Blatant planning and highway regulation flouting by railtrack at Caersws

[digitaltoast]

I have occasion to drive through mid-Wales quite often, and for the last 8 months or so, there have been some traffic lights next to a new automated barrier and equipment at Caersws. And never any workmen.

And sometimes you get a collision of lights then barrier timings causing big tailbacks on the main trunk road through mid-Wales.

While grumbling about them to someone in Aber, they told me about big facebook group about these lights.

Bear with me - the full magnitude of Network Rail law-flouting must be fully understood to be believed!

Anyway, someone had posted in that group a report from the local paper which suggested the lights were permanent, because Network Rail had illegally sited a barrier and permanent portakabin of equipment. Due to reduced visibility for traffic joining the main road, there had been a nasty accident, and the police said that the barrier and portakabin were sited without consideration of this.

I couldn't believe it was true. So finally, after lots of chasing, I've just spoken to the chief of highways in this area. She sounded exhausted of being asked this same question - at first I think she thought I was from the press, because she said "and can you tell you colleagues that when they write about this, it is NOT our fault". When I explained I was just an irate motorist, she then went on to say that basically, they had tried to reason with Network Rail, but apparently, Network Rail can do what the hell they want, when and where they want. It sounds like it's cost the council £1000's so far, and for all intents and purposes, these temporary lights on the main trunk road are now permanent, Network Rail won't pay anything towards them, no one even consulted with the highways agency before the work started, and Network Rail have just given the council a big "screw you" in reply. (I hasten to add that weren't her exact words!).

Does anyone else think this is just wrong in the extreme? It appears that there really is nothing that can be done - the upheaval of moving a control equipment shed that some pillock plonked in the line of view of a main road is apparently too much. So we all have to suffer ad infinitum.

Oh, and do you want to know the best part? It appears that this is the same Siemens system which has been so unreliable in Germany, and is so fully automated that a person still needs to be employed to get out of a box and push a button, the only difference being that the barriers close 5 minutes before the train, instead of the old 2 minutes.

Bravo. Money well spent there.

Wrong kind of planning on the line?

By the way, if anyone knows more on this, I'd love to know. I want to get more media involved in this.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I think you'll find that they're called Network Rail these days

 

[LondonLarry]

digitaltoast have you actuallt tried speaking to Network Rail to hear what they have to say? Their national helpline number is: 08457 11 41 41, their Community Relations page is: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/633.aspx

I think, if Network Rail can prove a safety case, they don't need planning permission on their land. (I vaguely remember their being an issue with them installing new radio masts for in-cab radios)

 

[digitaltoast]

digitaltoast have you actuallt tried speaking to Network Rail to hear what they have to say? Their national helpline number is: 08457 11 41 41, their Community Relations page is: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/633.aspx

I think, if Network Rail can prove a safety case, they don't need planning permission on their land. (I vaguely remember their being an issue with them installing new radio masts for in-cab radios)

Oh yeah, I've called them alright! But expecting the same response as I got from ATOC when asking about "simplified" fares; in that case it was worth the endless phonecalls and hassling on the phone to get a response, as it was me who broke the story and I was chuffed to get the scoop on that.

In this case, other media have picked it up first so I was just wanting to clarify - life's to short to chase up every "we'll be back to you within 48 hours" response that doesn't happen.

I'll let you know if it does happen, though!

 

[LondonLarry]

it was me who broke the story and I was chuffed to get the scoop on that.

So you are a journalist!

 

[digitaltoast]

So you are a journalist!

Blogger - big difference! Journalists write whatever will sell newspapers and advertising space, bloggers do it because they have too much time on their hands at work...

 

[djw1981]

Bloggers also have less standing with establishment organisations, less stringent ethics and are less protected from lawyers.... Ah the joys of digital,.....some you win, some you lose.

 

[talltim]

I assume you mean here http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?utm_c...a-emea-uk-goog-gm&utm_medium=ha&utm_term=maps ?
Could you point out where the problem items are?

 

[mumrar]

Of course, we all know that where rail and road interface at a crossing, the railway was invariably first. That being the case, if the road people aren't happy with their access to Network Rail's land, NR should just close it and tell the council/highways agency to pay for a bridge instead as the road has no right to a level crossing. Have you got any links to the local paper articles or sections of your blog that we can look at?

 

[Greenback]

'Blatant planning and highway regulation flouting by railtrack at Caersws'

Sorry, I'm not really very familiar with highway and planning regulations! Please could someone advise which regulations have been blatantly flouted?

 

[Donny Dave]

A similar thing happened when NR upgraded Appleby level crossing just to the east of Scunthorpe. They planned the possesion and everything they needed to do, except they "forgot" to tell North Lincs Council or Humberside police!

The result was traffic chaos around Scunthorpe, Broughton and Winterton as no one had a clue as to what was going on. The work just so happen to coincide with a local derby at Glanford Park as well, so the roads were busier than normal anyway ....

 

[talltim]

Of course, we all know that where rail and road interface at a crossing, the railway was invariably first. That being the case, if the road people aren't happy with their access to Network Rail's land, NR should just close it and tell the council/highways agency to pay for a bridge instead as the road has no right to a level crossing.

I assume you are being sarcastic? You never know with the internet!

 

[NSEFAN]

Mumrar has a good point. If the railways were there first, why should they bow to the demands of road users? If the road was there first then fair enough.

It's the same problem with the NIMBYs who complain about railway noise, when they live in a modern house next to an old railway! If you live near a railway, then you should expect noise. It isn't difficult.

 

[boing_uk]

What you will find is that the road may indeed be the responsibility of Network Rail over the level crossing, however it is still classed as Highway and thus Network Rail must abide by the Road Traffic Act when closing a highway.

It would, of course, be helpful to have some pics of the installation...

 

[Old Timer]

I am sorry but some of this does not make sense.

Except in an emergency, a legal order is required and at least six-weeks advance notice in order to gain this.

Only in an emergency can a road be closed usually because of equipment failure or an incident affecting the safe operation of the crossing.

You just cannot "forget" to tell the Council and turn up and close a road.

 

[digitaltoast]

I assume you mean here http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?utm_c...a-emea-uk-goog-gm&utm_medium=ha&utm_term=maps ?
Could you point out where the problem items are?

That just defaults to an overview of the UK. I mean, here:
http://snurl.com/u7g09

The red warning triangle marks the spot.

Oh yeah, I've called them alright! But expecting the same response as I got from ATOC when asking about "simplified" fares

Well, wonders never cease! I got a reply, but...
I asked specific questions about how the planning and highway process was undertaken, and what procedures were followed. I got the following (non)reply:

Thank you for your telephone call to our National Helpline with regards to the traffic lights on the A470.

I am writing to confirm that I have raised your query with our Maintenance Coordinator who has confirmed that the traffic lights have been installed because of the intensive works taking place at Caersws level crossing.

The works are due to be completed by the summer of 2010 which means that the traffic lights will remain in operation until then.

However, the Highways Department may choose to use the traffic lights as a permanent arrangement after the
completion of the work.

Therefore, I suggest that you contact your local Highways Department when the works at the level crossing have been completed as they will be in a position to provide a definite answer.
I hope this serves allay [sic] to your concerns, but should you need to contact Network
Rail, then please call our 24-hour Helpline on 0845711 41 41.

Yours sincerely
XXXXXXXXX
Community Relations Advisor

 

[boing_uk]

WHat are you on about though? There is no "planning and highway" process for the erection of portable temporary signals. All they need to do is notify and book the roadspace with the local highway authority, unless of course they are three-way traffic signals in which case the signals have to be authorised by the authority.

Although I would not be happy running temporary signals across a level crossing without some interlocking (IIRC that is a Network Rail requirement) with the crossing equipment itself; I am guessing this is the case here. In which case I suspect that this is a temporary permenant installation, with full TR2500 compliant controller and interlocking.

Why the LA would want to keep them in place though...

 

[digitaltoast]

What are you on about though? There is no "planning and highway" process for the erection of portable temporary signals. All they need to do is notify and book the roadspace with the local highway authority, unless of course they are three-way traffic signals in which case the signals have to be authorised by the authority.

Four way signals, which were only installed after an accident caused an investigation which found that the siting of the Network Rail equipment caused the view of traffic joining the A road to have restricted visibility, as I mentioned above.

Although I would not be happy running temporary signals across a level crossing without some interlocking (IIRC that is a Network Rail requirement) with the crossing equipment itself; I am guessing this is the case here. In which case I suspect that this is a temporary permenant installation, with full TR2500 compliant controller and interlocking.

The lights are standalone temporary lights.

Why the LA would want to keep them in place though...

Because they are forced to because Network Rail refuse to move their equipment, as I've been told?

I'm going to take a picture each time I pass this junction, as are a couple of others from the group, across a couple of weeks, during work hours.

I'd like to see just how "intense" the "intense" works are, seeing as no-one has been there for months ...

 

[Dolive22]

As at least one other person has mentioned they are now Network Rail, not Railtrack.

I don't know how you drive, but if my view is obstructed I edge out, making sure it is safe to do so.

If you wrang the council and they dealt with it, it isn't the Highways Agency, it's the local council. I'm not even sure the Highways Agency has any jurisdiction at all in Wales.

Were you one of those journalists you dislike so much you would know what a 'Sub' was. You could do with one. You would also know what a night lawyer was, and I think they would give you the same advice I am about to, which is to wind your neck in. If you don't know the full facts, don't go shooting your mouth off about big firms that know more than you and have libel lawyers.

How do you know they are standalone temporary lights? Have you inspected their set up and checked what is controlling them, or have you just seen that the unit with the actual light son looks like the ones you see when the council dig up the road?

You can't just close a road as you suggest. I have been involved in getting side roads closed. You have to get the form sealed and signed and formally issued and display the notice etc. weeks in advance.

As to road delays, if it is such an important road it shouldn't cross the railway at a level crossing. The Highways authority should stump up for a bridge.

 

[digitaltoast]

As at least one other person has mentioned they are now Network Rail, not Railtrack.

Topic changed in this reply, hope it makes it more palatable for you now, although I don't have the power to change the entire thread topic.

I don't know how you drive, but if my view is obstructed I edge out, making sure it is safe to do so.

Oh give me a break! Look closely at the map I posted.
So you're emerging from on A road onto another A road, which happens to be the main trunk road through mid Wales, carrying all the big lorries, with a 60mph limit. Your line of site is severely reduced by a massive great big portakabin. You've got 3 kids in the back, there's a lot of spray and glare on the road.
Come on, don't complain about the portakabin you silly thing - just edge on out and cross those fingers!

If you wrang the council and they dealt with it, it isn't the Highways Agency, it's the local council. I'm not even sure the Highways Agency has any jurisdiction at all in Wales.

http://www.powys.gov.uk/index.php?id=17

Powys County Council is the highways and public transport authority for the administrative county of Powys.

Were you one of those journalists you dislike so much

I've never offered a personal opinion of journalists in this thread, if here at all

you would know what a 'Sub' was.

But I'm not, and why would I? Any more than a passenger on a train would need to know the bitrate of the telemtry controlling the signals. So what's your point?

You can't just close a road as you suggest.

I didn't:

NR should just close it and tell the council/highways agency to pay for a bridge instead

If it is such an important road it shouldn't cross the railway at a level crossing. The Highways authority should stump up for a bridge.

Finally something we can agree on!

 

[Greenback]

Digitaltoast, your link to the Powys website also contains the following:

Please note that some of the busiest roads in Powys (such as the A470, A489, A483, A40 and a section of the A44) are Trunk Roads managed and maintained by the Welsh Assembly Government.

How does this tie in with the other statement about them being the Highways Authority?

To be honest I'm struggling to understand what's happened with the traffic lights! Who actually made the decision that they were needed?

 

[digitaltoast]

Digitaltoast, your link to the Powys website also contains the following:

Please note that some of the busiest roads in Powys (such as the A470, A489, A483, A40 and a section of the A44) are Trunk Roads managed and maintained by the Welsh Assembly Government.

How does this tie in with the other statement about them being the Highways Authority?

No idea - ask Dolive21 and boing_uk as it was they who referred to the Highways Authority.

To be honest I'm struggling to understand what's happened with the traffic lights! Who actually made the decision that they were needed?

You an me both - Powys are saying it is by police request after the positioning of equipment by Network Rail, and Network Rail aren't answering the questions I asked.

 

[Greenback]

I've had a look at some of the mintues of the Mid Wales Trunk Road Agency, and in October somebody from the WAG stated that traffic lights are required due to visibilty being impeded by the Network Rail works.

From this, it looks as though the WAg, in their capacity as being responsible for trunk roads, have taken the decision to install the lights. Unfortunately, there is no information as to who at the WAG actually made the decision, or what evidence they considered.

However, if, as you say, the junction is now more dangerous, it;s probably a good decision.

The next question is whether the portakabin will be removed when the works are complete, and if so, will the lights also be removed?

Do you think the portacabin could have been placed somewhere else without increasing costs significantly? We all pay for the Network Rail upgrades as taxpayers as well!

 

[digitaltoast]

I've had a look at some of the mintues of the Mid Wales Trunk Road Agency, and in October somebody from the WAG stated that traffic lights are required due to visibilty being impeded by the Network Rail works.

From this, it looks as though the WAg, in their capacity as being responsible for trunk roads, have taken the decision to install the lights. Unfortunately, there is no information as to who at the WAG actually made the decision, or what evidence they considered.

However, if, as you say, the junction is now more dangerous, it;s probably a good decision.

The next question is whether the portakabin will be removed when the works are complete, and if so, will the lights also be removed?

Do you think the portacabin could have been placed somewhere else without increasing costs significantly? We all pay for the Network Rail upgrades as taxpayers as well!

At last! The way others were going on, you'd think I'd made the whole thing up - good to get some facts in here, thanks Greenback*.
From what I understand, the Portakabin isn't as Porta as we'd like, as it actually contains the control gear for the barriers. It looks pretty solid anyway....

I'm probably going to have to pass that way in the next couple of weeks. I'm going to take my digital camera and get some pics!


*Talking of Dangermouse and Mid Wales, I have a small mood-lightening anecdote:

I stopped at a chip shop at Caersws while passing through there once, and I was wearing a Dangermouse t-shirt.

The guy behind the counter pointed at the t-shirt and came out with one of the most profound statements:

"You know, that Dangermouse ... he's had a quite remarkable career for someone lacking stereoscopic vison. Pickled egg?".

That man should be doing comic gigs, not pickled eggs...

 

[boing_uk]

No idea - ask Dolive21 and boing_uk as it was they who referred to the Highways Authority.

The Highway Authority is that authority which is responsible for the road; the Highways Agency is the Highway Authority for trunk roads and motorways in England, local authorities are the Highway Authorities for other public roads.

Looking at Goodle Earth though, given that the A470 meets the A489 on the outside of a right-hand bend, where on earth has this portakabin been placed to restrict vision?

Can anyone get any photos? Of the entire site if possible.

 

[krus_aragon]

Looking at Goodle Earth though, given that the A470 meets the A489 on the outside of a right-hand bend, where on earth has this portakabin been placed to restrict vision?

Can anyone get any photos? Of the entire site if possible.

The A470 'turns', but the layout of the road is that (northbound) the main flow of traffic is straight ahead onto the A489 to Newtown. You have to turn off left to stay on the A470. The more dangerous manouvre is coming south on the A470, where you have to join the through road by turning right. The house on the corner and its hedges restrict your view toward the crossing. I haven't been at the location recently, so don't know where the portakabin etc. are.

Incidentally, the A470 number was originally assigned to the Cardiff - Brecon road in the '30s. Portions of other roads were later renumbered to give a 'single' road all the way north to Llandudno, but there are several junctions in Mid- and North Wales where it isn't a through road.

 

[Ty'n'wtre nr 2]

As has been previously mentioned the railway crossing is immediately south-west of the junction of the A489 and A470. The portacabin is located to the south-east of the crossing adjacent to the railway (in the direction of Moat Lane). The former crossing keepers house is located between the railway and the A470 where it turns off for Caersws.

I heard from someone I know who works for NR that the portacabin was originally going to be located on the Caersws side of the crossing. But the chosen location happened to be in the garden of the house (long since sold into provate ownership) and they were understandably unimpressed. The choice of locations was severely limited by potential flood risks from the nearby river Severn. So it was placed where it is because it could be raised up a bit to stop any water getting in. It's pretty unlikely therefore ever to get moved.

As I understand it the portacabin contains all the relays, back up batteries etc etc to operate the crossing.

As to siting in my personal opinion (as one regularly turning right A489 onto A470) it doesn't really restrict sighting that much. If you are driving from Newtown towards Llanidloes or Caersws there is a big evergreen tree behind the cabin which limits sight lines.

It seems to me as if Powys CC/WAG are using this as an excuse to install traffic lights at the junction. It's certainly made the traffic flows a lot worse than if they weren't there. Like others I wouldn't mind so much if anyone was actually working there but haven't seen much activity since the new barriers were installed.

 

[boing_uk]

The A470 'turns', but the layout of the road is that (northbound) the main flow of traffic is straight ahead onto the A489 to Newtown. You have to turn off left to stay on the A470. The more dangerous manouvre is coming south on the A470, where you have to join the through road by turning right. The house on the corner and its hedges restrict your view toward the crossing. I haven't been at the location recently, so don't know where the portakabin etc. are.

Incidentally, the A470 number was originally assigned to the Cardiff - Brecon road in the '30s. Portions of other roads were later renumbered to give a 'single' road all the way north to Llandudno, but there are several junctions in Mid- and North Wales where it isn't a through road.

Indeed. I looked through the SABRE Wiki about this road before commenting.

 

[Dolive22]

Powys Council is the Highway Authority. This Highways Agency is an executive agency of the DfT that carries out many of the functions of the SoS as the Highways Authority for major roads in England. A branch of WAG does the same for Wales.

As to your opinion on journalists I recall you saying something about printing whatever sells.

On the road closure I should have been clearer. I should have said 'as you suggest happened'.

As to the bridge issue, if we agree that such a major road shouldn't be crossing at a level crossing, and the Highways Authority should build a bridge, why are you angry with Network Rail that the inevitable problems occur? Surely your anger should be directed towards the Highways Authority.

My point about driving was I make sure I only pull out where it is safe and I do so carefully. An obstructed view is only dangerous if you choose to be reckless. Incidentally T-Junctions with 60 limit roads scare me sh*tless, so I would try my best to avoid them personally.

 

[Greenback]

We don;t have enough information at the moment to come to any sort of a conclusion despite the thread title. We simply don't know whether the work and siting of the portacabin was cleared with the WAG or not. If it was, whose responsibility would it be to inform Powys CC? I would guess that may be one of the purposes of the Mid Wales Trunk Road Agency. I'll continue to trawl through the documents I can access tonight, as I am fascinated by the bureaucracy involved!