Nottingham Station: Access to platforms from footbridge

[LowLevel]

You are correct. I always find EMR staff very diligent at checking tickets on all of these trains. That’s why I can’t understand why I’m so rarely getting my ticket checked on the Robin Hood Line in recent years.

Until the 170/2 3 cars which work most diagrams on the route get intermediate door controls it's not likely to change much. They're a nightmare to work for the guard. The work is being done but has quite a long lead time.

 

[bunnahabhain]

It's worth noting that I used to be able to check a 2 car 156 which had every seat occupied and standees in every vestibule by Hucknall in the pre app days. Now that folk are too busy doomscrolling with their noise cancelling earphones in, it takes me to Kirkby at the earliest and sometimes longer. I'd say the amount of time taken to do a full ticket check is about 2.25x what it used to take with credit card sized ticket stock.

 

[Travelmonkey]

Certainly some truth to this. There is possibly still a residual effect on behaviour from Covid, where ticket checking essentially ground to a halt

That and people's behaviours post pandemic are more feral and selfish, plenty of other threads highlighting that, this closure needs to be part of bigger plans as noted the 170s are not compatible for the route stopping patterns and appropriate fare checking, seems to be a issue for both EMR & XC especially on the occasions the latter double up a turbostar to form a 4>6 coach train, more staff are needed on RPI stings and collaboration, when I lived in Warrington often there would be TFW staff at the avanti managed bank Quay checking alighters, although easier there being just a subway,

 

[Halifaxlad]

Honestly, if EMR is hellbent on tightening the entrances, I would support closing the public right of way since it's the same route as Carrington Road I don't think it would be a significant harm to anyone yet is very important to rail and tram passengers. In the long run it'd be good to put actual additional station entrances with a few ticket barriers on the street parts but that would of course be the most expensive option.

Fat chance EMR would be able to close as it to claim it isnt needed would be impossible.

 

[Yew]

this closure needs to be part of bigger plans as noted the 170s are not compatible for the route stopping patterns and appropriate fare checking

They certainly are odd units, based on the 1/3 2/3 doors, you'd think they'd be short-distance commuter units and well suited for this type of work, with plenty of standing room and fast dwell times. But when they're missing intermediate door controls, have slow acceleration, and a high top speed, it really does show just how unsuited they are.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2025 ==

It’s a balancing act: slightly increased inconvenience for some users set against significant revenue loss being stemmed.

Are we sure that is the case though? I would argue that it is a significant disruption for people using the tram, undermining the efforts to encourage modal shift to public transport and the investment that Nottingham has made, to protect the profits of a company that has been giving the city an increasingly poor service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2025 ==

There's definitely a culture of 'pay-on-board' from all of these stations: it's not that people specifically want to fare evade and will pay up when the guard comes, but more often than not if it's a busy peak time service with all the stops the guard won't have time to come round, so they don't pay.

Yes, this was specifically encouraged during the BR "PayTrain" era, and the lone, unreliable, TVMs are realistically an innovation of the last 5-10 years.

 

[Lemmy99uk]

Enjoy your ride on our lovely Yutongs

I had to Google this to understand it, but now I know, I will pay more attention on the next trip.

 

[43066]

Are we sure that is the case though? I would argue that it is a significant disruption for people using the tram, undermining the efforts to encourage modal shift to public transport and the investment that Nottingham has made, to protect the profits of a company that has been giving the city an increasingly poor service.

It won’t make any difference to EMR’s profits - they’re paid a management fee and don’t take revenue risk. The pressure to clamp down on fare evasion has come from the DfT.

And are we really talking about “significant disruption?” - the interchange to the tram will be extended by a couple of minutes. It seems rather hard to imagine that will undermine efforts to encourage modal shift.

 

[ChrisC]

It won’t make any difference to EMR’s profits - they’re paid a management fee and don’t take revenue risk. The pressure to clamp down on fare evasion has come from the DfT.

And are we really talking about “significant disruption?” - the interchange to the tram will be extended by a couple of minutes. It seems rather hard to imagine that will undermine efforts to encourage modal shift.

Until EMR did the recent closure of access to the tram via the centre bridge I had forgotten that you could still use that route. Since the tram stop was moved to its current location I have used the new route from the main station entrance via the escalator or lift. Therefore losing access to the tram via the centre bridge won’t really bother me.

Where the closure of the bridge is likely to cause more inconvenience is changing platforms for a connecting train which I have often had to in a hurry if there has been a delay.

 

[43066]

Where the closure of the bridge is likely to cause more inconvenience is changing platforms for a connecting train which I have often had to in a hurry if there has been a delay.

Agreed, that’s the biggest drawback. Especially for those arriving or leaving on services at the C end of the platforms. The closure shouldn’t unduly impact on those with disabilities, those with heavy luggage etc. as they have to use the lifts on the concourse footbridge anyway.

 

[edwin_m]

I still think the best solution would be to close the right of way, forcing anyone wanting to get between that part of Queens Road and that part of Station Street to walk a couple of minutes further. The north steps could then be closed and the south ones managed by a barrier line on the exit from platform 7 to the car park.

And I speak as a former Ramblers member who's normally very much in favour of preserving footpaths. It's not the same as Sheffield where the footbridge gives access to the trams and the alternative route is much further.

 

[43066]

I still think the best solution would be to close the right of way, forcing anyone wanting to get between that part of Queens Road and that part of Station Street to walk a couple of minutes further. The north steps could then be closed and the south ones managed by a barrier line on the exit from platform 7 to the car park.

And I speak as a former Ramblers member who's normally very much in favour of preserving footpaths. It's not the same as Sheffield where the footbridge gives access to the trams and the alternative route is much further.

Almost certainly not within the gift of the railway to do - and rightly so.

 

[Nottingham59]

I still think the best solution would be to close the right of way,

Just build another RoW bridge. They also need an interchange bridge that connects P4 and P3. They could do that with one structure with segregated paths for paid and unpaid pedestrians.

 

[edwin_m]

Almost certainly not within the gift of the railway to do - and rightly so.

No, but the council can do so. There's a process to be gone through and no doubt some vociferous opponents on grounds of principle, but this isn't one of those cases where anyone (except fare dodgers) is seriously inconvenienced.

 

[tram21]

It won’t make any difference to EMR’s profits - they’re paid a management fee and don’t take revenue risk. The pressure to clamp down on fare evasion has come from the DfT.

And are we really talking about “significant disruption?” - the interchange to the tram will be extended by a couple of minutes. It seems rather hard to imagine that will undermine efforts to encourage modal shift.

Until EMR did the recent closure of access to the tram via the centre bridge I had forgotten that you could still use that route. Since the tram stop was moved to its current location I have used the new route from the main station entrance via the escalator or lift. Therefore losing access to the tram via the centre bridge won’t really bother me.

Where the closure of the bridge is likely to cause more inconvenience is changing platforms for a connecting train which I have often had to in a hurry if there has been a delay.

Similarly, it's a very very minor time difference to go via the main route, and is arguably a much nicer route and also has the opportunity for picking up a refreshment on the way from the Coop, Costa etc. Basically the only benefit for going the other way is bypassing the ticket barriers if you don't have a ticket!

Again for changing for trains. It's about 100m more, and I do appreciate it's longer, but it's not exactly a significant issue. You'd need probably 30 seconds at most more to use the main stairs rather than interchange using the bridge. (In fact, I'll test it and time it tomorrow and get back to you all!)

 

[philthetube]

I don't know the area but would it not be possible to segregate people on the bridge to allow it to be used for cross platform interchange.

Very expensive to close a public right of way, the highways act protects them.

 

[Nottingham59]

I don't know the area but would it not be possible to segregate people on the bridge to allow it to be used for cross platform interchange.

It would be difficult to put a barrier down the middle line of the bridge, but might be possible I suppose. They'd have to close off the steps down to the platforms on the un-paid side. And of course the Right of Way passes along Platform 7, but that could be fenced off too.

But the bridge is quite narrow, and I don't see how there would be any space to do ticket checks on the paid side.

 

[tram21]

But the bridge is quite narrow, and I don't see how there would be any space to do ticket checks on the paid side.

The point would be that it would allow Interchange. I do see it could work, and would be cheap to do. It would also facilitate the closure of access onto platform 7, therefore closing a major loophole in this trial that access to the station is still possible anyway (but will put most people off)

 

[Travelmonkey]

The funny thing is people are pushing the Right of way angle, as someone who's going to be using a wheelchair alot more in the near future I guess I don't matter as a member of the public. The bridge is a relic and don't suit the needs of all the public. I saw a comment on the BBC that read "justice for wheelchair users" about this case and it does seem ironic that those for keeping the bridge open are pushing it's affect on the disabled but also getting angry when reminded passenger assist is a thing. Tbh many stations mid bridge or not the BR wheelchair has been a godsend for me

 

[duffield]

The point would be that it would allow Interchange. I do see it could work, and would be cheap to do. It would also facilitate the closure of access onto platform 7, therefore closing a major loophole in this trial that access to the station is still possible anyway (but will put most people off)

I'm pretty sure that the few divided bridges I've seen around the rail network have been significantly wider than the Nottingham bridge. I'm personally convinced that it is just too narrow to do safely. There would only be room for one entry and one exit gate next to each other on half a bridge and at busy times when a full train arrives the bridge already fills to its full width. Queues would build up down the stairs and there would be conflict between passengers entering and exiting via the tram bridge exit, potentially the whole area could clog to a standstill with dangerous pushing and potential crush hazards.

Anyhow that's just my totally non-expert opinion, maybe there is some way to do it safely but if the current plan goes ahead I guess we won't find out.

 

[JArtis]

Frustrating that EMR's attitude is to treat everyone as a criminal instead of coming up with some innovative solution to the wider problem of ticket evasion. We should be making rail access as a whole more accessible and inviting in today's modern era.

 

[43066]

The funny thing is people are pushing the Right of way angle, as someone who's going to be using a wheelchair alot more in the near future I guess I don't matter as a member of the public. The bridge is a relic and don't suit the needs of all the public. I saw a comment on the BBC that read "justice for wheelchair users" about this case and it does seem ironic that those for keeping the bridge open are pushing it's affect on the disabled but also getting angry when reminded passenger assist is a thing. Tbh many stations mid bridge or not the BR wheelchair has been a godsend for me

Indeed. It’s hard to see what relevance the bridge really has in accessibility terms, when the lifts are at the far end of the platform on the main footbridge anyway! It’s a small inconvenience for most people.

Frustrating that EMR's attitude is to treat everyone as a criminal instead of coming up with some innovative solution to the wider problem of ticket evasion. We should be making rail access as a whole more accessible and inviting in today's modern era.

It’s closing off an easy access that, based on the trial closure, is causing £1m+ of revenue to be lost to the system each year. They’re also doing more ticket checks, certainly on London bound services, where RPIs can commonly be found issuing penalty fares and reporting people for prosecution. Quite a lot of passengers like to see more rigorous enforcement, and EMR guards generally seem pretty proactive at conducting ticket checks.

What other “innovative solution” is there, other than checking tickets and restricting access?

 

[Warrior2852]

I don't know the area but would it not be possible to segregate people on the bridge to allow it to be used for cross platform interchange.

Very expensive to close a public right of way, the highways act protects them.

Far too narrow, you'd only fit a couple people each side and it would become a very slow choke point when a busy train shows up.

 

[tram21]

Far too narrow, you'd only fit a couple people each side and it would become a very slow choke point when a busy train shows up.

And be quite dangerous on, for example, football days.

 

[Travelmonkey]

Indeed. It’s hard to see what relevance the bridge really has in accessibility terms, when the lifts are at the far end of the platform on the main footbridge anyway! It’s a small inconvenience for most people.

It’s closing off an easy access that, based on the trial closure, is causing £1m+ of revenue to be lost to the system each year. They’re also doing more ticket checks, certainly on London bound services, where RPIs can commonly be found issuing penalty fares and reporting people for prosecution. Quite a lot of passengers like to see more rigorous enforcement, and EMR guards generally seem pretty proactive at conducting ticket checks.

Also posters are all over to say buy before you board, I did find that ironic travelling out of Tutbury and Hatton west recently, it only has a card only TVM opposite the signal box over the crossing, silly thing is on that trip it was a northern guard on my connecting train at Stoke that sold me my ticket , (was paying cash)

 

[LTJ87]

The planned re-closure of the footbridge on 22nd February is now postponed to “engage further with relevant stakeholders”.

The reaction to this was of course entirely foreseeable.

Update on Nottingham footbridge - Closure of access to platforms not taking place on 22 Feb | East Midlands Railway News

News from East Midlands Railway

news.eastmidlandsrailway.co.uk

A spokesperson said: “The first short closure of the bridge laid bare the stark extent of ticketless travel taking place via the footbridge – estimated to be around £1.1 million a year.

“This money belongs to the taxpayer and is vital for the railway to operate successfully, improve, and secure investment.

“The last closure also highlighted significant safety and security benefits, including three direct interventions to support suicidal individuals.

“We recognise the importance of ensuring that our proposals effectively consider those impacted by this change. To support this, we will not be closing access to the footbridge on 22 February, and instead, will be taking additional time to engage further with the relevant stakeholders.”

 

[Blurb]

The planned re-closure of the footbridge on 22nd February is now postponed to “engage further with relevant stakeholders”.

The reaction to this was of course entirely foreseeable.

Update on Nottingham footbridge - Closure of access to platforms not taking place on 22 Feb | East Midlands Railway News

News from East Midlands Railway

news.eastmidlandsrailway.co.uk

Feels like it’s all part of the PR plan. I generally support the closure, but there are better ways of winning people over! Admit that issues exist and work to mitigate them!

 

[DDB]

As I understand it EMR promised to consult the council and local MPs before doing it again but instead just went ahead and announced it. This strikes me as very unwise especially now that one of the local MPs is a Minister in DfT!

 

[Travelmonkey]

Hopefully there can be some halfway house situation even if it means we have a new street lite* situation with a few gatelines, although that's additional staff
cost and equipment.

* A concourse new street*

 

[35B]

Indeed. It’s hard to see what relevance the bridge really has in accessibility terms, when the lifts are at the far end of the platform on the main footbridge anyway! It’s a small inconvenience for most people.



It’s closing off an easy access that, based on the trial closure, is causing £1m+ of revenue to be lost to the system each year. They’re also doing more ticket checks, certainly on London bound services, where RPIs can commonly be found issuing penalty fares and reporting people for prosecution. Quite a lot of passengers like to see more rigorous enforcement, and EMR guards generally seem pretty proactive at conducting ticket checks.

What other “innovative solution” is there, other than checking tickets and restricting access?

Except that the bridge in question makes a material saving when coming off the far end (and my trains frequently go to P2), whether within the station or to the tram. Travelling recently, the bridge - entrance distance approximately doubled my distance to walk compared with the footbridge.

It's a stretch to claim accessibility given the lift position, but that just points even further to how poorly designed the tram/train interchange is.

EMR's decisions here, I assume driven by DfT's (Treasury induced) urgent desire for cash and phobia about actually spending money, are an example of how the railway should NOT behave, and undermines its credibility in the eyes of the wider public.

 

[County School]

Indeed. It’s hard to see what relevance the bridge really has in accessibility terms, when the lifts are at the far end of the platform on the main footbridge anyway! It’s a small inconvenience for most people.

Access isn't solely about wheelchair users. Many customers do not walk at the speed of young adults without baggage. The 8 minute minimum interchange time which EMR claim is via the main concourse is wholly unrealistic for many travellers changing from the far end of one island to the far end of one of the other islands without using the centre bridge. Moreover, late platform alterations are frequently from the far ends of different islands.