Ramblers make level crossings plea

[Tav77]

Just read this:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/ramblers-make-level-crossings-plea-1-3684179

Ramblers are calling on MSPs to resolve confusion over the public's right to use railway level crossings.

Ten years after rights of access were secured to much of Scotland's land and water, Ramblers Scotland wants Holyrood to look again at the legislation.

Convener David Thomson said right to roam laws are working well but there is a lack of clarity over so-called "private" level crossings.

He said: " Until 2004, access by non-motorised users over these crossings was tolerated by Railtrack and its predecessors. Since then, despite no legislative change having taken place, Network Rail has insisted that anyone who is not the specified authorised user would be committing criminal trespass by using any such level crossing.

"These crossings are used by walkers, cyclists and horseriders, with thousands reliant upon these as important routes in some locations.

"In rural areas the nearest point people can cross could be many miles away and therefore these private crossings have immense importance....

I guess in some rural areas in Scotland, there may only be 8 trains a day on these lines. I presume Network rail have no plans to build lots of bridges over these crossings, and why would they if footfall is so low.

I don't really have an opinion, just wondered what other people made of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If a level crossing is safe, I don't see that its users should be restricted. If it isn't safe, it should be closed entirely.

Neil

 

[oldman]

Lazy one-size-fits-all bureaucracy by NR. The distance to the nearest crossing, the frequency of service and likely footfall are all relevant factors, but it's so much easier to say all crossings should be treated the same.

 

[The Planner]

And all those factors are considered when looking at closing a LC, it isn't "one size fits all"

 

[Elecman]

People don't understand the legalities of the various types of crossing, occupation crossings are legally only able to used by those covered by the crossing order, nowt that Zhokyrood or anyone else can do about that unless they repeal all the Acts and orders coveting them. As the Panner says all these things are looked at and its definatly not 1 size fits all.

 

[Llanigraham]

Lazy one-size-fits-all bureaucracy by NR. The distance to the nearest crossing, the frequency of service and likely footfall are all relevant factors, but it's so much easier to say all crossings should be treated the same.

Rubbish!
Every crossing is looked at separately using lots of different criteria, plus you often have to go back to the initial enabling Act of that particular Railway, which typically the Ramblers Assoc also ignore.
The "Rights" to use a crossing are much more complex than you think.

 

[Altnabreac]

There is a problem here that needs resolving by Holyrood.

Look at a crossing like Balsporran:
http://www.abcrailwayguide.co.uk/balsporran-level-crossing-9384

This is the only access point to a large area of land which is freely accessible for walkers and includes the Munro of Geal Charn.

Technically this is a Private Crossing so should only be used by authorised users from the estate.

In reality every account of climbing this mountain tells you to use the level crossing as the nearest alternative is miles away.

Every year thousands of hill climbers will use this and other crossings that are technically illegal. Given there is no chance of replacing these crossings with bridges we need a more sensible approach which acknowledges reality.

Any Private Crossings that link publically accessible land need to be opened up to the public. Otherwise it undermines the whole system as people will just keep using the crossings anyway.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

There is a problem here that needs resolving by Holyrood.

I agree.
The 2003 Land Reform Act was a great step forwards and I think most people would agree that it has been largely free of unintended consequences. It was never intended to include Railway crossings in that Act's provisions, and access to railway crossings remains under the grant of permission by their owner (by the Railways, in the broadest sense).

Unauthorised access to the Railway in Scotland can be captured by both civil and criminal Trespass.

But this is a good example of the sort of uninformed advice which leads to the tiresome and unnecessary intervention of prohibitions in the name of 'Health and Safety' which has become such a matter of ridicule in the UK:-

If a level crossing is safe, I don't see that its users should be restricted. If it isn't safe, it should be closed entirely.

Neil

This is not a question of unsafe level crossings.
There is no rotten timber, rusted hinge, loose board, broken circuit or poor sightline.
It is the use of a level crossing that can be unsafe. That can be dealt with by a number of constructive strategies.
Anyone undertaking risk assessments for more than two minutes should know that.

The real risk to public safety is people taking it upon themselves to offer safety 'advice' without proper and appropriate training, experience and qualification.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is the use of a level crossing that can be unsafe. That can be dealt with by a number of constructive strategies.

Are the landowners provided with specific, in-depth training on the use of their occupation crossings? (Genuine question)

If not, I don't see how adding a very small number of additional users (a few hikers once in a while) is making things seriously unsafe. Therefore I can see no argument for using police time to enforce the usage of these crossings, and I can see an argument for a change in the law to permit them for general use when using adjacent lands for access.

If there is *significant* demand to cross there, there is a very strong case for the railway to provide a proper crossing, e.g. a bridge or underpass, though the question would remain as to who pays.

Neil

 

[Altnabreac]

I agree.
The 2003 Land Reform Act was a great step forwards and I think most people would agree that it has been largely free of unintended consequences. It was never intended to include Railway crossings in that Act's provisions, and access to railway crossings remains under the grant of permission by their owner (by the Railways, in the broadest sense).

Unauthorised access to the Railway in Scotland can be captured by both civil and criminal Trespass.

But this is a good example of the sort of uninformed advice which leads to the tiresome and unnecessary intervention of prohibitions in the name of 'Health and Safety' which has become such a matter of ridicule in the UK:-This is not a question of unsafe level crossings.
There is no rotten timber, rusted hinge, loose board, broken circuit or poor sightline.
It is the use of a level crossing that can be unsafe. That can be dealt with by a number of constructive strategies.
Anyone undertaking risk assessments for more than two minutes should know that.

The real risk to public safety is people taking it upon themselves to offer safety 'advice' without proper and appropriate training, experience and qualification.

I agree that it is the use that is important.

For me the issue in the risk assessments is that if the crossings are assessed on the basis of a small number of estate users when in reality they get a much larger number of users from the general public the categorisation and decisions on risk may be different.

Whatever Network Rail do these crossings will continue to be used by walkers so better the law should reflect reality and allow the risks to be properly assessed.

 

[AM9]

Are the landowners provided with specific, in-depth training on the use of their occupation crossings? (Genuine question)

If not, I don't see how adding a very small number of additional users (a few hikers once in a while) is making things seriously unsafe. Therefore I can see no argument for using police time to enforce the usage of these crossings, and I can see an argument for a change in the law to permit them for general use when using adjacent lands for access.

If there is *significant* demand to cross there, there is a very strong case for the railway to provide a proper crossing, e.g. a bridge or underpass, though the question would remain as to who pays.

Neil

Further to the above, if the 'landowner' is 'authorised' (trained in its use or not), can his (or her) family use it, - how about his friends when visiting him, or business visitors etc. etc.?
It would be incongrous if any Tom, Dick or Harry who can claim a spurious 'need' to access the land on both sides of the track for the landowner's benefit is OK to use it but not members of the public who have a legal right of access to that same land.
I wonder if some of the landowners are happy for Network Rail to fight a battle with ramblers et al on their behalf. I'm sure that many of them see walkers as 'tresspassers' and would prefer them to go away.

 

[Antman]

If a level crossing is safe, I don't see that its users should be restricted. If it isn't safe, it should be closed entirely.

Neil

How is any foot crossing unsafe? Surely if users follow the basics of stop look and listen there won't be any mishaps?

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I nearly creamed a group of OAPs near Guildford who would you believe were standing on a foot crossing studying a map! Let loose with the horns doing 80 mph, just a about to hit the emergency brake and the dumb bar stewards stepped calmly out of the way. Don't think that they'll forget the loud horns though.

 

[work-traveller]

Every now and then you see walkers using the track as an efficient means of making headway to wherever they are going. Don't imagine they have PTS+IWA and they certainly don't have full hi-vi and a helmet (to guard against the non-existent object above them).

 

[Llanigraham]

A small UWC out in the country, used by perhaps one or two people rarely is perfectly safe provided they follow the instructions, which as Permitted Users they have had explained to them.
The problem comes from lots of people start using the crossing who haven't had instructions, like these Ramblers.
It should also be remembered that the RA have an "agenda" to see all legal restrictions removed for their (exclusive) use of Rights of Way, sometimes to the detriment of others.

 

[sbt]

It should also be remembered that the RA have an "agenda" to see all legal restrictions removed for their (exclusive) use of Rights of Way, sometimes to the detriment of others.

Interesting. Thats the first time that I have seen, as a former Ramblers Association member, that 'exclusivity' policy statement. When was it voted in? How are they proposing to bar non-members from the rights of way that have, as you say, 'all legal restrictions' removed from them? I have visions of Jackbooted and Thermos Flasked thugs in smart Goretex fascist uniforms carrying out extra-legal intimidation of non-members at stiles out in the countryside. 'Membership Papers Please!'

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think what is being said here is that there used to be de-facto permissive use of non-vehicle use of UWC and that NR are now, in the current climate, tightening up on this. This causes problems for recreational and non-recreational users who have been used to using them. So the Ramblers are saying that, as legislation in the area of land access is coming up for review, could something be put in place to change this situation.

It appears from the article that the Ramblers aren't really up to speed on railway safety and railway associated legislation. Thats to be expected - they are experts in ROW and Land Access law, not the railways. But the problem remains and several things could be done to deal with it, most of which, I suspect, would involve money being spent.

It may currently be against the law to use a UWC without being one of the named users. What the Ramblers are saying is, can we change that? That would obviously have implications, some potentially costly. But the reality is that if things stay as they are unauthorised people will continue to use these crossings without them being designed for such use and NR know this. Eventually someone will be hit and the question will be asked 'if you knew people were doing this why didn't you do something about it'. It would be much better for everyone if the crossings were re-designated and engineered as public foot crossings as well as UWC. A review of the law seems like a good time to look at this, and also whether any change in the law could take some or all of the financial burden of the extra work off NR through providing funds from other sources, the Tourism budget for example.

BTW. There may not be a blanket policy of closing all crossings but I do know that NR have such a policy for some lines. I also know that the law on unauthorised use of UWC applies to all UWC, so presumably a policy of trying to enforce this, and thus close them to the previous 'custom and practise' use by foot traffic, would be a 'blanket policy' that didn't consider each crossing individually.

PS. This sort of situation doesn't just apply in Scotland, although it will be more prevalent. There will no doubt be places where 'custom and practise' use by foot traffic will have built up in Perfidious Albion. However the Scottish Ramblers appear to be playing the 'Nasty, Ignorant, English' card.

 

[infobleep]

What are Network Rail doing, if anything, to stop people using these routes illegally? Has anyone ever been prosecuted for trespass across one of these crossings?

I've used foot crossings on railways including the North Downs Line. I once had to wait for a steam train to pass and I hadn't realised it was due to come thought either! That crossing was in Abinger Hammer, near Gomshall, and footpath leads up to the North Downs Way and hill.

The North Downs Lines must have more trains passing than some lines in Scotland. So if someone can fund the changes, I do think making the Scottish crossings legal for the general public would be good. Until then though it remains illegal to make unauthorised crossings and in theory you could end up in court charged with trespass if you do. Would that be a criminal or civil offence?

 

[221129]

What are Network Rail doing, if anything, to stop people using these routes illegally? Has anyone ever been prosecuted for trespass across one of these crossings?

I've used foot crossings on railways including the North Downs Line. I once had to wait for a steam train to pass and I hadn't realised it was due to come thought either! That crossing was in Abinger Hammer, near Gomshall, and footpath leads up to the North Downs Way and hill.

The North Downs Lines must have more trains passing than some lines in Scotland. So if someone can fund the changes, I do think making the Scottish crossings legal for the general public would be good. Until then though it remains illegal to make unauthorised crossings and in theory you could end up in court charged with trespass if you do. Would that be a criminal or civil offence?

Trespassing on the Railways is a Criminal Offence.

 

[sbt]

What are Network Rail doing, if anything, to stop people using these routes illegally?

I have a very vague recollection that at least [art of the responsibility to prevent unauthorised use falls to the authorised user of the UWC. If this is so, then NR may be merely 'reminding' the authorised users of this and the authorised users then taking steps, like locking pedestrian gates, telling their neighbours and local outdoor activity centres to desist etc, in order to comply.

I emphasise that this is only a very vague recollection from reading RAIB reports.

BTW, this doesn't just affect Ramblers and other outdoor activity participants, 'spoiling their fun'. As the Ramblers say in the original article it affects the ability of locals to go about their normal business. Also in the areas we are talking about a large part of the local economy depends on tourism, including, to a greater or lesser extent, outdoor activity based tourism.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Trespassing on the Railways is a Criminal Offence.

Given the area referred to, it was probably a combined UWC Vehicle Crossing and public Footpath Crossing. Either that or there are an awful lot of public footpaths and bridleways that stop at the boundary fence opposite each other but don't have a legal FP crossing to join them up. Most of these are on farm tracks, just where you would expect a UWC.

In fact I'm pretty sure I can identify, from the details given, exactly the crossing in question. I think it is the Hackhurst Farm crossing, which is approached through a farmyard on one side, with a route marked specifically as not being a right of way but open for public use on one side and a public bridleway on the other. I believe I may have used myself it in the past, about 15 years ago. The only other candidate is the New Barn Farm crossing, where a bridleway runs up to the railway on each side and, I assume, there must therefore be a public crossing between them. No other farm tracks etc. run up to the railway in that area so there appears to be no chance that it was a UWC that did not have a legal means for the public to cross on foot.

 

[edwin_m]

I have a very vague recollection that at least [art of the responsibility to prevent unauthorised use falls to the authorised user of the UWC. If this is so, then NR may be merely 'reminding' the authorised users of this and the authorised users then taking steps, like locking pedestrian gates, telling their neighbours and local outdoor activity centres to desist etc, in order to comply.

I emphasise that this is only a very vague recollection from reading RAIB reports.

There's a recent one into an accident on the East Suffolk Line which discusses that the authorised user has a responsibility towards their visitors using the crossing. However no landowner would wish to take responsibility for any member of the general public exercising their right to roam. In fact I believe the English right to roam legislation (not sure about the Scottish) created protection for landowners against being sued by right-to-roamers who had come to grief on their access land. Something similar would be needed for level crossings, to make the landowner not liable for any injury befalling right-to-roamers on the crossing.