Cottingley station footbridge

[YorkshireBear]

Is cottingley footbridge high enough, but not for increased wire height through platforms? So station needs closing to get under it?

 

[flitwickbeds]

There's two simple tried and tested solutions, of course.

Option 1
Declare the footbridge unsafe, about to collapse, and demolish it, saying there is no money currently to replace it.

Option 2
Remove the footbridge under an engineering works blockade to renew electrification, then simply don't put one back.

Boom! You can now complete that part of TRU and basically forget Cottingley ever existed as a station!

 

[rower40]

Demolish Cottingley footbridge, keep it as a station in one direction only. Clearance for electric trains is now a given. Open White Rose in the other direction only - cheaper than opening the entire station.

This may contain traces of sarcasm.

 

[Spartacus]

Is it the footbridge, or the platforms that are the problem? A footbridge there long predates the station, and removing it would involve quite a long diversion of the right of way, not that that seems to have been a trouble at Howley, but that was a quiet footbridge anyway, with often overgrown paths to it.

 

[aliceh]

Is it the footbridge, or the platforms that are the problem? A footbridge there long predates the station, and removing it would involve quite a long diversion of the right of way, not that that seems to have been a trouble at Howley, but that was a quiet footbridge anyway, with often overgrown paths to it.

According to the closure consultation, neither. The closure's reasoning is that it wouldn't be possible to stop and both Cottingley and White Rose because they're so close together, and that keeping Cottingley only wasn't possible because it wasn't accessible and they wouldn't have the funding to upgrade it (White Rose got the Munro K money which an upgraded Cottingley wouldn't have).

 

[Spartacus]

According to the closure consultation, neither. The closure's reasoning is that it wouldn't be possible to stop and both Cottingley and White Rose because they're so close together, and that keeping Cottingley only wasn't possible because it wasn't accessible and they wouldn't have the funding to upgrade it (White Rose got the Munro K money which an upgraded Cottingley wouldn't have).

I'm more thinking of the issues reportedly being caused by the delays to White Rose, that without White Rose being finished and opened Cottingley closing isn't on the cards, which would cause undisclosed problems with the TPR Upgrade.

I tend to think it's either an issue with the platforms at Cottingley not allowing the increased line speed, and/or that until the station's closed the trackbed below the footbridge can't be lowered for get the necessary clearance for the overheads, as that'd make trains too low through the station.

 

[aliceh]

You may well be right, but now I'm wondering: if the existence of Cottingley station was preventing TRU-related changes from happening, why wouldn't this have been put forward as another reason for closing the station? The idea of keeping both stations open was briefly considered but discounted for reasons unrelated to electrification or line speed. Could they have realised the footbridge clearance wasn't enough a little too late on?

And removing the footbridge entirely would, like you say, involve a long diversion that has (so far) not even been mooted. I'd expect a lot of local pushback should it be necessary to remove the footbridge, especially as (to my knowledge) it was never part of the station closure consultation and might well have changed the result if it had been. Lowering the track would seem to be, by far, the easier option - since having to replace a footbridge would cost quite a bit and skewer one of the reasons for White Rose station.

 

[YorksLad12]

You may well be right, but now I'm wondering: if the existence of Cottingley station was preventing TRU-related changes from happening, why wouldn't this have been put forward as another reason for closing the station? The idea of keeping both stations open was briefly considered but discounted for reasons unrelated to electrification or line speed. Could they have realised the footbridge clearance wasn't enough a little too late on?

And removing the footbridge entirely would, like you say, involve a long diversion that has (so far) not even been mooted. I'd expect a lot of local pushback should it be necessary to remove the footbridge, especially as (to my knowledge) it was never part of the station closure consultation and might well have changed the result if it had been. Lowering the track would seem to be, by far, the easier option - since having to replace a footbridge would cost quite a bit and skewer one of the reasons for White Rose station.

I'm thinking that it wasn't given as a reason because it was expected to be closed by the time the TRU show swept into town. The fact it hasn't is what's causing conniptions.

I was going to say that lowering the track might be difficult as it's on an embankment. Lower the embankment, obvs

Without the footbridge it's 20 minutes on foot from Cottingley Drive to Digpal Road. Residents will have to something similar to reach White Rose Station, unless a new footpath and footbridge over Elland Road are installed - but that's probably one for the council. Not that you could fit a footbridge in next to the railway bridge, with the close buildings on either side.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Without the footbridge it's 20 minutes on foot from Cottingley Drive to Digpal Road. Residents will have to something similar to reach White Rose Station, unless a new footpath and footbridge over Elland Road are installed - but that's probably one for the council. Not that you could fit a footbridge in next to the railway bridge, with the close buildings on either side.

Has the matter been raised with the local councillor?