157977-b12bfd5cab112a8e3cb54f097e49fa05.jpg)
![IMG_2070[1].JPG](/data/attachments/157/157978-f01e486c840f1346ea36701f7f3606c6.jpg)
