Footbridge at Gomshall station

[Basil Jet]

I was at Gomshall on the North Downs line the other day, and I was blown away by the scale of the footbridge. I understand that the historic footbridges at other stations were not wheelchair accessible, and NR may be required to install something that is, but I suspect the ramps here contain more metal than there is brick in the entire village. I don't understand how such a lightly used station can justify the cost of this behemoth. I guess lifts would be even more expensive and less reliable.

 

[leytongabriel]

I was at Gomshall on the North Downs line the other day, and I was blown away by the scale of the footbridge. I understand that the historic footbridges at other stations were not wheelchair accessible, and NR may be required to install something that is, but I suspect the ramps here contain more metal than there is brick in the entire village. I don't understand how such a lightly used station can justify the cost of this behemoth. I guess lifts would be even more expensive and less reliable

The ramps at Horden Co. Durham are pretty impressive too and from a previous generation of investment, Walthamstow Queens Rd, not the busiest station on the GOBLIN line.

 

[Sultan]

I was at Gomshall on the North Downs line the other day, and I was blown away by the scale of the footbridge. I understand that the historic footbridges at other stations were not wheelchair accessible, and NR may be required to install something that is, but I suspect the ramps here contain more metal than there is brick in the entire village. I don't understand how such a lightly used station can justify the cost of this behemoth. I guess lifts would be even more expensive and less reliable.

Yes, it rather large, isn't it? It replaced a track-crossing between the 2 platform ends some years ago.

I believe that Gomshall is the main station on that line with a decent-size car park (that's free), most others not having anything of merit (Chilworth, Dorking West, Betchworth) and the main station Dorking Deepdene having no disabled access at all despite being in the centre(ish) of Dorking. The Guildford / Reading platform is effectively cut-off by private housing and can only be accessed by the bridge or a public footpath up a steep, narrow (private?) road.

Safety-aside, it used to take 15 seconds to cross the line - now it'll be 2 minutes at least on the ramps - longer if you're pushing a wheelchair. But I suppose it's all that could be done to address the risk of the old crossing (many people no doubt didn't wait for the train to leave before crossing and it would have been totally blind to any train approaching on the other line).

But it is a great station from which to start or finish a walk that isn't circular.

 

[ChrisC]

I was at Gomshall on the North Downs line the other day, and I was blown away by the scale of the footbridge. I understand that the historic footbridges at other stations were not wheelchair accessible, and NR may be required to install something that is, but I suspect the ramps here contain more metal than there is brick in the entire village. I don't understand how such a lightly used station can justify the cost of this behemoth. I guess lifts would be even more expensive and less reliable.

I do wonder, when I see huge expensive footbridges at lightly used rural stations, how Network Rail prioritise the installation of these. I understand the importance of making stations wheelchair accessible but there are still platforms at quite busy stations that are not just inaccessible to wheelchair users but to anyone with mobility issues. Wheelchair users require complete step free access but people who are less mobile can sometimes manage a small number of steps with assistance. There are still stations which are inaccessible even to people with less severe mobility issues such as the elderly.

For example, the southbound platform at Alfreton Station in Derbyshire is totally inaccessible to anyone who is not able to negotiate the steep steps up and down the footbridge over the line. This has been the situation since the barrow crossing at the end of the platform was closed years ago. With 2tph in each direction, before Covid annual passenger numbers at Alfreton were around 0.3 million in comparison to around just 55,000 at Gomshall.

The Department of Transport announced plans in 2014 to make the southbound platform at Alfreton accessible to wheelchair users by 2019 at the latest, but it never happened. Apparently a new date for completion of 2024 is now planned but I have doubts whether it will be.

 

[JonathanH]

I do wonder, when I see huge expensive footbridges at lightly used rural stations, how Network Rail prioritise the installation of these.

Its just a matter of timing at Gomshall. By the time they decided having a foot crossing was a risk that should be removed, it was necessary to have an accessible footbridge. If there had only ever been a step footbridge at Gomshall, the accessible one would never have been put in.

I would imagine there is no plan to put in an accessible footbridge at either Nutfield or Edenbridge which have step footbridges, or indeed at the entrances to Dorking Deepdene.

Network Rail's priority is removing foot and other level crossings wherever possible.

 

[DelW]

It might have been more appropriate (and much less unsightly) to add warning lights to the pre-existing crossing, since that seems to be an acceptable solution at the much busier crossing further along the same line at Farnborough North.

There are only four trains an hour at Gomshall, possibly increasing to six (if the 3tph promised for years ever does come to fruition).

 

[JonathanH]

It might have been more appropriate (and much less unsightly) to add warning lights to the pre-existing crossing, since that seems to be an acceptable solution at the much busier crossing further along the same line at Farnborough North.

Given the railway already had space at Gomshall, why not go with the bridge as a one off investment. The lack of availability of railway land at Farnborough North constrains what can be done there.

 

[gazr]

It might have been more appropriate (and much less unsightly) to add warning lights to the pre-existing crossing, since that seems to be an acceptable solution at the much busier crossing further along the same line at Farnborough North.

There are only four trains an hour at Gomshall, possibly increasing to six (if the 3tph promised for years ever does come to fruition).

They have this set up at Thurston and it seems to work well. There is a siren and lights if my memory serves me right.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Network Rail's priority is removing foot and other level crossings wherever possible.

Whatever happened to ALARP. Whats installed is an absolute monstrosity and cost a small fortune let alone all the greenhouse gases to make that steelwork.

 

[JonathanH]

Whatever happened to ALARP. Whats installed is an absolute monstrosity and cost a small fortune let alone all the greenhouse gases to make that steelwork.

It has quite a lot of lighting on it as I recall which can't be cheap either.

Anyway, it is built now.

For the acronym watchers, ALARP - as low as reasonably possible /practical.

 

[Basil Jet]

Something else I forgot to mention... the footbridge seemed a lot higher than many - is it high enough to allow overhead electric, perhaps with the enhanced clearances which were briefly fashionable a few years ago?

 

[DelW]

Given the railway already had space at Gomshall, why not go with the bridge as a one off investment. The lack of availability of railway land at Farnborough North constrains what can be done there.

Well, apart from the cost and carbon footprint, it's visually a huge and ugly intrusion in the Surrey Hills AoNB. Presumably NR got it through under permitted development rights as at Great Musgrave bridge infill (that later rescinded of course). Like that, it just seems completely out of scale and an inappropriate solution to a relatively small risk. There are a number of foot crossings on that section of the North Downs line.

 

[Lucan]

I wonder if it would be cheaper for NR to offer a phone-up taxi service for passengers holding a Blue Badge and needing to get to or from the opposite platform. Add in the cumulative economic cost of the time taken up by able people having to walk around long ramps and spirals unnecessarily - probably far less than the time waiting for that taxi.

 

[lachlan]

I wonder if it would be cheaper for NR to offer a phone-up taxi service for passengers holding a Blue Badge and needing to get to or from the opposite platform. Add in the cumulative economic cost of the time taken up by able people having to walk around long ramps and spirals unnecessarily - probably far less than the time waiting for that taxi.

A bridge allows disabled people to travel independently, and is always available.

 

[Jan Mayen]

I don't think the railway did have all the land needed. I seem to recall they had to buy some, and the landowners crest appears on the bride.

 

[DelW]

I wonder if it would be cheaper for NR to offer a phone-up taxi service for passengers holding a Blue Badge and needing to get to or from the opposite platform. Add in the cumulative economic cost of the time taken up by able people having to walk around long ramps and spirals unnecessarily - probably far less than the time waiting for that taxi.

A bridge allows disabled people to travel independently, and is always available.

Unfortunately at Gomshall, the only routes to the down platform are across the tracks or along a footpath, there's no vehicle access to it.

To be fair to the designers, able-bodied people can use the steps which are naturally much more direct than the ramps.

It has a bit the look of something that was designed in order to rule it out. The client asks "what would we need to do to provide a bridge without lifts?". The designers come up with this, thinking "that's a daft layout, it just demonstrates that a standard design with lifts is the better choice". Then to everyone's surprise, the client chooses it instead. I've seen such things happen (though not with footbridges).

 

[Sultan]

The old track crossing at Gomshall would have been in the highest risk category as although there is usually only 1 train stopping every 2 hours (in each direction - occasionally more in peak hours), there are anything up to 3 through trains every hour. The platforms are completely offset, and the crossing was located on the down bits at the end of each platform, at the rear of either stopped train. People alighting from the Reading side would have no way of seeing if a fast train was approaching towards Redhill as neither would the driver of that train. I don't recall any accidents (fortunately) but I bet there were quite a few near-misses as people rushed to catch the train (having waited for it to pass through) or alighted to get to the car park. Yes, the crossing might have been improved with proper gates, signals, etc but the risk would still have been there - I read somewhere (years ago) that there was a push to replace all foot crossings on the line (or at least reduce the risk) - probably to do with the Surrey CC rail strategy https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/land-pl...opment/surrey-future/the-surrey-rail-strategy to increase capacity.

They replaced a bridle crossing last year with a new bridge not far from Gomshall - more metal in the area!

Large 32-metre lorry carrying bridge escorted through Guildford

Surrey Police helped the 62-tonne load manoeuvre through the county

www.getsurrey.co.uk

 

[TEW]

It might have been more appropriate (and much less unsightly) to add warning lights to the pre-existing crossing, since that seems to be an acceptable solution at the much busier crossing further along the same line at Farnborough North.

There are only four trains an hour at Gomshall, possibly increasing to six (if the 3tph promised for years ever does come to fruition).

Farnborough North also has an attendant manning the crossing all day, every day which is probably not the best economic solution either.

 

[Recessio]

Part of the reason for providing step-free access may also be that the wider area is a popular place for starting cycle routes along the Downs (although avoid the locals at Abinger Hammer and Holmbury St Mary, they seem to love careening aroudn corners in the middle of the road at 60mph!) So the ramps may help people with cycles use the trains.

Something else I forgot to mention... the footbridge seemed a lot higher than many - is it high enough to allow overhead electric, perhaps with the enhanced clearances which were briefly fashionable a few years ago?

I think it's general policy that, unless prohibitively complex/expensive, all new works are done to be future-proof for OLE clearance.

 

[Taunton]

The old track crossing at Gomshall would have been in the highest risk category as although there is usually only 1 train stopping every 2 hours (in each direction - occasionally more in peak hours), there are anything up to 3 through trains every hour. The platforms are completely offset, and the crossing was located on the down bits at the end of each platform, at the rear of either stopped train. People alighting from the Reading side would have no way of seeing if a fast train was approaching towards Redhill as neither would the driver of that train.[/URL]

I actually used Gomshall a couple of times, back in the 1990s, and was quite surprised at the foot crossing to the westbound platform, uncontrolled and with notably limited sightlines. Nor was there a whistle board approaching it. Even the vegetation was not well cut back. However, even though there in peak hours, I never saw another passenger. It may have picked up a bit, but the number of passengers per year who need an accessible bridge must be vanishingly small.

It does seem the constant hiking-up of standards, from foot crossing, to footbridge, to ramped footbridge, to clearing theoretical ohl (even though the line is fully in 3rd rail territory), to clearing ohl ever higher and higher, etc, just adds and adds cost.

It does surprise me that heritage railways can buy old redundant footbridges and install them at their stations which on busy days can have quite a traffic, yet a national system station in the middle of nowhere with hardly any patronage has to have all this huge expenditure.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

Perhaps a discussion needs to be had with the disabled lobbies about what is affordable and practical for transport operators to provide. As Taunton says, the number of people who use this bridge must be almost nil - how many wheelchair users live in the middle of nowhere like Gomshall and how many of them are rail users?

Is it too unreasonable to tell anyone who can't use the stairs: 'Sorry, this is a very small station, very few disabled people use it - you'll have to use another station and take a taxi.'?

I'm not anti-disabled, but there seems to be a 'provide at any cost' mentality in the transport industry. Monstrosities like the Gomshall footbridge cost money, which could be spent on other things - like facilities for the disabled that are more likely to be used.

 

[zwk500]

It does seem the constant hiking-up of standards, from foot crossing, to footbridge, to ramped footbridge, to clearing theoretical ohl (even though the line is fully in 3rd rail territory), to clearing ohl ever higher and higher, etc, just adds and adds cost.

The height to which you build a bridge is not a signficant factor in the cost. In fact, with prefabricated parts suitable for OLE-equipped lines it may be MORE expensive to build a lower non-standard bridge.

It does surprise me that heritage railways can buy old redundant footbridges and install them at their stations which on busy days can have quite a traffic, yet a national system station in the middle of nowhere with hardly any patronage has to have all this huge expenditure.

Heritage railways usually provide the disabled access through a barrow crossing at the end of the platform, as they have the ramped ends and staff to do so. The national network discourages barrow crossings where possible to deter trespass. It's a shame because other countries seem to be able to cope with simple pedestrian crossings on the level without a problem.

Fundamentally, the combination of 2 policies drive this, and both are as much DfT policies as NR policies: 'No Level Crossings' and 'Accessibility for all'. It's been decided, politically, that this is what the railway should aim for. Complaints should therefore be to your MP rather than against industry 'gold-plating'

 

[Graham H]

Perhaps a discussion needs to be had with the disabled lobbies about what is affordable and practical for transport operators to provide. As Taunton says, the number of people who use this bridge must be almost nil - how many wheelchair users live in the middle of nowhere like Gomshall and how many of them are rail users?

Is it too unreasonable to tell anyone who can't use the stairs: 'Sorry, this is a very small station, very few disabled people use it - you'll have to use another station and take a taxi.'?

I'm not anti-disabled, but there seems to be a 'provide at any cost' mentality in the transport industry. Monstrosities like the Gomshall footbridge cost money, which could be spent on other things - like facilities for the disabled that are more likely to be used.

Hasnt Ham Street station in Kent been provided with a large footbridge and lift out of character ? I used the station pre bridge days and the foot crossing between the offset platforms had excellent visibility both ways, several minutes worth at least I would have said. Only one train each way per hour and all stopping there so the expense seems huge to simply remove a perfectly adequate foot crossing. Yes I know people assume its only one an hour and may therefore miss the occasional Dungeness spent fuel train or some other network rail runner but at some point people have to be responsible for their own actions and not assume anything.
The other issue about all inclusive pertinent to my area is the understanding that the 313 units on the south coast could have had toilets added but these would have to be fully accessible. As there is no requirement to have a toilet, the decision was dont fit them at all then so everyone suffers...literally !

 

[MarkyT]

Heritage railways usually provide the disabled access through a barrow crossing at the end of the platform, as they have the ramped ends and staff to do so. The national network discourages barrow crossings where possible to deter trespass. It's a shame because other countries seem to be able to cope with simple pedestrian crossings on the level without a problem.

Also heritage railways are generally slower and less busy in terms of train movements, and tend to rarely run in darkness or at times of year when the crossing surface might become more dangerous to pedestrians. I tend to agree that where the character of service on a public transport line is exclusively 'light' then 'locally monitored' or 'traincrew operated' should remain an option for pedestrian or low use vehicular crossings around a station area where all trains stop. If you also want the capability for expresses, empty stock or freight to fly through at speed however, then level crossings for customer access to platforms are totally unsuitable. Most European countries seem also to be eliminating such crossings as they modernise stations, and outside heavily urbanised areas, these often formed the main access across tracks historically.

 

[lachlan]

Perhaps a discussion needs to be had with the disabled lobbies about what is affordable and practical for transport operators to provide. As Taunton says, the number of people who use this bridge must be almost nil - how many wheelchair users live in the middle of nowhere like Gomshall and how many of them are rail users?

Is it too unreasonable to tell anyone who can't use the stairs: 'Sorry, this is a very small station, very few disabled people use it - you'll have to use another station and take a taxi.'?

I'm not anti-disabled, but there seems to be a 'provide at any cost' mentality in the transport industry. Monstrosities like the Gomshall footbridge cost money, which could be spent on other things - like facilities for the disabled that are more likely to be used.

If a bridge is required to be installed, making that accessible doesn't seem like too big an ask.

Yes,it is unreasonable. The public transport network needs to become more accessible. I'm not saying install accessible bridges at every lightly used station (although this would be a good end goal) but when a bridge is being replaced, it should be accessible.

 

[Revilo]

If a bridge is required to be installed, making that accessible doesn't seem like too big an ask.

Yes,it is unreasonable. The public transport network needs to become more accessible. I'm not saying install accessible bridges at every lightly used station (although this would be a good end goal) but when a bridge is being replaced, it should be accessible.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable. By all means make reasonable adjustments, but it’s unrealistic and counter productive to expect every station to be step-free. The money spent here could have been used more effectively on improving access or safety elsewhere. The insistence of ultra-high standards results in ludicrous situations were, to ensure everyone is treated equally, no toilets are provided on-train, rather that having to lose the space to provide larger disabled facilities. Harming the majority, including all those with limited mobility would could use non-disabled toilets, purely for political ideology.

 

[lachlan]

I don’t think it’s unreasonable. By all means make reasonable adjustments, but it’s unrealistic and counter productive to expect every station to be step-free. The money spent here could have been used more effectively on improving access or safety elsewhere. The insistence of ultra-high standards results in ludicrous situations were, to ensure everyone is treated equally, no toilets are provided on-train, rather that having to lose the space to provide larger disabled facilities. Harming the majority, including all those with limited mobility would could use non-disabled toilets, purely for political ideology.

The answer to the toilets problem is that the trains should have been built with accessible toilets. Every national rail train should have toilets

 

[Revilo]

Ideally yes of course, but if it costs too much or uses too much space they have to make a decision.

 

[Taunton]

Notably, the approach road to Gomshall, a narrow and rough lane without pavements, woodland on both sides, is completely non-accessible. It leads to the main A25 road which, while it has some pavements provided within the village, are too narrow for a wheelchair, and the local taxis are just regular cars. Nobody's car who one might visit whilst there, nor likely their houses, are required to be accessible, without steps, of course, So quite how anyone with accessibility needs is even going to get to or from the station and its footbridge remains a mystery.

 

[Rich1974]

There was a bad fatality there in 2004, this had alot to do with the footbridge being built.