This is exactly what I meant. You’d rather we spend millions and millions of pounds on a new bridge when there is a simple alternative which involves non-railway userswalking just a short distance further. If there was no alternative walking route I’d understand, but most people aren’t going to the middle of Queens Road so crossing the railway via London Road or Carrington Street is hardly going out of their way. And no doubt another bridge would cost millions and millions because some other do-gooders will be along to say a new bridge must be a huge structure with ramps and lifts at each side, to enable access for people with reduced mobility. And they’d say this despite the current bridge having only steps, and the bridge that was removed only having steps - so a simple bridge with just steps would hardly be removing some convenience that already exists. As I said, so often in this country we seem to make fairly simple solutions into complex projects, at vast and unnecessary cost.
We can’t roll back time - it may well have been a mistake to remove the other bridge but its been done. We all know that additional on-train revenue inspection is almost impossible (or would cost a huge amount over time in extra wages) because of the short journeys (Beeston, Carlton, etc) that involved. So the solution would seem to be to build a new bridge or make people walk around the station. I am mystified why anyone should think that rail passengers should effectively end up paying for that bridge in the form of higher fares, which is inevitable if spending continues indiscriminately. And it seems so wasteful to build another bridge at vast cost to the railway (in other words the nation, and rail users) to assuage the feelings of non-rail users who don’t pay anything to use a structure that costs money to maintain, etc when - as I said - there’s a relatively short, easily accessible and flat (i.e. no steps, etc) alternative route.
"This is exactly what I meant. You’d rather we spend millions and millions of pounds on a new bridge when there is a simple alternative which involves non-railway users walking just a short distance further."
Untrue. In one of my previous posts I stated that *personally* I had no problem with with the footpath being diverted around the front of the station as long as the proper legal process was followed. I support other people using their legal rights to object; that does not mean I support their actual objections. I think also some confusion has crept into this thread since we've also ended up discussing the possibility of a new bridge for rail passengers in a more favourable (i.e. more central to the platform lengths) position, which would *incidentally* solve the right of way issue by leaving the existing bridge for that purpose. But that's really more of a long-term issue for which the finance may not be available.
Incidentally, you've made a lot of assumptions above about what the "do-gooders" *might* possibly do to increase costs; given that network rail has recently replaced a number of "non-accessible" foot crossings with equally "non accessible" bridges with no legal challenges reported, those assumptions are just that, assumptions.
Anyhow, it's all very well complaining about the situation and the "state of the country", but in this specific case exactly what is your solution, in practical terms?
Given that no matter how much you desire it, wishing that "do-gooders" would just shut up and go away, when they have a legal right to object, is not a practical solution, are you advocating that the railway should just ignore the law and stop up the footpath? Or do you want the law changed so that landowners can stop up a right of way without any legal process? Or maybe some special powers for the railway? What is it that you actually, specifically want to change?
