Footbridge at Gomshall station

[Train Maniac]

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 !

A kid was very nearly ran down at Hamstreet by a Turbostar a few years back, therefore making it a priority. Also, i would argue it doesnt look that hideous as the brickwork at least somewhat matches that of the station building

As for Gormshall, while certainly on the excessive side, it definitely needed a footbridge as the platforms are on a bend making visibility of approaching trains difficult

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Every national rail train should have toilets

That would be a good start

 

[zwk500]

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.

As I've mentioned, it's entirely possible that by using a standard design (that happens to be accessible) costs were LOWER than they would have been than if they'd built a non-accessible footbridge. It's also entirely possible that funding was only available for a footbridge if it was accessible, under the government's AFA budget. So it might have been a choice between all-bells-and-whistles footbridge or nothing at all.

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 insistence of an accessible toilet is not an ultra-high standard. What has failed here is the execution of the policy. They should have just fitted the accessible toilet, or built new trains that have one.

 

[Towers]

For the 'massive footbridge at small station' prize, I reckon Honeybourne takes some beating! At least it's been painted in historic colours!

(Alamy pic showing said footbridge)

 

[WesternBiker]

For the 'massive footbridge at small station' prize, I reckon Honeybourne takes some beating! At least it's been painted in historic colours!

(Alamy pic showing said footbridge)

Thank you - I was trying to recall which station on the Cotswold line had that bridge.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

For the 'massive footbridge at small station' prize, I reckon Honeybourne takes some beating! At least it's been painted in historic colours!

(Alamy pic showing said footbridge)

Indeed come along on our railway where we claim green credentials but how much embodied carbon is in that steelwork!

Still sure there is more at Gomshall though as it has ramps and a separate staircase.

 

[zwk500]

Indeed come along on our railway where we claim green credentials but how much embodied carbon is in that steelwork!

Still sure there is more at Gomshall though as it has ramps and a separate staircase.

What would your solution be for a zero-carbon bridge?

 

[rapmastaj]

In terms of apparently overengineered installations, I always wondered about the new lifts at Headingley station. The lift up to the Leeds platform was clearly needed, as the only previous access to the platform was a steep set of steps. But at first glance the lift on the Harrogate side seems completely unnecessary, since the (stepfree) path to the platform joins with the underpass approach path within 20m of the lift.

The only justification I can imagine is that the underpass approach path might be deemed too steep for a wheelchair user to comfortably use. That would mean the official approach to the Leeds platform would be to walk towards the Harrogate platform, then take the lift down to the underpass approach path, go under the underpass, and finally take the lift up to the Leeds platform. Is that true?

If the underpass approach really is too steep for wheelchair users, then several nearby roads like Kirkstall Hill and Kirkstall Lane are probably too steep as well.

 

[jackot]

Glad it’s not just me who thinks that footbridge is a bit overkill. However much I support railway accessibility, it is a huge infrastructure project for such a small station with such limited service. The bridges’ presence is not helped by its seemingly excessive height in order to future proof it for OHLE.

 

[Taunton]

The 2004 accident is described here :

Student’s rail death accident verdict

A STUDENT from Gomshall was killed by a train as he returned from a night out, an inquest heard on Thursday.

www.getsurrey.co.uk

Not apparent how a train from Guildford might arrive at 01.45, that seems an error as services stop calling there surely well before midnight. But more particularly, arriving eastbound from Guildford as described would not need crossing the line to leave the station, in fact I think there is no exit at all from the westbound side at all.

 

[WesternBiker]

The 2004 accident is described here :

Student’s rail death accident verdict

A STUDENT from Gomshall was killed by a train as he returned from a night out, an inquest heard on Thursday.

www.getsurrey.co.uk

Not apparent how a train from Guildford might arrive at 01.45, that seems an error as services stop calling there surely well before midnight. But more particularly, arriving eastbound from Guildford as described would not need crossing the line to leave the station, in fact I think there is no exit at all from the westbound side at all.

There’s a footpath shown in the westbound side on a number of maps, leading south to Dorking Road (you can go up it so far on Streetview). It’s a right of way in OS maps. I cannot be certain it reaches the platform, but it can’t be far short of it.

 

[zwk500]

There’s a footpath shown in the westbound side on a number of maps, leading south to Dorking Road (you can go up it so far on Streetview). It’s a right of way in OS maps. I cannot be certain it reaches the platform, but it can’t be far short of it.

Google Street View suggests there is a narrow alleyway to the southern platform https://www.google.com/maps/@51.218...=341.8871&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i13312!8i6656

 

[Sultan]

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.

I go there regularly and have never really considered the approach road in this way. 2-way, decently surfaced, it has to cope with a large movement of caravans due to the showroom there. If anything, on some weekends the car park is full, including the unofficial spaces. Gomshall attracts many people who don't live in the immediate area as a meeting / starting point for walkers and cyclists. It's also a good place to drop off / pickup Gatwick passengers for anyone not wanting the bother of driving there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Aug 2022 ==

Google Street View suggests there is a narrow alleyway to the southern platform https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2187514,-0.4421013,3a,75y,10.68h,83.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9zvOTRn724u1tYEZOfQP1Q!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=9zvOTRn724u1tYEZOfQP1Q&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&w=203&h=100&yaw=341.8871&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i13312!8i6656

It's actually a narrow private road (well surfaced) serving the private residences to the south of the station. A 10 yard footpath joins this road to the platform. There is no waiting area for vehicles or turning point (without using a resident's driveway). It's just a right of way, nothing else.

 

[Taunton]

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).

The issue with warning lights at such a location is they would trigger, and users would associate them, with the train on the nearside which the passenger had just alighted from, it having set them off on approach. There is no provision for those crossing right behind it, with their view obscured by it, for a "second train coming in opposite direction" message.

Not identical, but a similar situation to the Elsenham accident - staggered platforms, second train, users likely to think any warnings/gates are for first train.

Separately the report above describes that the first train was formed of six cars, three in service and three locked out and presumably being repositioned on the last service of the day. This was probably never envisaged in the risk assessment, for such a lengthy train to stop at the station. I wonder if it overhung the crossing, and the victim moved to cross immediately it cleared. And as it throttled up to depart, as Turbos do, it would drown out any approaching warning horn on the opposite track.

 

[zwk500]

The issue with warning lights at such a location is they would trigger, and users would associate them, with the train on the nearside which the passenger had just alighted from, it having set them off on approach. There is no provision for those crossing right behind it, with their view obscured by it, for a "second train coming in opposite direction" message.

This could be managed with a moving barrier, if so desired.

 

[Rich1974]

The issue with warning lights at such a location is they would trigger, and users would associate them, with the train on the nearside which the passenger had just alighted from, it having set them off on approach. There is no provision for those crossing right behind it, with their view obscured by it, for a "second train coming in opposite direction" message.

Not identical, but a similar situation to the Elsenham accident - staggered platforms, second train, users likely to think any warnings/gates are for first train.

Separately the report above describes that the first train was formed of six cars, three in service and three locked out and presumably being repositioned on the last service of the day. This was probably never envisaged in the risk assessment, for such a lengthy train to stop at the station. I wonder if it overhung the crossing, and the victim moved to cross immediately it cleared. And as it throttled up to depart, as Turbos do, it would drown out any approaching warning horn on the opposite track.

This is exactly what happened. Bit like when kids run out between parked cars when they hear the ice cream van coming and don't look both ways.