• 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!

Nottingham Station: Access to platforms from footbridge

Status
Not open for further replies.

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,693
Location
Nottingham
When I used to commute daily from Nottingham, my train was regularly (sometimes every day) changed to another platform across the bridge as little as *one minute* before it was due to depart. If the bridge had been closed then, the vast majority of passengers would have been left behind (or the train would have been regularly delayed). When arriving at or leaving the station, having the bridge closed can be inconvenient but basically means just allowing a few minutes extra; but when getting a tight connection or a re-platformed service, the difference is much more critical and likely to lead to a missed train and a wait of maybe an hour.

Anyhow, they've done their experiment, now we wait while EMR digest the results. Maybe with all the pushback they will come up with a better solution.
That's actually a reason not to do late platform changes, not in itself a reason to keep the footbridge platform access. As a (presumably) able bodied commuter with no luggage and not accompanied by small children, you are much quicker changing platforms via this bridge. But the existence of the "centre" bridge is irrelevant to those encumbered groups. It follows, I think, that Advances should be honoured and Delay Repay paid out if the train in question is re-platformed at short notice, whether the bridge is available or not.
Meanwhile, after 3 weeks of comparative peace and quiet and very few issues, within 3 days of it being reopened we are back to:

On the trains:

Belligerent kids (my mum is sending me my ticket, which never appears)

Druggies on runs (I've got no money, you'll have to fine me)

"I've just got out of hospital/a police cell/I've lost my wallet/my phone is dead"

Beggars on the platforms.

Vagrants in the toilets.

The difference is nIght and day. Regardless of the more sophisticated fare evaders, these particular trouble makers just didn't bother when they couldn't get in.

Therefore the solution needs to prevent general access to the station by anyone who takes their fancy, whilst not overly inconveniencing everyone else.

Tricky!
Perhaps EMR should consider some PR to say if they aren't allowed to extinguish the right of way, then either they have to put up with this sort of thing or everyone will have to go the long way between platforms. The diversion of right of way users via the front of the station is only a bit longer than the diversion of a likely much larger group changing platforms.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

duffield

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2013
Messages
3,294
Location
East Midlands
I think the specific issue was a late platform change at the start of the journey.
In that case, I've no idea how delay repay (and being permitted to travel on the next service if you miss your advance booking) actually works according to how the railway rules are worded or how they are applied in practice, but I do have a view on how they should work.

In both cases, if you miss your train due to a late platform change occurring in a time which is less than the official minimum connection time for that station, it should be treated in the same way as if you missed a connection due to your incoming service being late, regardless of whether you were changing or originating at that point, in other words treated as the fault of "the railway", not you.

I wonder if anyone here has claimed delay repay after missing their train purely due to a late platform change and if so, how difficult it was?
 

50002Superb

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2021
Messages
2,110
Location
Nottingham
Meanwhile, after 3 weeks of comparative peace and quiet and very few issues, within 3 days of it being reopened we are back to:

On the trains:

Belligerent kids (my mum is sending me my ticket, which never appears)

Druggies on runs (I've got no money, you'll have to fine me)

"I've just got out of hospital/a police cell/I've lost my wallet/my phone is dead"

Beggars on the platforms.

Vagrants in the toilets.

The difference is nIght and day. Regardless of the more sophisticated fare evaders, these particular trouble makers just didn't bother when they couldn't get in.

Therefore the solution needs to prevent general access to the station by anyone who takes their fancy, whilst not overly inconveniencing everyone else.

Tricky!
But over time the current restrictions won’t impact the above?

Those inclined to do so simply go via the Bridge to platform seven and then along the platform and up the main bridge to reach their platform, toilets, etc?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I assume you're talking about the case where you are arriving on one train and then changing to a different service on which you have an advance booking? In that case, if you are on an official itinerary and your incoming train arrives with at least the official connection time remaining (7 minutes has been quoted) you should have enough time to change regardless of whether the footbridge is open; if your incoming train is delayed such that you have less than the official connection time and miss the connection as a result, whether this is due to the footbridge being closed or not should not affect the situation - I understand (but am not an expert in these matters) you should be able to travel on the next train without buying a new ticket and also potentially claim delay repay. Of course, if you're relying on an unofficial connection with tickets bought not as part of an itinerary then yes, you would have to buy a new ticket as you would if you missed your advance booking by turning up late at the station.

Or to put it more concisely, the footbridge being closed increases the chances of you missing your connection but shouldn't cause you to have to buy a new ticket as a result (as long as you have an official connection).
I don’t think that my 82 year old mother in law, who regularly travels to Margate via St Pancras with a case, would have been able to change platforms in the same circumstances in seven minutes personally.
 

duffield

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2013
Messages
3,294
Location
East Midlands
But over time the current restrictions won’t impact the above?

Those inclined to do so simply go via the Bridge to platform seven and then along the platform and up the main bridge to reach their platform, toilets, etc?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


I don’t think that my 82 year old mother in law, who regularly travels to Margate via St Pancras with a case, would have been able to change platforms in the same circumstances in seven minutes personally.
But given that people with heavy luggage and/or mobility issues may well need to use the lifts anyhow, the closure or otherwise of the non-accessible footbridge won't make any difference to them, and in that case it's the question of whether 7 minutes is sufficient for changing at Nottingham via the lifts, and the answer is that it probably isn't.

P2 to P4 via the lifts for example probably needs at least 10 minutes, maybe more. However, changing platforms via the lifts at any station can take a very extended amount of time if it's busy and you need to queue for them; it's very difficult to put an upper limit on the minimum change time in such cases.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,693
Location
Nottingham
But given that people with heavy luggage and/or mobility issues may well need to use the lifts anyhow, the closure or otherwise of the non-accessible footbridge won't make any difference to them, and in that case it's the question of whether 7 minutes is sufficient for changing at Nottingham via the lifts, and the answer is that it probably isn't.

P2 to P4 via the lifts for example probably needs at least 10 minutes, maybe more. However, changing platforms via the lifts at any station can take a very extended amount of time if it's busy and you need to queue for them; it's very difficult to put an upper limit on the minimum change time in such cases.
I've never seen a queue for the lifts. They are quite large and there is one for each platform island.

There are also stairlifts, which I assume are only used when the corresponding main lift is out of action. I've never seen this happen, but I imagine there could be quite a bit of congestion if they are, both from people waiting to use them and because they partly block the stairs.
 

duffield

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2013
Messages
3,294
Location
East Midlands
I've never seen a queue for the lifts. They are quite large and there is one for each platform island.

There are also stairlifts, which I assume are only used when the corresponding main lift is out of action. I've never seen this happen, but I imagine there could be quite a bit of congestion if they are, both from people waiting to use them and because they partly block the stairs.
I've seen people queuing on the platform for the lifts a number of times at Nottingham, not common but it does happen (I think it's been when a packed train from London arrived, maybe a 10 coach one).
 

LTJ87

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2008
Messages
163
EMR are closing access to the platforms from the footbridge again to "validate the benefits identified in recent pilot". The next closure will begin from Saturday 22nd February and will be kept "under review".


East Midlands Railway (EMR) will close access to platforms via Nottingham station's footbridge next month to validate the findings of a recent pilot, which showed an estimated revenue loss of £80,000 — equating to an annual loss of approximately £1.1 million.

The revenue, which is ultimately the taxpayers' and fare-paying customers' money, was captured over a recent three-week pilot in November.

The next closure, which will be kept under review, will allow the operator to capture further evidence and data to verify the results of the initial pilot.

It will commence on Saturday 22nd February. Customers who want to access platforms one to six will instead need to use the main entrance of the station. The footbridge, which connects Station Street to Queen's Road, will remain a public right of way.

Customers who have previously used the bridge are advised to allow extra time to walk through the station to catch their required service. Access to the tram on Station Street via the footbridge will also be maintained.

The pilot also showed an increase in satisfaction with the station experience—including significant safety improvements.

This is directly linked to the increased availability of staff and directing customers past the ticket gates rather than the central bridge.

Some of the most positive customer satisfaction increases were among the disabled community that uses the station. The pilot also directly led to three customers with suicidal intentions being engaged by colleagues at the ticket gate.

During next month’s footbridge closure, EMR will be taking extra measures. These include installing clearer signage, running community events to help people understand their ticket options (such as digital roadshows), and carrying out a survey to assess how it impacts traffic on Queen's Road. There will also be extra measures in place around platform 7.

Philippa Cresswell, Customer Service Director at East Midlands Railway, said: "The first short closure of the bridge laid bare the stark extent of ticketless travel that was taking place via the footbridge.

"This money belongs to the taxpayer and is vital for the railway to successfully operate, improve, and secure investment.

"We recognise that the pilot was not universally supported and increased the time it took for some customers to access or change trains; however, the benefits were too great not to progress this matter further.

"The first short closure of the bridge also highlighted significant safety and security benefits - including three direct interventions to support suicidal individuals.

"The closure, which will be kept under review, will allow us to capture more data and evidence around the issue.

"Of course, we are aware that this decision will not be popular with some parts of the community, but it is only right to protect the taxpayer and test our analysis and conclusions that were highlighted around safety."
 

Warrior2852

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2018
Messages
318
EMR are closing access to the platforms from the footbridge again to "validate the benefits identified in recent pilot". The next closure will begin from Saturday 22nd February and will be kept "under review".

Given what they say about revenue in this I have a nasty feeling they're going to try to make this permanent. While it may help clamp down on fare avoidance, I have never seen the concourse more regularly over-congested than it was during the last trial, not helped by the funnelling system they have on their gateline setup. If they want to make this long-term they have to come up with something to sort out that problem otherwise the overcrowding will be a frequent source of issues during the peak.
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
3,341
Location
Nottingham
Avoiding an annual loss of £1.1M should be plenty to pay for a second separate footbridge to carry the Right of Way across the station.
 
Joined
5 Aug 2015
Messages
913
Location
Norfolk
Honestly, if EMR is hellbent on tightening the entrances, I would support closing the public right of way since it's the same route as Carrington Road I don't think it would be a significant harm to anyone yet is very important to rail and tram passengers. In the long run it'd be good to put actual additional station entrances with a few ticket barriers on the street parts but that would of course be the most expensive option.
 

bunnahabhain

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
2,277
Avoiding an annual loss of £1.1M should be plenty to pay for a second separate footbridge to carry the Right of Way across the station.
Or go for the easier solution, an internal footbridge at the C end of the station devoting the current centre footbridge to the public right of way. It is such a very well used and precious public right of way after all, and definitely never used for fare evasion.
 
Joined
5 Aug 2015
Messages
913
Location
Norfolk
Avoiding an annual loss of £1.1M should be plenty to pay for a second separate footbridge to carry the Right of Way across the station.
it'd be interesting to know if building a new footbridge would be easier/cheaper than closing of RoW and installing barriers.
And for the record I don't normally support closing public RoWs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Or go for the easier solution, an internal footbridge at the C end of the station devoting the current centre footbridge to the public right of way. It is such a very well used and precious public right of way after all, and definitely never used for fare evasion.
The current footbridge is very useful for tram to train interchange and already has staircases to the platforms so I don't see why it'd be easier to build a new footbridge that needs new alterations to the platforms AND doesn't interchange with the tram at all.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,693
Location
Nottingham
News of an experimental taxi rank on Carrington Street, opposite the station entrance (where bus stops occupy the nearside). The shortest route to the current taxi rank is via the footbridge. My immediate thought is it needs another pedestrian crossing so people don't run across between the buses.

Nottingham City Council is beginning an 18-month trial to understand if a new location could be a permanent safe option for additional taxi ranks serving residents and visitors using Nottingham Railway Station.

Carrington Street is being trialled as a location for a rank of eight wheelchair accessible taxis adding additional taxi capacity close to the front of Nottingham Station. A linked ‘feeder’ rank located on Arkwright Street, holding a further eight wheelchair accessible taxis will also be trialled.

Two experimental traffic orders will operate for 18 months from February 2025 – August 2026, with the first six months until August 2025 the ‘objection period’.

 

Warrior2852

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2018
Messages
318
The thing with the idea of installing extra barriers on the footbridge that's been raised a few times is that's two extra sets of gateline that you need to find more staff to be posted at, and if they're not then the barriers just stay open rendering their existence pointless.
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
3,341
Location
Nottingham
I don't see why it'd be easier to build a new footbridge that needs new alterations to the platforms AND doesn't interchange with the tram at all.
A new footbridge to carry the right of way wouldn't need any connections to or alterations of any platforms. It could go straight over the top off all of them, along the line of the previous RoW footbridge at the end of the station buildings. Should cost less than 18 months lost revenue.

The 1915 OS map shows the old bridge crossing the station along the eastern end of the platform buildings. Which explains why the current route has that dog-leg along Platform 7 to reach Queen St via what is now the car park access road.

View attachment 168953
 
Joined
5 Aug 2015
Messages
913
Location
Norfolk
The thing with the idea of installing extra barriers on the footbridge that's been raised a few times is that's two extra sets of gateline that you need to find more staff to be posted at, and if they're not then the barriers just stay open rendering their existence pointless.
They could just be peak-time entrances, happens at other stations a lot.
 

Warrior2852

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2018
Messages
318
The shortest route to the current taxi rank is via the footbridge.
Is it? You have to go all the way round the car park then down Queen's Road a bit if you exit from the P7 footbridge exit, it evens out with the time of going to the concourse which from there has a more direct route via the main tram exit.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

They could just be peak-time entrances, happens at other stations a lot.
Which would then lead to them losing a good chunk of their fare evasion income in the off-peak that the trial apparently saved, and the fare evasion seems to be their main priority in all of this (at the detriment of usability).
 
Joined
5 Aug 2015
Messages
913
Location
Norfolk
A new footbridge to carry the right of way wouldn't need any connections to or alterations of any platforms. It could go straight over the top off all of them, along the line of the previous RoW footbridge at the end of the station buildings. Should cost less than 18 months lost revenue.
I agree completely. @bunnahabhain was seemingly suggesting an "internal" station footbridge at the "C end" of the station (eastern end) and demote the current one to be RoW only. Which i think is a bad idea.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Is it? You have to go all the way round the car park then down Queen's Road a bit if you exit from the P7 footbridge exit, it evens out with the time of going to the concourse which from there has a more direct route via the main tram exit.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


Which would then lead to them losing a good chunk of their fare evasion income in the off-peak that the trial apparently saved, and the fare evasion seems to be their main priority in all of this (at the detriment of usability).
I mean, they would be shutoff in the off-peak. Stations like Chelmsford do this with their extra entrance. This predicates abolishing the RoW which I still think is best short term solution. (only because it's not a very important RoW honestly)
 

Warrior2852

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2018
Messages
318
I mean, they would be shutoff in the off-peak. Stations like Chelmsford do this with their extra entrance. This predicates abolishing the RoW which I still think is best short term solution. (only because it's not a very important RoW honestly)
To clarify - your proposal is only have the footbridge accessible to passengers in the peak, and seal it off and send everyone via the concourse during the off peak?
 
Joined
5 Aug 2015
Messages
913
Location
Norfolk
To clarify - your proposal is only have the footbridge accessible to passengers in the peak, and seal it off and send everyone via the concourse during the off peak?
In terms of entering and exiting the station yes. It would always be there for interchange within the station. I would also support having it be staffed and open more often if possible. Closing it off completely to the street would be okay with me as well. I believe it's more important as an interchange with the trams and internal station footbridge than as an entrance to the station but I might be misguided on this. The one problem I suppose is that the tram entrance is still technically a breach with the outside world.

I'm also fine with building a new footbridge on the other end of the station for the RoW, it's just that I'm assuming that's way more "impossible" due to money and permissions etc than just closing the RoW completely which, I am aware, is its own difficult process.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,693
Location
Nottingham
Is it? You have to go all the way round the car park then down Queen's Road a bit if you exit from the P7 footbridge exit, it evens out with the time of going to the concourse which from there has a more direct route via the main tram exit.
I'm thinking of the Station Street end of the footbridge.
 
Joined
5 Aug 2015
Messages
913
Location
Norfolk
To clarify - your proposal is only have the footbridge accessible to passengers in the peak, and seal it off and send everyone via the concourse during the off peak?
For the record, my real opinion on the matter is that it should be left as is and the fare evasion is not important reason enough to mess up the efficiency of the tram interchange and create serious overcrowding and inconvenience for changing between platforms.
 

Warrior2852

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2018
Messages
318
As far as I know, Queens Road is a pick-up and drop-off bay with a time limit of about 2min.
I've seen black cabs waiting there almost every time I've been - the cabs take one half of the rank, Ubers use the other half for the drop off and pick up you mention.
 

Trainman40083

Established Member
Joined
29 Jan 2024
Messages
4,652
Location
Derby
Whenever I have caught the train to and from Nottingham recently, I always seemed to arrive /depart from platform Z end. Almost up to the signal by the London Road bridge. From there to the same position on the adjacent island platform is a right nightmare, even with no luggage. If I am leaving the station, I always seem to be going towards London Road rather than the front of the station. But, however you look, the Government isn't going to ignore potential £1.1 million revenue a year. .
 

bunnahabhain

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
2,277
For the record, my real opinion on the matter is that it should be left as is and the fare evasion is not important reason enough to mess up the efficiency of the tram interchange and create serious overcrowding and inconvenience for changing between platforms.
What about antisocial behaviour, assaults and abuse, which were also reduced through closing the bridge? Or should we just put up with those?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,693
Location
Nottingham
I've seen black cabs waiting there almost every time I've been - the cabs take one half of the rank, Ubers use the other half for the drop off and pick up you mention.
I realised that just after I posted and deleted mine, but you got there first.
 

Lemmy99uk

Member
Joined
5 May 2015
Messages
562
Well thankfully it will still be open for my next trip on Tuesday, allowing me easy access to my bus connection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top