Rugeley T.V. Station Accessibility?

[Chrius56000]

. . .Does anybody know if there's any plan to make Rugeley T.V. Station fully accessible?

. . .This connects with the Chase Line locals from Walsall/Birmingham and I find the footbridge there particularly difficult because of arthritis/gout problems!

 

[SCDR_WMR]

It's simply not feasible. The island platform cannot fit a lift due to being rather tight in width and length.

There are 3 ways they could achieve step-free access but all require substantial work for a fairly underused station.
1. Re-route the Chase line track from the bend all the way to the junction so that the platform could be widened to support installation of a lift.
2. Install switchback ramps where the current stairs are, bridge would have to be relocated. Would increase transit times for all passengers as not possible to have both stairs and ramps.
3. Remove stairs and create a ramped underpass. Would need to extend the island platform and re-route the track to fit. Would require multiple, extensive blocks of the WCML to install.

And that's before we look at the cost of any of those ideas.

 

[childwallblues]

Totally agree with Cirius6000 post. The Chase Line stations have in my opinion pretty poor access.

 

[ambi23]

Another reason to extend services to Stafford once again imo. Plus there's a lack of ticketing options available that restricts you to taking the longer detour into Birmingham if you intend to travel North, which doesn't help. Though I have to say, if there's two of you then getting an Uber to Stafford Station is similarly priced to the cost of getting there (2 x singles both way) by train if you don't intend to travel back the same day.

 

[WestCountry]

It looks to me as though there'd be space for a lift shaft north of the current platform end, 'behind' the current footbridge.

The stairs would have to be moved and/or a fence erected on the platform edge to allow passengers to pass the stairs safely.

It would be expensive and in my experience (off-peak, admittedly) there are rarely more than a handful of people changing trains.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

It looks to me as though there'd be space for a lift shaft north of the current platform end, 'behind' the current footbridge.

The stairs would have to be moved and/or a fence erected on the platform edge to allow passengers to pass the stairs safely.

It would be expensive and in my experience (off-peak, admittedly) there are rarely more than a handful of people changing trains.

Very limited space alongside the stairs that you would need to pass to get to the lift though. Not sure it would be allowed, even with railings.

 

[ABB125]

I suppose you could fiddle with the track slightly so that the Chase line platform has buffer stops installed and the few trains (if any? Presumably all non-passenger) that run through onto the Trent Valley use the adjacent loop. This then gives you a load of space (and, importantly, width) beyond the new buffer stops that you could use for a lift etc

 

[ambi23]

I'm struggling with this one. Even building a seperate lift shaft at the south east side of the platform seems unfeasible. The idea of extending platforms north east and creating more room for a shaft here is expensive given the amount of people using the station. If either of the adjacent industrial estates weren't there, then there would be a good opportunity to convert into a decent sized parkway station to justify a proper rebuild.

 

[The Planner]

I suppose you could fiddle with the track slightly so that the Chase line platform has buffer stops installed and the few trains (if any? Presumably all non-passenger) that run through onto the Trent Valley use the adjacent loop. This then gives you a load of space (and, importantly, with) beyond the new buffer stops that you could use for a lift etc

The adjacent loop is gone. The only way you could probably do this is a new bridge at the south end.

 

[GooseGuy]

The situation with disability accessibility at Rugeley TV has been thrown back and forth between MPs and industry bodies for many years now. In my opinion, something will need to be done as the use of the station has been significantly increasing beyond pre-pandemic levels and the population of the town is forecasted to increase with local, large housing developments being started.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

The situation with disability accessibility at Rugeley TV has been thrown back and forth between MPs and industry bodies for many years now. In my opinion, something will need to be done as the use of the station has been significantly increasing beyond pre-pandemic levels and the population of the town is forecasted to increase with local, large housing developments being started.

It would need a whole new station developing. If there was a simple solution it would have been in plans by now under accessibility rules (See Kidsgrove for similar numbers).

 

[P Binnersley]

If the goods loop has gone; slewing the Chase line over towards the goods loop alignment would allow for a wider platform which should allow a lift to be installed.

 

[bigmanaiq]

I really don’t like that footbridge, or at least the one they had when I was there (April 2024)

 

[SCDR_WMR]

If the goods loop has gone; slewing the Chase line over towards the goods loop alignment would allow for a wider platform which should allow a lift to be installed.

It does, but I believe there is at least 1 OHLE gantry in the 4 foot of the old loop so that would need widening too.

 

[The Planner]

That is going to immediately fail an affordability test, even if its the correct thing to do.

 

[zwk500]

Changing OLE gantries is very unlikely, I agree with @The Planner (Although Google Satellite/Street View images suggest the 4ft of the loop is clear, but they may be outdated).

The widest part of the platform island measures c.8m on google maps. Current standards require 2m unobstructed width from the platform edge on lines up to 100mph and 2.5m above 100mph, IIRC. As the Chase line is 30mph and the Down Trent Valley Slow is 110mph, this gives c.3.5m for a lift shaft.
According to this (10-year-old) document: https://assets.publishing.service.g...be5d/design-standards-accessible-stations.pdf, a lift with internal dimensions of 2m width and 1.4m depth allows a wheelchair to be rotated. So there seems to be just about room if the lift shaft is reasonably thin. It would require quite a lot of platform furniture to be relocated, but there does seem to be width for a lift and the landing (just).

I do, however, agree with @SCDR_WMR in post #6 that the available width is unlikely to be sufficient for steps and a lift shaft to the same bridge, so the existing non-accessible bridge would probably need to be retained. I also can see huge issues with constructability (likely requiring closure of the Chase line platform while the lift is built, and probably some changes to the Trent Valley platform), and Signal Sighting - the bridge will need to be tall enough to clear the down signals and even then the curve may mean that an additional banner repeater is required for the Down Slow. Both of these have the potential to make it a very very difficult case for investment.

Slueing the chase line over and widening the platform would be ideal but as others have said it's not going to happen. Another option if a completely new bridge were to be required including steps would be to shorten the operational length of the Chase Line platform with railings. But that would likely need to be done at the north end as the south end looks too narrow even for a single-sided platform. However, it's currently only about 100m long so any further shortening would probably not be viable for the possible lengths of Chase Line services.


[Image of Rugeley Trent Valley Station with 8m width highlighted in Red and potential landing area on Up Side highlighted in purple]

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Maybe the most viable option is for a lift to be build behind the current staircases. There is plenty of disused platform, and there can be tall barriers erected facing the WCML. It would be best if it allowed entrance from the Chase Line side and exit at 90° (unsure if that's even doable) onto the over bridge, or if not then a section would need to be added sticking out from the over bridge. Same would work on the platform 3 side too - platform is narrow but not excessively so behind the current staircase.

No way could anything be put in the centre of the island, it's too narrow and adds huge visibility risks to train crew from both a signal sighting and passengers risk assessment point of view.

 

[childwallblues]

As previously stated trains on The Chase Line should be extended back to Stafford. They could use a split Platform 6 A and B sharing it with the Crewe via Stoke service.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

As previously stated trains on The Chase Line should be extended back to Stafford. They could use a split Platform 6 A and B sharing it with the Crewe via Stoke service.

Taking the path of what service?

Also, 6 is either likely to go back to being unused or being used for the through service Crewe - New St via Stoke & Tame Bridge in December.

 

[The Planner]

As previously stated trains on The Chase Line should be extended back to Stafford. They could use a split Platform 6 A and B sharing it with the Crewe via Stoke service.

Good luck with that, even less so with the mess HS2 leaves at Colwich.