• 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!

Oswestry Branch Railway Restoration - The Truth

Status
Not open for further replies.

CambrianView

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2024
Messages
123
Location
Gobowen
An update on my quest to get an answer to who has responsibility for the maintenance of the level crossings along the Oswestry Branch Line. This time I approached Highways England with the following request:

"Please can you provide me with details of the latest 4 safety and maintenance inspections of the level crossings along the Oswestry branch railway line, namely over the A5, A483, A495, at School Lane in Blodwel, at Thomas Savin Road in Oswestry and the Coney Green Pedestrian Crossing in Oswestry.

To set this request in context, I have already approached the ORR who have informed me that the railway operator (Cambrian Heritage Railways) doesn't employ anyone so has no responsibility for Health & Safety at Work. Shropshire Council, the landowner have told me that they do not own any of the level crossings along the line. Finally, Network Rail have told me that they have no responsibility as they do not own the line.

As the line crosses 3 "A" roads I'm guessing that your department has responsibility. If not, who is maintaining these level crossings?"


National Highways Ltd responded by sending me the following PDF files of 3 Inspection Record Sheets of different dates detailing potholes along sections of the A5, so I think they've slightly misunderstood the nature of my inquiry...
 

Attachments

  • 8th October Route 1 redacted.2.pdf
    186.2 KB · Views: 13
  • 22nd October Route 1 redacted.2.pdf
    255.4 KB · Views: 3
  • 24th September Route 1 redacted.2.pdf
    151.9 KB · Views: 4
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Llanigraham

On Moderation
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,490
Location
Powys
I think your question was too general, which why you have got the attached replies. You need to be much more specific and each crossing enquiry needs to be done seperately.
And you last two paragraphs are not required or relevant.
 

CambrianView

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2024
Messages
123
Location
Gobowen
I think your question was too general, which why you have got the attached replies. You need to be much more specific and each crossing enquiry needs to be done seperately.
And you last two paragraphs are not required or relevant.
Hello Llanigraham.

Are you suggesting I should rephrase and resubmit as six separate and independent questions thus:

Please can you send me the latest 4 Inspection Record Sheets for the A5 where it crosses the OSWESTRY BRANCH LINE LEVEL CROSSING near the 5 junctions roundabout close to Oswestry in Shropshire.

Please can you send me the latest 4 Inspection Record Sheets for the A483 where it crosses the OSWESTRY BRANCH LINE LEVEL CROSSING at Weston close the Maesbury Crossroads near Oswestry in Shropshire.

Please can you send me the latest 4 Inspection Record Sheets for the A495 where it crosses the OSWESTRY BRANCH LINE LEVEL CROSSING at Porth-y-Waen near Blodwel in Shropshire.

Please can you send me the latest 4 Inspection Record Sheets for School Lane where it crosses the OSWESTRY BRANCH LINE LEVEL CROSSING at Porth-y-Waen near Blodwel in Shropshire.

Please can you send me the latest 4 Inspection Record Sheets for Thomas Savin Road in Oswestry where it crosses the OSWESTRY BRANCH LINE LEVEL CROSSING.

Please can you send me the latest 4 Inspection Record Sheets for Coney Green in Oswestry where it crosses the OSWESTRY BRANCH LINE LEVEL CROSSING in Oswestry.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,965
If I may suggest, you’d do yourself a great favour if you stopped your quest on this matter. It’s not going to make a difference. Sorry.
 

Llanigraham

On Moderation
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,490
Location
Powys
Hello Llanigraham.

Are you suggesting I should rephrase and resubmit as six separate and independent questions thus:

Please can you send me the latest 4 Inspection Record Sheets for the A5 where it crosses the OSWESTRY BRANCH LINE LEVEL CROSSING near the 5 junctions roundabout close to Oswestry in Shropshire.

Please can you send me the latest 4 Inspection Record Sheets for the A483 where it crosses the OSWESTRY BRANCH LINE LEVEL CROSSING at Weston close the Maesbury Crossroads near Oswestry in Shropshire.

Please can you send me the latest 4 Inspection Record Sheets for the A495 where it crosses the OSWESTRY BRANCH LINE LEVEL CROSSING at Porth-y-Waen near Blodwel in Shropshire.

Please can you send me the latest 4 Inspection Record Sheets for School Lane where it crosses the OSWESTRY BRANCH LINE LEVEL CROSSING at Porth-y-Waen near Blodwel in Shropshire.

Please can you send me the latest 4 Inspection Record Sheets for Thomas Savin Road in Oswestry where it crosses the OSWESTRY BRANCH LINE LEVEL CROSSING.

Please can you send me the latest 4 Inspection Record Sheets for Coney Green in Oswestry where it crosses the OSWESTRY BRANCH LINE LEVEL CROSSING in Oswestry.
Those are still much too generalised but you might get an answer.
However I fail to see what any of those questions have to do with the reopening of the line between Oswestry town and Gobowen. Some of them aren't even in that section. It does appear that you now more concerned with level crossing "safety" than the reopening.

If I may suggest, you’d do yourself a great favour if you stopped your quest on this matter. It’s not going to make a difference. Sorry.
Agreed!
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,658
Location
Northampton
Are you suggesting I should rephrase and resubmit as six separate and independent questions thus:
It is still extremely unclear what your ultimate objective is in this matter.

To rephrase the question - when will you know you have succeeded?
 

CambrianView

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2024
Messages
123
Location
Gobowen
@ zwk500, Bald Rick & Llanigraham.

This is an edited transcript of an email that was sent from an individual who will remain nameless, to the ORR some years ago:

"(me) of Oswestry has previously drawn your attention to the dangerous state of this crossing which is used daily by local residents, many elderly, and has sent you a newspaper report on injuries suffered by my wife, aged 84, when walking over the crossing with a three wheeled walking aid, the front wheel of which caught in the gap at the side of a rail in the crossing and threw her onto the adjacent track, badly bruising her shoulder and thigh. You have not acknowledged (my) letter under the misapprehension that if you ignore the problem it will go away. I am afraid it won't."

The "crossing" referred to in the email transcript immediately above is a pedestrian one at Coney Green in Oswestry. That's the only one used on a restored stretch of the Oswestry Branch Line. Following a further series of meetings and correspondence the ORR eventually agreed to recommend to the railway operator a set of flanges to be placed between the rails on the crossing when trains weren't using it. Given the voluntary nature of the railway operations the ORR had no powers to enforce their suggestion and the recommendations were never carried out.

Given that no provision has been made for walkers using a pedestrian level crossing on the line raises the question of who has responsibility for maintenance of the crossing here and on all the other crossings along the branch line (A5, A483 etc) all of which form part of the overall plan to restore the ENTIRE line from Gobowen to Blodwel as stated in the 2017 TWAO, to which both the ORR and Highways England objected ONLY to use of the A5 and A483 ON THE LEVEL.

No mention was ever made of who takes responsibility for safety and maintenance of ANY of the level crossings, used or otherwise, since Shropshire County Council purchased the entire line.

Network Rail takes safety and maintenance at level crossings extremely seriously.

So far I have failed to find any organization who undertakes basic safety checks of the level crossings along the Oswestry Branch Line. Indeed, the railway operator itself won't even acknowledge my inquiries.

I will be satisfied when I see some organization taking full responsibility for the safety and maintenance of the line so that all public crossings meet the standards set by Network Rail.
 

twpsaesneg

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2009
Messages
480
Please can you send me the latest 4 Inspection Record Sheets for the A5 where it crosses the OSWESTRY BRANCH LINE LEVEL CROSSING near the 5 junctions roundabout close to Oswestry in Shropshire.

Please can you send me the latest 4 Inspection Record Sheets for the A483 where it crosses the OSWESTRY BRANCH LINE LEVEL CROSSING at Weston close the Maesbury Crossroads near Oswestry in Shropshire.

Please can you send me the latest 4 Inspection Record Sheets for the A495 where it crosses the OSWESTRY BRANCH LINE LEVEL CROSSING at Porth-y-Waen near Blodwel in Shropshire.

Please can you send me the latest 4 Inspection Record Sheets for School Lane where it crosses the OSWESTRY BRANCH LINE LEVEL CROSSING at Porth-y-Waen near Blodwel in Shropshire.

Please can you send me the latest 4 Inspection Record Sheets for Thomas Savin Road in Oswestry where it crosses the OSWESTRY BRANCH LINE LEVEL CROSSING.

Please can you send me the latest 4 Inspection Record Sheets for Coney Green in Oswestry where it crosses the OSWESTRY BRANCH LINE LEVEL CROSSING in Oswestry.
From what you have posted earlier you've ascertained that the railway is now owned by the local council. As the owner of the asset they will ultimately be responsible for its safety of members of the public who are on it. There is however no duty upon them to maintain the level crossings in working order if trains aren't being run over them regardless of whether there is a TWAO in place or not. Whoever the Highway Authority is (could be local county council or Highways England depending on road) will have a duty to ensure that the road crossings are kept in suitable condition for vehicle use, and the local county council again has a duty to keep footpaths safe for use.

If you've noticed a specific fault then I'd suggest you report it to the relevant party as detailed above, or by using fixmystreet. Realistically that's all you can really do.

Note that the comment about the railway society not having responsibilities under the HASAW act because the don't have paid employees is complete bunkum, voluntary organisations have exactly the same responsibility in law as paying ones! However who has responsibility for maintaining the operational crossing with respect to rail safety will come down to what is in their lease with the council.
 

Llanigraham

On Moderation
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,490
Location
Powys
I am getting more and more confused over exactly what @CambrianView wants.

This thread opened to discuss the potential of opening the Oswestry - Gobowen line, and there has been some excellent discussion about that, from both sides, however we now seem to have moved onto a couple of level crossings, who owns them, how safe they are, and who maintains them. They are irrelevant at the present moment, and that will continue until there are solid proposals and even permission for the line to open, and work has started to recommision it. Then these crossings become relevant and important.

I would agree with @twpsaesneg that at the moment those crossings are generally the responsibility of Shrops CC, other than possibly the one over the A5/A483 trunk road, which I suspect falls with Highways England.

And starting to make enquiries about level crossings on the line that are beyond the section to be recommisioned seems to be pointless. If they cross sections of line that is currently used by the preservation group then I would have thought that the reponsibility fell to them, possibly in conjunction with Shrops CC as the owner/leaseholder. I would suspect that somewhere this has been agreed but isn't available to CambrianView.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,658
Location
Northampton
I am getting more and more confused over exactly what @CambrianView wants.
to be fair, they have recently clarified that their measure of success will be a clear identification of the responsibility for the level crossings. I agree that at first it was something rather different.
This thread opened to discuss the potential of opening the Oswestry - Gobowen line, and there has been some excellent discussion about that, from both sides, however we now seem to have moved onto a couple of level crossings, who owns them, how safe they are, and who maintains them. They are irrelevant at the present moment, and that will continue until there are solid proposals and even permission for the line to open, and work has started to recommision it. Then these crossings become relevant and important.

I would agree with @twpsaesneg that at the moment those crossings are generally the responsibility of Shrops CC, other than possibly the one over the A5/A483 trunk road, which I suspect falls with Highways England.

And starting to make enquiries about level crossings on the line that are beyond the section to be recommisioned seems to be pointless. If they cross sections of line that is currently used by the preservation group then I would have thought that the reponsibility fell to them, possibly in conjunction with Shrops CC as the owner/leaseholder. I would suspect that somewhere this has been agreed but isn't available to CambrianView.
I agree it's shifted quite a lot, and perhaps we need to separate the discussion of the Level crossing ownership into a new thread?
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
18,959
Location
Devon
I agree it's shifted quite a lot, and perhaps we need to separate the discussion of the Level crossing ownership into a new thread?

Yes, I was just looking at this and trying to work out what’s the best thing to do?

The crossings are related to this line from what I can see, so the problem about separating them into a different thread could be that we end up with things being duplicated.

Happy to split them, but not sure if it’s the right course of action basically!
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,658
Location
Northampton
Yes, I was just looking at this and trying to work out what’s the best thing to do?

The crossings are related to this line from what I can see, so the problem about separating them into a different thread could be that we end up with things being duplicated.

Happy to split them, but not sure if it’s the right course of action basically!
I don't know if others agree, but my sense is that the discussion of 'who owns/maintains the level crossings now' is what needs to be separated out from 'what needs to be done to level crossings to reopen the line'. Appreciate that editing/splitting all of the comments so far is no mean feat and it may be worth starting from post #256 (I think) where there is a vote to rephrase the question.
 

CambrianView

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2024
Messages
123
Location
Gobowen
I don't know if others agree, but my sense is that the discussion of 'who owns/maintains the level crossings now' is what needs to be separated out from 'what needs to be done to level crossings to reopen the line'. Appreciate that editing/splitting all of the comments so far is no mean feat and it may be worth starting from post #256 (I think) where there is a vote to rephrase the question.
To clarify, both the Highways Agency and the ORR withdrew their objections to the TWAO once it was accepted that the A5 and A483 would not be used on the level. The application was then resubmitted with plans included by the railway operator for a tunnel under the A5 and a bridge over the A483. It was agreed that all the other level crossings would be left for consideration as the restoration proceeded.

Only the pedestrian level crossing at Coney Green in Oswestry is currently being used by the railway operator and the public.

As an aside, this was being used to allow trains to be shunted out of the station yard and onto the Oswestry branch line long before the TWAO was granted using a Light Railway Order that specifically said that it was not for the use of transporting passengers. And yet the railway operator were using it to take paying passengers over the crossing on an "agreement" with the ORR that the authority singularly failed to produce any evidence of when challenged at the written correspondence stage of the TWAO.
 

Llanigraham

On Moderation
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,490
Location
Powys
To clarify, both the Highways Agency and the ORR withdrew their objections to the TWAO once it was accepted that the A5 and A483 would not be used on the level. The application was then resubmitted with plans included by the railway operator for a tunnel under the A5 and a bridge over the A483.
In that case your asking for info on that crossing is irrelevant, as you have confirmed it will not be used, but replaced by something else. It could be deemed to be vexatious if you keep asking, so I suggest you don't continue to do so.

It was agreed that all the other level crossings would be left for consideration as the restoration proceeded.
So until any restoration is formalised and started they are also irrelevant. You should only start enquiries as and when that has been confirmed.

Only the pedestrian level crossing at Coney Green in Oswestry is currently being used by the railway operator and the public.
Therefore that is the only one you should be enquiring about, but you have the problem which one of the several parties is responsible. Personally I would suspect it is the County Council, so suggest that you put pressure on your local Councillor to try and get an answer.

As an aside, this was being used to allow trains to be shunted out of the station yard and onto the Oswestry branch line long before the TWAO was granted using a Light Railway Order that specifically said that it was not for the use of transporting passengers. And yet the railway operator were using it to take paying passengers over the crossing on an "agreement" with the ORR that the authority singularly failed to produce any evidence of when challenged at the written correspondence stage of the TWAO.
That is the past, and I suspect that there is nothing that can be done about it now.
 

Llanigraham

On Moderation
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,490
Location
Powys
I don't know if others agree, but my sense is that the discussion of 'who owns/maintains the level crossings now' is what needs to be separated out from 'what needs to be done to level crossings to reopen the line'. Appreciate that editing/splitting all of the comments so far is no mean feat and it may be worth starting from post #256 (I think) where there is a vote to rephrase the question.
Agreed!
And I am doubtful that an answer is going to be forthcoming due to the complexities of all those involved.
 

CambrianView

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2024
Messages
123
Location
Gobowen
From what you have posted earlier you've ascertained that the railway is now owned by the local council. As the owner of the asset they will ultimately be responsible for its safety of members of the public who are on it. There is however no duty upon them to maintain the level crossings in working order if trains aren't being run over them regardless of whether there is a TWAO in place or not. Whoever the Highway Authority is (could be local county council or Highways England depending on road) will have a duty to ensure that the road crossings are kept in suitable condition for vehicle use, and the local county council again has a duty to keep footpaths safe for use.

If you've noticed a specific fault then I'd suggest you report it to the relevant party as detailed above, or by using fixmystreet. Realistically that's all you can really do.

Note that the comment about the railway society not having responsibilities under the HASAW act because the don't have paid employees is complete bunkum, voluntary organisations have exactly the same responsibility in law as paying ones! However who has responsibility for maintaining the operational crossing with respect to rail safety will come down to what is in their lease with the council.
Hello twpsaeneg (...interesting name).

Many thanks for your contribution. I've had a look into what you've suggested and can give some of my own feedback. Shropshire Council (the landowners) have admitted to me that it doesn't do any maintenance or safety inspections of any of the level crossings on the branch line. They are leaving it all to Network Rail (my response would be ???). I would speculate that Highways England could make any unused crossings on A roads 'safe' for the use of road traffic where a problem develops, especially where the crossing is unused - but I'm only guessing. For your information, of the 3 A roads that the branch line crosses, the A495 has tarmac covering the rails. On a side note, the landowner Shropshire Council were responsible for the construction of the one new level crossing on Thomas Savin Road in Oswestry that the SOBC identifies as "not strictly legal".

My understanding of the TWAO is that it transfers ALL the responsibilities for the maintenance of ALL rail over and rail under assets along the line to the railway operator, and that this is organized via the DfT and Secretary of State for Transport to the satisfaction of the rail regulator and Highways England. This, to my understanding means that the railway operator (a local charity) maintains not only the used pedestrian crossing at Coney Green in Oswestry, but also the (unused by train) crossings over all the A roads. It's not a case of maintaining the unused crossings for train use. It's about who maintains them for public/vehicular use.

I must admit that I have not seen the lease between the railway operator and the local authority, but I would expect this document to be confidential. In any effect, the document would have been drafted way before the TWAO.

As to fixmystreet, I've had a look at the site and call me a cynic but it doesn't look very effective. Also, the Coney Green pedestrian level crossing cannot be registered on the site, perhaps because it's a public right of way/footpath rather than a street.

And finally, Ester (wow! That phrase has a different ring to it in 2024!), some time ago I sent an email off to Rail Accident Investigation Branch as follows:
"My inquiry regards a stretch of line owned by my local authority and not by Network Rail, but it does involve the line crossing a number of A roads.

Perhaps you can clarify the legal position if I give you some information:

The 8.5 miles of line was sold by Railtrack to Shropshire County Council in 2005. The entire line was then leased at a peppercorn rate to a charity called Cambrian Heritage Railways, who operate entirely with volunteers on an approximate 2 miles stretch of restored line. The restored operational line has one pedestrian level crossing which is becoming increasingly difficult for people (particularly in mobility scooters and using pushchairs) to cross. The ORR were informed of the problem some years ago and recommended to the railway operator that flanges be put across the line for pedestrians when trains aren't running. This wasn't done.

There are other traffic level crossings along the, as yet unrestored, stretch of line most notably on the A5 and A483. The surface railing over the A5 are showing signs of decay, so I've been trying to ascertain who has maintenance responsibilities for these level crossings and if they are being managed as Network Rail manages its level crossings.

Shropshire Council said they don't own the level crossings and that Network Rail would be handling maintenance, the ORR say that as the railway operator relies on volunteers it has no responsibility for level crossings, the Railway Standards Board didn't know, the Department for Transport point the finger at the land owner, Network Rail say they don't do it and refer to Cambrian Heritage Railways and I've heard nothing from Highways England.

I feel there is an accident waiting to happen with all of these organisations pointing at each other and no actual safety or maintenance being done at these crucial areas of public crossing.

Please can you advise."

And the response from the RAIB:

"The Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) is the UK’s independent rail accident investigation body. By law, RAIB’s activities are limited to investigating accidents and incidents involving moving trains, or those closely associated with train operations. RAIB has no power to undertake investigations unless such an accident or incident has occurred.
This means that we are unfortunately not able to take any action with regards to the footpath crossing issues which you describe.

I realise that you have already contacted ORR about this matter as well as Shropshire County Council, the DfT, Network Rail, RSSB and the heritage railway involved. While I realise that it must be very frustrating to be passed between various parties, I am afraid that this covers all the organisations that we would have advised you to contact about this matter. Your Member of Parliament may be able to advise you further."
 

twpsaesneg

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2009
Messages
480
Shropshire Council (the landowners) have admitted to me that it doesn't do any maintenance or safety inspections of any of the level crossings on the branch line. They are leaving it all to Network Rail (my response would be ???). I would speculate that Highways England could make any unused crossings on A roads 'safe' for the use of road traffic where a problem develops, especially where the crossing is unused - but I'm only guessing.
I think the point I'm trying to make has been lost slightly.

If the crossings are disused, then there would not be any "maintenance or safety inspections" of the crossing equipment. They are disused. They don't need to be kept in working order.

There are plenty of examples of disused lines with level crossings still in Network Rail ownership where there has been no maintenance for many many years.
 

CambrianView

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2024
Messages
123
Location
Gobowen
I think the point I'm trying to make has been lost slightly.

If the crossings are disused, then there would not be any "maintenance or safety inspections" of the crossing equipment. They are disused. They don't need to be kept in working order.

There are plenty of examples of disused lines with level crossings still in Network Rail ownership where there has been no maintenance for many many years.
I'll clarify:

It's the surface, the part of the crossing that is used by vehicles, or people in the case of pedestrian crossing. These HAVE to be maintained otherwise you'd have people tripping or potential danger to the highway from lose rails/decaying surface.
 

twpsaesneg

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2009
Messages
480
I'll clarify:

It's the surface, the part of the crossing that is used by vehicles, or people in the case of pedestrian crossing. These HAVE to be maintained otherwise you'd have people tripping or potential danger to the highway from lose rails/decaying surface.
In that case the duty holder will be the highways authority which for for the non-trunk roads and footpath will be Shropshire Highways. Their website has a plethora of information regarding their inspection policies and response times etc.
Any defects would need to be resolved between the authority and the railway undertaking. Since Shropshire Council own the railway alignment as well, it should all be handled internally.

If you're looking at pursuing a claim regarding your wife's injury at the foot crossing you'd really be better off consulting with a personal injury solicitor, they will be able to make any relevant enquiries on your behalf and are likely to get a better response to be brutally honest.

Hope this information helps you get what you need.
 

CambrianView

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2024
Messages
123
Location
Gobowen
In that case the duty holder will be the highways authority which for for the non-trunk roads and footpath will be Shropshire Highways. Their website has a plethora of information regarding their inspection policies and response times etc.
Any defects would need to be resolved between the authority and the railway undertaking. Since Shropshire Council own the railway alignment as well, it should all be handled internally.

If you're looking at pursuing a claim regarding your wife's injury at the foot crossing you'd really be better off consulting with a personal injury solicitor, they will be able to make any relevant enquiries on your behalf and are likely to get a better response to be brutally honest.

Hope this information helps you get what you need.
Many thanks, twpsaesneg. I will certainly look into this, but I'll have to reiterate that Shropshire Highways have already told me just a month or two ago that they don't even do inspections of any of the crossings, citing it as Network Rail's responsibility.

I better take this opportunity to clarify my relationship to the elderly woman who fell on the Coney Green Pedestrian Level Crossing: She isn't my wife. I was just representing them in my approaches to the ORR to try and get some resolution to the problem. Helpfully, a kept a record of the correspondence:

15th April 2016
I receive a carbon copy of an email from the ORR to the complainant informing him that his complaint had been passed to I. Bertram.

20th June 2016
I contact the ORR on the complainants' behalf to ask when feedback can be expected from I. Bertram.

20th June 2016
The ORR informs me that concerns about the crossing have been emailed to I. Bertram.

27th August 2016
I contact the ORR informing them of the lack of feedback from I. Bertram.

6th September 2016
I receive an email from ORR offering to arrange a meeting between the ORR and me.

8th September 2016
I have a meeting with the complainant who informs me that no further correspondence had been received by him from the Office of Rail & Road since the original acknowledgement of 15th April 2016.

10th October 2016
A meeting with members of the Office of Rail & Road is held over 6 months after the complainant first contacted the department concerning the injury his wife sustained whilst crossing the Coney Green Pedestrian Level Crossing in Oswestry, and over 8 months since the incident occurred.

12th October 2016
Email from me to the ORR including photographs taken by me:
"Many thanks to you and Ian for meeting me on Monday.
You expressed an interest in seeing the photographs of the service I had seen operating underneath the Middleton Road Bridge in Oswestry over the August Bank Holiday of 2016. I've attached them along with the improvised buffer stop they were using at the end of the restored section of line".

13th October 2016
Email from the ORR to me:
"Good afternoon: thanks for this. I have discussed with a colleague who tells me that the railway can operate as far as Middleton Road Bridge but cannot go under it without the permission of the Highway Authority due to poor bridge deck condition.
As regards Coney Green crossing I have emailed yesterday the railway seeking further information which will enable me to consider the best way forwards. Their reply is awaited.
Happy to discuss".

5th November 2016
Email from me to the ORR with photographs attached:
"Following our meeting in October, I took a look at the Coney Green level crossing in Oswestry earlier this afternoon and saw no changes to improve it. However, Cambrian Heritage Railways Limited have extended the line further toward the Gas Works Bridge and were operating a steam service almost up to the buffer stop.
I've attached here photos I took this afternoon showing the improvised buffer stop and the train passing underneath the Middleton Road Bridge in Oswestry".

8th November 2016
Email from the ORR to me (with copy to I. Bertram):
Good morning and thanks for your email.
The original Act of Parliament is still in force permitting a railway. The new railway operator may operate under the highway providing it has the express permission of the Highway Authority. Middleton Road bridge is propped (me speaking in 2024: the ORR are wrong in this statement. In fact the Middleton Road Bridge in fine. It's the next one down the line, the Gas Works Bridge, which was propped) and this work was conducted by the Highways Authority, so permission is most important. A senior colleague within ORR was told by the Trust that they had secured the permission to operate as far as Weston Road Goods and under the road bridge.
I wrote to the railway at the end of October 2016 with regards to Coney Green pedestrian crossing and am awaiting reply.
I hope that this is of assistance.

7th December 2016
Email from me to the ORR
"Have you had any response yet from Cambrian Heritage Railways Limited regarding the correspondence you sent in October about the Coney Green Level Crossing in Oswestry?"

7th December 2016
Email from the ORR with copy sent to I. Bertram
"Yes – they wrote in on the 30th November and I have written subsequently to Shropshire Council via email asking they get in touch with me to discuss – awaited".

5th January 2017
Email from the ORR to me: "Good morning: I have spoken before Christmas with SCC and have today written to CHR as regards the crossing flangeways. I await their response".

8th February 2017
Email from me to the ORR: "I met the complainant yesterday regarding the state of the Coney Green level crossing in Oswestry. (He) assured me that he and is wife are not seeking any monetary compensation for the poor state of the crossing. They only require urgent repair work to be made so that it is more suitable for people using mobility aids. (He) himself is now using a mobility scooter now and described his anxiety using the machine whilst trying to negotiate the crossing. It is now over a year since (his wife) had an accident on the crossing".

10th February 2017
Email from the ORR to me:
"I have just reminded Cambrian Heritage Railway that I have not received a reply to my correspondence to them of early January 2017. I have asked them to get back to me as to what actions they intend".

17th March 2017
Email from me to the ORR:
"Have you had a response from Cambrian that I can pass on to (the complainant) yet?"

28th March 2017
Email from the ORR to me:
"We have had a response and we are considering it at present. I will revert to you as soon as I can".

Despite monthly reminders to the ORR for an update on the situation no further correspondence was received either by me or the complainant. No correspondence has been received from I. Bertram since site the meeting in October 2016.

No improvements were ever made to the crossing.

Comment from me in 2024: Government regulators...they get such a bad press!
 
Joined
1 Feb 2018
Messages
132
Many thanks, twpsaesneg. I will certainly look into this, but I'll have to reiterate that Shropshire Highways have already told me just a month or two ago that they don't even do inspections of any of the crossings, citing it as Network Rail's responsibility.

I better take this opportunity to clarify my relationship to the elderly woman who fell on the Coney Green Pedestrian Level Crossing: She isn't my wife. I was just representing them in my approaches to the ORR to try and get some resolution to the problem. Helpfully, a kept a record of the correspondence:

15th April 2016
I receive a carbon copy of an email from the ORR to the complainant informing him that his complaint had been passed to I. Bertram.

20th June 2016
I contact the ORR on the complainants' behalf to ask when feedback can be expected from I. Bertram.

20th June 2016
The ORR informs me that concerns about the crossing have been emailed to I. Bertram.

27th August 2016
I contact the ORR informing them of the lack of feedback from I. Bertram.

6th September 2016
I receive an email from ORR offering to arrange a meeting between the ORR and me.

8th September 2016
I have a meeting with the complainant who informs me that no further correspondence had been received by him from the Office of Rail & Road since the original acknowledgement of 15th April 2016.

10th October 2016
A meeting with members of the Office of Rail & Road is held over 6 months after the complainant first contacted the department concerning the injury his wife sustained whilst crossing the Coney Green Pedestrian Level Crossing in Oswestry, and over 8 months since the incident occurred.

12th October 2016
Email from me to the ORR including photographs taken by me:
"Many thanks to you and Ian for meeting me on Monday.
You expressed an interest in seeing the photographs of the service I had seen operating underneath the Middleton Road Bridge in Oswestry over the August Bank Holiday of 2016. I've attached them along with the improvised buffer stop they were using at the end of the restored section of line".

13th October 2016
Email from the ORR to me:
"Good afternoon: thanks for this. I have discussed with a colleague who tells me that the railway can operate as far as Middleton Road Bridge but cannot go under it without the permission of the Highway Authority due to poor bridge deck condition.
As regards Coney Green crossing I have emailed yesterday the railway seeking further information which will enable me to consider the best way forwards. Their reply is awaited.
Happy to discuss".

5th November 2016
Email from me to the ORR with photographs attached:
"Following our meeting in October, I took a look at the Coney Green level crossing in Oswestry earlier this afternoon and saw no changes to improve it. However, Cambrian Heritage Railways Limited have extended the line further toward the Gas Works Bridge and were operating a steam service almost up to the buffer stop.
I've attached here photos I took this afternoon showing the improvised buffer stop and the train passing underneath the Middleton Road Bridge in Oswestry".

8th November 2016
Email from the ORR to me (with copy to I. Bertram):
Good morning and thanks for your email.
The original Act of Parliament is still in force permitting a railway. The new railway operator may operate under the highway providing it has the express permission of the Highway Authority. Middleton Road bridge is propped (me speaking in 2024: the ORR are wrong in this statement. In fact the Middleton Road Bridge in fine. It's the next one down the line, the Gas Works Bridge, which was propped) and this work was conducted by the Highways Authority, so permission is most important. A senior colleague within ORR was told by the Trust that they had secured the permission to operate as far as Weston Road Goods and under the road bridge.
I wrote to the railway at the end of October 2016 with regards to Coney Green pedestrian crossing and am awaiting reply.
I hope that this is of assistance.

7th December 2016
Email from me to the ORR
"Have you had any response yet from Cambrian Heritage Railways Limited regarding the correspondence you sent in October about the Coney Green Level Crossing in Oswestry?"

7th December 2016
Email from the ORR with copy sent to I. Bertram
"Yes – they wrote in on the 30th November and I have written subsequently to Shropshire Council via email asking they get in touch with me to discuss – awaited".

5th January 2017
Email from the ORR to me: "Good morning: I have spoken before Christmas with SCC and have today written to CHR as regards the crossing flangeways. I await their response".

8th February 2017
Email from me to the ORR: "I met the complainant yesterday regarding the state of the Coney Green level crossing in Oswestry. (He) assured me that he and is wife are not seeking any monetary compensation for the poor state of the crossing. They only require urgent repair work to be made so that it is more suitable for people using mobility aids. (He) himself is now using a mobility scooter now and described his anxiety using the machine whilst trying to negotiate the crossing. It is now over a year since (his wife) had an accident on the crossing".

10th February 2017
Email from the ORR to me:
"I have just reminded Cambrian Heritage Railway that I have not received a reply to my correspondence to them of early January 2017. I have asked them to get back to me as to what actions they intend".

17th March 2017
Email from me to the ORR:
"Have you had a response from Cambrian that I can pass on to (the complainant) yet?"

28th March 2017
Email from the ORR to me:
"We have had a response and we are considering it at present. I will revert to you as soon as I can".

Despite monthly reminders to the ORR for an update on the situation no further correspondence was received either by me or the complainant. No correspondence has been received from I. Bertram since site the meeting in October 2016.

No improvements were ever made to the crossing.

Comment from me in 2024: Government regulators...they get such a bad press!
Im very sorry if someone close to you was injured on this crossing, but can we please get back on topic?

On a lighter note, try painting an england flag on the footpath crossing, see who turns up to clear it off, then youll know who is responsable for maintenance
 

Llanigraham

On Moderation
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,490
Location
Powys
I'm getting more and more confused!
Is this thread about the restoration of the Oswestry - Gobowen railway line, as per the title, or is it actually about some alleged injury on a foot crossing over a disused but possibly restorable railway line?
My feeling it is the latter.
I pity the Admin staff here if they have to split this thread up into the two different discussions, if that is the case.
 

CambrianView

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2024
Messages
123
Location
Gobowen
@ Enrique: Yes, you've got to laugh.

Earlier this month I asked National Highways for some very specific information:

Please send me the latest (2024) Inspection Record Sheets for the following sections of public highways:
1. The level crossing over the A5 at Pentreclawdd between Oswestry and Gobowen,
Shropshire.
2. The level crossing over the A483 at Weston close to Oswestry, Shropshire.
3. The level crossings over the A495 and at School Lane both at Porthywaen,
Shropshire.
4. The level crossing on Thomas Savin Road in Oswestry, Shropshire.
5. The pedestrian level crossing at Coney Green in Oswestry, Shropshire.

And National Highways response: "National Highways manage the strategic road network (SRN) in England, comprising motorways and some A roads. The remainder of the road network is managed by the relevant local highway authorities, the level crossings themselves are managed by Network Rail".
 

Llanigraham

On Moderation
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,490
Location
Powys
@ Enrique: Yes, you've got to laugh.

Earlier this month I asked National Highways for some very specific information:

Please send me the latest (2024) Inspection Record Sheets for the following sections of public highways:
1. The level crossing over the A5 at Pentreclawdd between Oswestry and Gobowen,
Shropshire.

2. The level crossing over the A483 at Weston close to Oswestry, Shropshire.
3. The level crossings over the A495 and at School Lane both at Porthywaen,
Shropshire.
4. The level crossing on Thomas Savin Road in Oswestry, Shropshire.
5. The pedestrian level crossing at Coney Green in Oswestry, Shropshire.

And National Highways response: "National Highways manage the strategic road network (SRN) in England, comprising motorways and some A roads. The remainder of the road network is managed by the relevant local highway authorities, the level crossings themselves are managed by Network Rail".
The only two of those that has any relevance to the reopening mentioned in the title of this thread is the first and fourth ones, (highlighted by me) and as has been stated previously your question is far too generalised. None of the others have any relevance as they do not cross the section of line that is being discussed for reopening so I cannot understand why you are asking about them.
 

CambrianView

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2024
Messages
123
Location
Gobowen
The story so far…

Once upon a time, long ago and in a far-off land called North Shropshire a wise and incorruptible King called Owen Paterson discovered that Railtrack wanted to sell off some of its remaining assets. Paterson had his eye on some old railway sidings as a place to build a shiny new medical centre for the small hamlet of Oswestry (the community had been gifted a district hospital, but it had been run down and bulldozed to make way for some shiny new private apartments – but that’s another story).

He also wanted to build some unimportant business units on the site, but there was no access so a new route would have to be created over a disused railway line. King Paterson persuaded Shropshire County Council to purchase the land, along with 8 miles of track, giving 3 reasons: Access to the new development, restoration of the Oswestry branch railway line (linking it to the main line in Gobowen), and some silly cycle route, despite a county council commissioned report saying that restoring the line could have a negative impact on bus services in the area and probably wouldn’t be financially viable.

But one day an evil witch cursed the whole project by proving that the land was contaminated and could not be used for development, so the council turned it into a children’s play area instead. A rundown building close by named the Cambrian Works was developed into a new medical centre magically called The Cambrian Medical Centre. It already had an access way over the railway, so the council spent some money installing a new one with a complex 3 way light controlled junction from the main road to the small car park that completely failed to provide adequate parking capacity for the centre.

Meanwhile, Shropshire County Council were busy creating a railway company/charity out of two antagonistic clubs that operated very limited services on 2 separate and unconnected stretches of the same line. With the help of Good King Paterson the Cross Border of Tourism Ltd and Cambrian Heritages Railways was formed, paid Directors installed, unemployed volunteers recruited to do the hard, physical work whilst councillors and MPs chaired steering group meetings.

The long process of restoring the line commenced, with Shropshire Council and Oswestry Town Council supporting the project because it will “bring many jobs to the town”. Shropshire Council allowed the new businesses to use its assets (the line, the works yard and the old station) for a peppercorn rate.

CHR even started running paid passenger services almost yards down the line using an old diesel shunter and a guard’s carriage coupled to their close relationship with the Office of Rail & Road (who managed to turn a blind eye to the service despite its direct flouting of an agreement not to take paid passengers over level crossings – there’s one right outside the yard on a restored bit of line).

Then, in 2012 CHR thought it was time to apply for a Transport and Works Act Order, giving them powers to run a service over level crossings – legitimately - and responsibilities for all rail over road and road over rail assets. Making absolutely sure that the existing trustees were well and truly ensconced in their positions the board proceeded with the application partly match funded by a grant from the Sustainable Transport Fund from their influence over Shropshire Council on the Department for Transport.

Some people of the land questioned how CHR would get an operational train and carriage over the level crossing on the A5 (a little used main trunk road from London to Holyhead) that cut across the line between Oswestry and Gobowen, but CHR reassured everyone that as the line was “built before the road” it had priority, and in any case, the rusted barriers could be brought down and the train cross in under 2 minutes. Alas, the ORR had a policy of no new or reinstated level crossings on the network. Unperturbed, CHR proceeded with the application and managed to succeed, despite the laser like scrutiny of then Transport Minister Chris Grayling.

During the application many correspondences were passed between individuals and government departments, including the ORR and the Department for Transport. In one, the ORR admitted – despite its close relationship - that the CHR application failed to mention the number of other level crossings on the line and the complex nature of the one into the Minor Injuries Unit at the Cambrian Medical Centre. The application was granted after the ORR stipulated that crossing the A5 and the A483 would not be done on the level (necessitating the construction of a bridge and a tunnel) and that a decision regarding the access to the Medical Centre would be done…at…some…later… point…

Sadly, a few years ago Good King Paterson had to leave the Kingdom to do charity work and was replaced by Good Queen Morgan, who answers all her emails and sends lots and lots of flyers out. The Queen also thinks the restoration of the line will bring love, happiness and jobs to the town, despite the rising cost to local rate/tax payers and the potential cost of tunnels and bridges over the main roads not even factored in.

In 2024 it was announced that £630,000 of funding was being made available to the Old Oswestry Railway Station to restore its crumbling exterior. More funding was required as the total estimate for (just) the exterior was £900,000 – and this is the 2nd time the building has been renovated. For some years now it has been empty and shrouded in scaffolding to prevent bits of it falling on passers-by, but it has been used for flats, a chocolate factory/retailer, a pharmacy and by…CHR. Shropshire Council have not yet identified users of the building once it has been restored, but it won’t be Tesco’s as they objected to the supermarket taking it on prior to the authority buying the land from Advantage West Midlands. Using its special relationship with Shropshire Council, CHR managed to renegotiate its contract with the authority and now no longer has responsibility for the maintenance of the interior, and centre of their operations.

Will former HS2 funds be used to construct a bridge/tunnel over the A5 to connect a single line service from Oswestry to the main line? Where is the “robust business plan” that argues for the restoration case? What happened to the document from the Secretary of State for Transport allowing a passenger service in Oswestry prior to 2017? Who does safety checks on level crossings over the A5 and A483? Who does the repairs if damage is done to the level crossings at the A5 and A483? Where is the independent report that concludes that a restored line would increase jobs in Oswestry and reduce reliance on car use? How much public money has this small heritage railway charity benefited from to date?

And so, my tale ends. This is the story of MPs, councils, and government departments all shuffling public money around in circles.
 

Mark J

Member
Joined
12 May 2018
Messages
660
It is pretty obvious that Oswestry requires a rail link.

Rather than this usual 'messing around' with studies, consultations and red tape. Should be getting on with it.

Costs only go one way each year, certainly isn't downwards!
 

CambrianView

Member
Joined
1 Feb 2024
Messages
123
Location
Gobowen
I'm copying and pasting a transcript of the conversation taken from the website UK Parliament that took place on Wednesday 11th September 2024 between our local LibDem MP, Helen Morgan (fighting the case for restoring the line) and and Lilian Greenwood, Under-Secretary of State for Transport:

4.00pm

Valerie Vai (in the Chair)
I will call Helen Morgan to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)I beg to move, that this House has considered the Oswestry to Gobowen railway line.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. This is an important subject for my constituents in the lovely town of Oswestry and the nearby village of Gobowen. Oswestry has a population of approximately 17,000 people. It is the second largest town in Shropshire and is of huge importance to the border region, but economic potential there is being stunted by poor public transport, which plagues the whole of Shropshire.

People who live in Oswestry are forced to rely on a bus or car to get to Gobowen railway station just up the road to access connections to larger economic centres, such as Shrewsbury, Liverpool or Manchester. What about someone who does not have a car and works in Chester? They will need to leave home by 7 am to get to the office for 9 o’clock—a journey that takes about 45 minutes in a car. Someone travelling further afield and returning late would need to get a taxi back from the station because the buses do not run outside regular hours, and that is if they can track down a taxi, which is another problem for another debate.

Oswestry was once a proud railway town. The railway station was on the main line of the Cambrian railway and, at one stage, it housed the headquarters of the Cambrian Railways Company. Unfortunately, it was a victim of the Beeching cuts, and there has been no connection to the main line from Oswestry since 1966. That is why the news that the restoring your railway fund would be used to reopen the line between Gobowen and Oswestry was so well received locally; and why the news that the Government wanted to scrap the funding, without even examining the new business case, has been such a huge disappointment. From healthcare and high streets to the environment and the economy, I cannot overstate what a transformational impact reopening the line would have on our area.

Poor public transport removes opportunity. It hinders young people, limiting their options for further and higher education and restricting their access to culture and leisure. In short, barriers to mobility are barriers to social mobility. During a recent visit to the jobcentre in Oswestry, the brilliant staff there told me that the No. 1 barrier to people accessing work is poor public transport. Meanwhile, I have spoken to businesses in Oswestry that have reported real difficulties in recruiting. They need to be able to attract people to work from a much wider area than Oswestry and not just those who have access to a private car. That means we are in the ridiculous situation where employers cannot recruit and jobseekers cannot find jobs to match their skills because of the same problem of poor public transport.

Let us take the outstanding Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital near Gobowen: it has such a fine reputation that it has no trouble attracting high-quality staff, but the problem is that it cannot get people to and from their shifts early and late because there is no public transport, so if they do not have a car, the job will not work for them. Reopening the line would include a halt at the hospital. That would help to swell staff numbers and ease access for patients, many of whom are elderly, do not have access to a car and have to rely on the good will of friends to get to appointments on time. The hospital is a national resource: people come from across the country to access the excellent care there, including from the veterans’ centre, and railway access for them would be a huge bonus.

It is not just me who thinks that this is a great project. Feedback from the Department for Transport on the strategic outline business case acknowledged the importance of all of this:

“Oswestry is the second largest employment area in Shropshire, and unemployment in Oswestry is higher than the average in Shropshire. Productivity—the ability to match jobs with labour across North Shropshire—is a particularly pertinent issue. The growth in vacancies has been significant in Oswestry and Gobowen in recent years, which is exacerbated by the low population density and ageing populations of these areas.”

Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage)
Does my hon. Friend agree that many railway reopenings in the last 20 years have seen significantly higher use than expected? They include the Ebbw Vale line, which achieved year four ridership by the end of year one, Larkhall in Scotland, where demand was 26% higher than forecast, and the Borders railway, which saw a doubling of demand in the first month, compared with plan, and extra coaches and car parking needed.
Helen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his really good intervention. It is true that we tend to underestimate the passenger numbers on the newly reopened lines, and the benefits are probably in excess of the business cases that have supported them. I will come to further developments on this line later, so I am grateful to him for making that point.

Public transport is critical to the issue of productivity, growth and matching jobs with people who want to do them, so this line will be really important for job creation, education opportunities and economic growth in a rural area that has huge potential but is currently not meeting that potential. It will also be a huge boost to the regeneration of Oswestry’s beautiful and historic town centre. Oswestry already boasts a large number of independent shops and a relatively low number of vacant units. On the border between England and Wales, the town has a rich cultural history, a large number of native Welsh speakers and the potential to really thrive in the future.

The area surrounding the station is planned to become a transport hub for the town, and the listed station building is undergoing works to ensure that it is structurally sound and fit for the future, but it will need tenants inside it. A fully operating station has the potential to unlock private investment in the area, to regenerate this important transport gateway to Oswestry, only a few minutes’ walk from the centre of town, and to provide crucial facilities, such as public toilets and a café, that would make connecting bus services into the rural area beyond much more viable. One of the big issues that local bus providers have with providing services in the area is that there is not a public toilet for their drivers to use when they stop over. That really hinders the ability for them to provide a decent bus service.

People who live in Oswestry are largely dependent on their car. Linking local bus and rail services will reduce congestion and emissions and open a world of opportunity for those who, for whatever reason, are unable to access a car or drive one. As I said, it is not just me who thinks the reopening is a good idea. The DFT’s feedback on the strategic outline business case was extremely positive, saying that it was a “strong strategic case”, that the “proposal aligns to various local plans over the past decade”, and that the “appraisal outputs presented in the economic case show that all options yield ‘Very High and Financially Positive’ value for money”.

Crucially, the project is expected to bring in more cash than it would cost to set up. That clear value for money is in stark contrast to the three other restoring your railway schemes approved by the previous Government last October, which were judged to offer poor value for money at best. It was the strong business case that persuaded the DFT to commit to funding the project through to delivery. To come to my hon. Friend’s point, when the business case was put together, it did not factor in the likelihood of the new Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway Company to provide a direct service on the line from Gobowen to London. If that service goes ahead—I very much hope that it will—the benefits for Oswestry will be even greater.

There has been some local opposition. Some people have argued that we could just run a shuttle bus, seemingly unaware that there already is one. But the shuttle bus has not worked: it does not run in the evening or early morning; it is frequently delayed by congestion on the A5, which has to be crossed to get to the station; and sometimes it just does not turn up at all. It certainly will not unlock the economic regeneration of the transport hub in the centre of Oswestry that the rail reopening promises. It is also really expensive to travel by bus and train, because people need two different tickets. Perhaps most importantly, whether it is for an urgent appointment at the orthopaedic hospital or an overnight shift at nearby Derwen college, people cannot trust a bus that will not get them there on time.

I welcome this week’s announcement that local authorities will be given the powers to franchise their own bus services. If that happens in Shropshire, we will see huge benefits across the whole of my constituency—for the many villages that have no service at all, and towns such as Market Drayton and Ellesmere, for which reconnection to the railway is desirable but not realistically possible. But we cannot pin our hopes on that. Given that the funding for all this brilliant new public transport remains unclear and uncommitted, it seems highly unlikely that Shropshire’s Conservative-run council will take on the revenue strain of start-up bus services. The council forecasts that it will balance its books this year by using up all its reserves, unless it can find a further £38 million of cuts, which would be on top of £58 million last year and £30 million already delivered this year.

The ambition should also be to link rail and bus services, so that people can genuinely consider leaving their car at home because the alternative is reliable, convenient and affordable. The Oswestry to Gobowen line uses a railway line that is already there. It obviously needs to be upgraded if it is to be usable once more, but because it has not been built over, there is space for a footpath or cycle path to go alongside. The benefits of active travel are well documented, and they could be exploited here if the scheme goes ahead.

The project has a capital cost of between £5 million and £15 million, and ongoing operating costs of £196,000 per annum. Critically, it is forecast to be cash-positive over the appraisal period. Local critics have highlighted the potential disruption caused by it crossing the A5, but it is important to emphasise that nobody is proposing to run a slow, steam heritage train over a major level crossing. The proposal involves very little disruption and many benefits. Indeed, it is difficult to see any justification for axing the project.

The Government have said that they want to grow the economy, improve education, clear NHS backlogs and clean up the environment, but they are potentially blocking a scheme that would help to achieve all those objectives. Shropshire is one of the worst-served counties in England for public transport, with only one bus route running on a Sunday in the whole county, and the loss of more bus miles since 2015 than any other county in England. There are huge barriers in place to realising Shropshire’s potential, and the project would help to remove one of them. It would enable local businesses to find quality candidates for the vacancies that they cannot fill, it would remove a huge barrier for those without a car who are seeking work beyond the boundaries of their immediate area,and it would enable young people and those wanting to develop new skills to access a far greater range of educational provision.

It would also unlock investment and regeneration in an important regional town centre. We cannot regenerate growth, jobs, skills and investment if a town is isolated from the rest of its region. That is why the previous Government promised to fund the project, and why the new Government should, too. I urge the Minister to come to Oswestry to see the wonderful potential of this historic market town and the additional value that the railway would bring to it. She should urgently reconsider the decision to remove funding from this fantastic project.

4.12pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing today’s debate on the Oswestry to Gobowen project, and I thank her for the thoughtful and important points that she made both today and in her previous campaigning work on the issue. I have read her correspondence with my noble Friend the Minister for Rail and with previous Ministers in the Department.

I understand the hon. Lady’s argument about the problems with connectivity between Oswestry and Gobowen, particularly for those who have no access to private vehicles or do not wish to drive. I appreciate the importance of good public transport connections in the area, including for patients, staff and visitors travelling to the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital, whether from the local area or from further afield. We want to ensure that people can access the public services they need, and they should not need private transport to do so.

My Department is committed to putting transport at the heart of mission-driven government. We aim to support economic growth by transforming infrastructure so that it works for the whole country, and we aim to improve connectivity to promote social mobility, as the hon. Lady said, and tackle regional inequality, particularly in terms of access to healthcare, jobs and homes. She described the difficulties that her constituents face in reaching the places where they can obtain opportunities for work, wider opportunities for study and education, and, indeed, enjoy leisure and culture activities. That is why transport is so important—because of the opportunities that it opens up for people, including to improve their wellbeing.

However, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in her speech to the House on 29 July, the Government have been forced to address the economic inheritance that we have been left by the last Government, which includes that £22 billion black hole in the country’s finances this year alone. That includes £2.9 billion of transport projects that were committed to despite the last Government knowing, full well, that they were unaffordable. I completely understand that the announcement of the difficult decision to close the restoring your railway programme has caused disappointment. I assure the hon. Member that that decision was not taken lightly.

As the Chancellor set out, individual restoring your railway projects will be considered as part of preparations for the spending review and wider spending decisions for the Department. But as the hon. Member will know from her correspondence with my noble Friend the Minister for Rail, it will not be possible for all transport projects, particularly those not yet in delivery, to continue. I am afraid that that is the difficult reality of the position that we find ourselves in, and I wish that it was not so.

The restoring your railway programme attracted considerable interest when it was launched by the last Government in January 2020, and the Department for Transport received more than 140 individual applications for funding to help to support the development of early-stage business cases. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) that new services can be very popular and successful; there is a real appetite in communities up and down the country for new public transport services, in order to better connect people to the places that they want and need to go to. At the close of the final funding round in September 2021, the programme was heavily oversubscribed.

In the case of the Oswestry to Gobowen project, the previous Government announced, under their Network North initiative, that the project would proceed to delivery, subject to successful business cases. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has previously set out, there was a clear gap between promised projects and the money available to deliver them. The previous Government should have been up-front and frank about this, and they absolutely were not.

I want, of course, to thank all hon. Members who sponsored and campaigned for individual former restoring your railway projects for their patience and efforts over the years. I completely appreciate the frustration expressed about the lack of news on next steps—and that is reflected in the hon. Member for North Shropshire’s previous correspondence with the Department under the previous Government—because, undoubtedly, it felt incredibly slow at times. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ordered a review of the Department’s capital spend portfolio. That will move quickly to produce recommendations about current and future schemes and end the uncertainty that the previous Government created.

We also need to be clear that this Government’s approach to how transport projects can be funded is based on local leaders and local transport authorities knowing best what projects to pursue in order to further the needs of their constituents. It is absolutely crucial that local stakeholders work together to provide affordable and reliable services for the communities they serve, and that should include better integration between different modes of transport. The hon. Member highlighted the potential of an integrated transport hub and the desire for better walking and cycling provision, which of course would provide not only transport benefits but health and wellbeing benefits. I hope that her local authority can explore those options further.

The hon. Member made strong points about the quality—or rather, the lack of quality—of bus service provision in her area. As we both know, under the last Government thousands of bus services saw reduced frequency or were cut altogether, leaving many towns and villages without adequate, reliable and affordable public transport. We recognise that situation and are determined to do something about it.

I was really pleased to hear the hon. Member’s welcome for the Government’s pledge to deliver better bus services for passengers, which includes making franchising easier and quicker, removing the ideological ban on new municipal bus companies, and reforming funding for bus services to give more control and flexibility to local leaders to deliver their local priorities. I understand what she said about the Conservative-led county council and its appetite for such change, but I am sure that she and her constituents will make their point very clearly to those who seek to represent them at that level.

Helen Morgan Bearing in mind that local councils are a hair’s breadth away from issuing section 114 notices and are only likely to deliver statutory services in their area, what kind of additional funding will be available from the Government for them to be able to franchise their own bus services? I ask that because it seems to me that it is all very well councils having the power to deliver such services, but unless they have the funding to do so, it will not bring about the results that we would like to see.

Lilian Greenwood I thank the hon. Member for her question and of course she is absolutely right to highlight the very difficult position that many local authorities find themselves in after 14 years of Conservative Governments. That is precisely why growing the economy and the ability to improve our public services is one of this Government’s key missions. To achieve that, we need to make sure that the foundations are strong, and setting our economy on the right track is the first part of that process.

However, we will of course say more about support for transport as part of the spending review and we will work with local authorities to understand what is needed to improve and grow their bus networks, learning from their experiences and building on their successes to ensure that local networks can meet the needs of the communities who rely on them.

As we undertake vital reforms to the sector, including through the introduction of the Buses Bill, we will ensure that stakeholders are properly engaged with the proposals, and I look forward to the hon. Member participating in the debates about how we can do that as we go forward.

I thank the hon. Member again for securing this debate and offer her my support and that of my ministerial colleagues to work with her to improve the transport network in her constituency, and right across the country. As she recognised, transport is a vital enabler of jobs, opportunities and growth, and I am sure that we share the desire to see that for North Shropshire and indeed the whole country.

Question put and agreed to.

4.23pm
Sitting suspended.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,742
I still don't understand what this thread is all about, or what its trying to acheive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top