Security at Barrow Crossings

[Julian6287]

Hello All. I am a councillor on Freshford Parish Council which is within Bath & North East Somerset area. Our local station - Freshford - is on the Wessex Line from Bristol/Bath through to Salisbury, Westbury, Portsmouth and Salisbury. There is no access to the southbound direction for those with disabilities or lacking mobility. There is a bridge with 25 steps, so unsuitable for parents with prams, wheelchairs users etc. The station is managed under licence for Network Rail by GWR. I have previously asked GWR if they have plans to provide Access for All but it does not appear in their plans, despite having an annual footfall of 55,000 passengers. In the 2021 census 19% of the population of Freshford had a a disability of some type. I am investigating the possibility of a controlled Barrow Crossing, with the gate locking automatically with a warning light if a train is approaching. Do any of the members of the forum know of any technical solutions or companies that could provide an estimate. If there is a low-cost solution to the problem, GWR may be willing to find the funding. Julian Carpenter

 

[Gloster]

I am not up to date with current legislation and practices, although I know Freshford, but a few thoughts to explain why I feel you are on a hiding to nothing here. Firstly, bear in mind that the standard required of new installations is going to to be far higher than that required of existing ones that have ‘grandfather rights’.

The railway (which includes supervising authorities) is highly unlikely to allow any system which allows the public to cross the track unless they can check them on and off. If you had a locking gate it would probably have to be tied into the signalling system so that the signals are held at danger until the crossing is proved clear. This then means that the crossing will have to be confirmed as clear a good five minutes before any train in either direction (my rough estimate) is going to pass: the disruption for operating would be considerable.

Then there is maintenance, vandalism and resulting special working, and the like, all on top of a substantial initial cost. The work has got to achieve a certain cost-benefit return and the railway is always pushed for money (not helped by the inbuilt inefficiencies of a private system) and if the economy goes goes further down the pan it may be more so.

Frankly, if there is that much need for it, you would be better looking at a bridge with ramps or a lift. But be careful how you push things or you might lose the lot.

 

[John Webb]

Looking at maps and photos of the station on the Geograph website, there appears to be a user-worked level crossing at one end of the station close to the existing footbridge. If this crossing still exists you may be better off trying to get pedestrian gates fitted to it as an upgrade rather than attempting to get something completely new?

 

[zwk500]

I am investigating the possibility of a controlled Barrow Crossing, with the gate locking automatically with a warning light if a train is approaching.

The most likely solution would be a gate that is normally locked, and unlocked on request to the signaller. However, know that there is a strong presumption against any new type of level crossing, including barrow crossings, so if there isn't anything there at all it will be a strong upwards battle to demonstrate that the new LC is better than providing a footbridge.

Do any of the members of the forum know of any technical solutions or companies that could provide an estimate.

Various options are available for requesting the gate be opened, usually with an electromagnet release. However know that anything requiring interaction with the interlocking (such as being triggered by a track circuit being occupied) is likely to be very expensive.

If an existing LC is nearby, that would be by far the better option. If not, then the barrow crossing may be viable if provided with red/green lights similar to those used for footpath crossings, rather than needing any action from the signaller.

 

[swt_passenger]

I doubt a new ‘barrow crossing’ would ever be entertained, they’ve been actively removing them for years.

I wonder what the recent annual passenger numbers are for typical stations that are currently getting Access for All lifts?

Near me we have Swanwick (563,000) and Hedge End (400,000) in the ‘active design’ status.

I wonder where Freshford would come in a national prioritised list, where they seem to be starting actual work on single figure numbers of stations?

 

[sharpley]

My local station (Melton Mowbray) has a barrow crossing with locked gates controlled by the local signal box. It's recently been upgraded with the telephones used to contact the box replaced with an intercom.

EDIT.. Barrow crossing seems to be out of service at the moment. Not sure why.

 

[mr_moo]

I work in the industry and can definitely say a new barrow crossing would be extremely unlikely to be approved - it's not really worth spending energy on this. It's just not something that is supported in the current railway risk hierarchy. It would also need to be gated and linked to the signalling system.

The only saving grace is the adjacent existing crossing - this looks like an 'accommodation crossing', thus would be one which is normally closed and only available to 'authorised users', who would be issued a key and would be given training on how to use the crossing safely, which would include phoning the signaller to request permission to cross each time (I can see a phone on google streetview).
As there is an existing crossing, there is an existing crossing order (legal permission for the crossing to exist), and thus getting this crossing upgraded to allow for your proposed usage may be a possibility, although I'll be honest - It will still be quite the challenge. It looks from streetview that the crossing does not currently have any interlocking with the signalling system and relies on being a padlocked gate and the phone calls being made. To allow the public to use this you would at least need to get it upgraded to an MSL - "Miniature Stop Lights" crossing.
This is a signalling modification so is likely to be expensive but is about the only thing that may be feasible.

Honestly, you are better off spending your time seeking to get a bridge based solution provided - it has a much higher chance of success.

I can see two options for this:
1) Continue pushing for 'an Access for all' upgrade to provide lifts, either to the existing footbridge or, more likely, to a new one. Submit an FOI request to Network Rail and also one to GWR, asking for copies of any DIAs or EquIAs they have available for the station.

Inclusive design - Network Rail

Inclusive design delivers spaces and places for everyone, it means that everyone benefits from the full range of services and that we offer.

www.networkrail.co.uk

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accessible-railways-roadmap/our-roadmap-to-an-accessible-railwayhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accessible-railways-roadmap/our-roadmap-to-an-accessible-railway

2) Whilst I have no idea who owns the surrounding land, google maps suggests that you have space available for the using, and thus it may be worth suggesting that a ramped bridge may provide a better solution instead of lifts that need maintenance and break down.

Network Rail was looking into low cost bridges a few years ago and launched the 'flow' bridge, which was stepped but had development plans to make a ramped version too. It's all gone very quiet though so I assume development has stopped sadly. Worth asking some questions of NR though to see if there is anything still in development.

Innovative 'flow' footbridge - Network Rail

Network Rail has developed a striking and innovative footbridge that has the potential to improve safety and transform rail crossings.

www.networkrail.co.uk

Failing that, pushing for a standard ramped bridge and/or lifts is probably your best bet.

 

[najaB]

Without having to find the appropriate sectional appendix, does anyone know the line speed through the area as that would likely have a big impact on any risk assessment for an at-grade crossing?

 

[zwk500]

Without having to find the appropriate sectional appendix, does anyone know the line speed through the area as that would likely have a big impact on any risk assessment for an at-grade crossing?

70mph for SP speeds, 60mph for everything else.

There is, as mentioned, a User-Worked Crossing 2 chains from the nominal position of Freshford Station (not sure how far it actually is from the end of the platform ramp/steps).

 

[Spartacus]

I doubt a new ‘barrow crossing’ would ever be entertained, the’ve been actively removing them for years.

I wonder what the recent annual passenger numbers are for typical stations that are currently getting Access for All lifts?

Near me we have Swanwick (563,000) and Hedge End (400,000) in the ‘active design’ status.

I wonder where Freshford would come in a national prioritised list, where they seem to be starting actual work on single figure numbers of stations?

Although in Northern-land Horton in Ribblesdale (23,000) has beaten Batley (227,000) to getting lifts, that's due to the potential of freights stood blocking the previous crossing, 100,000+ fell walkers/runners over the crossing and line curvature, so probably hard to be definitive, but I'd be willing to be Freshford's very low.

As you say, I can't imagine NR even entertaining the idea of a new barrow crossing, even upgrading the current accommodation crossing (to a sewage farm) would be a push too, like Horton, Freshford's in the middle of a curve, so limited visibility.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Aug 2026 ==

Honestly, you are better off spending your time seeking to get a bridge based solution provided - it has a much higher chance of success.

I can see two options for this:
1) Continue pushing for 'an Access for all' upgrade to provide lifts, either to the existing footbridge or, more likely, to a new one. Submit an FOI request to Network Rail and also one to GWR, asking for copies of any DIAs or EquIAs they have available for the station.

Inclusive design - Network Rail

Inclusive design delivers spaces and places for everyone, it means that everyone benefits from the full range of services and that we offer.

www.networkrail.co.uk

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accessible-railways-roadmap/our-roadmap-to-an-accessible-railwayhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accessible-railways-roadmap/our-roadmap-to-an-accessible-railway

2) Whilst I have no idea who owns the surrounding land, google maps suggests that you have space available for the using, and thus it may be worth suggesting that a ramped bridge may provide a better solution instead of lifts that need maintenance and break down.

Network Rail was looking into low cost bridges a few years ago and launched the 'flow' bridge, which was stepped but had development plans to make a ramped version too. It's all gone very quiet though so I assume development has stopped sadly. Worth asking some questions of NR though to see if there is anything still in development.

Innovative 'flow' footbridge - Network Rail

Network Rail has developed a striking and innovative footbridge that has the potential to improve safety and transform rail crossings.

www.networkrail.co.uk

Failing that, pushing for a standard ramped bridge and/or lifts is probably your best bet.

I dare say anything standing out or looking that modern could get a very cold welcome around Freshford, a conservation area that in many places barely looks touched by the 20th Century, let alone 21st. I'm surprised the place hasn't been used for more filming work.

 

[edwin_m]

I have previously asked GWR if they have plans to provide Access for All but it does not appear in their plans, despite having an annual footfall of 55,000 passengers.

Continue pushing for 'an Access for all' upgrade to provide lifts, either to the existing footbridge or, more likely, to a new one.

Selection of stations for AfA will depend on several factors, obviously including cost but also trying to provide a reasonable geographic spread. Most people who are unable to use a stepped bridge will also be unable to move more than a very short distance without a car. So this is based on the expectation that most will drive (or be driven) to the station and having got into a car they could equally go to a different station a bit further away.

You are probably aware that Bradford-on-Avon got a fairly low-cost AfA upgrade a few years ago by constructing a ramp from the non-accessible platform to a nearby road. This allows wheelchair users and others to get to that platform without using the footbridge, although it's quite a distance round over the road bridge for those who use the station car park or have to get a ticket first. Bath has lifts to both platforms. Both are a shortish though not particularly easy drive from Freshford, so I expect any questions about AfA for Freshford would get the answer that it's not a high priority as nearby stations already have AfA.

As you say, I can't imagine NR even entertaining the idea of a new barrow crossing, even upgrading the current accommodation crossing (to a sewage farm) would be a push too, like Horton, Freshford's in the middle of a curve, so limited visibility.

A typical barrow crossing, particularly at somewhere like Freshford where many trains don't stop, is more hazardous than a typical footpath crossing. More people will probably use it because it is a route to and from a platform, and people may be in a hurry to catch their train and be struck by that train they intend to catch or by one passing through at speed.

 

[MrC]

It would also need to be gated and linked to the signalling system.

Unless things have changed over the past couple of years it doesn't have to be tied into the signalling system. I can't remember the technical term used by signalling engineers (I think its "overlay") but crossings can be upgraded by having R/G lights triggered by treadles with no signalling connection. However most of the crossing upgrades that I'm aware of were upgraded from previously existing crossings so certain grandfather & public RoW rights already existed.

It's unlikely that the existing UWC would be feasible due to distance from the station and there would likely be access issues if it's across private land. Looking at Google Maps there's also a rail overbridge to the south of the station but this looks like its for agricultural access so would also be unlikely to be usable.

Personally I'm in agreement with the majority in that for the footfall (which although increasing isn't huge) plus the safety risks, a crossing at Freshford would likely fail any cost/benefit/safety ratio assessment. Typically the only sort of upgrade that'd be considered these days would be to replace the footbridge with a new one with ramps or lifts but that'd require a much bigger footfall to justify. For Freshford it'd be cheaper to provide a taxi to the next accessible station.

It's also worth noting that NR shows Freshford as having no step free access to either platform so NR/GWR would have to factor in making the station step-free as well in the unlikely event of providing a crossing.

 

[John Webb]

....It's unlikely that the existing UWC would be feasible due to distance from the station.....

I'm a bit confused as photos of the station and 'Streetview' show the UWC is immediately adjacent to the Bath end of the two platforms.
But I have to agree that it's a bit unlikely anything could be done here in the present financial climate.

 

[alex17595]

There's a underpass in the field to the east, perhaps it would be easier to negotiate with the farmer about putting a path down the side of the field, than with Network rail.

 

[The exile]

There's an underpass in the field to the east, perhaps it would be easier to negotiate with the farmer about putting a path down the side of the field, than with Network rail.

Those are the sort of solutions that should be much more actively pursued. Don’t know how practical it is in this particular case, but Warwick Parkway prices it can be done even when Railtrack / NR wouldn’t entertain the idea.
Looking at Street View in woukd be a long way round for anyone, let alone someone who can’t manage stairs!

 

[MrC]

I'm a bit confused as photos of the station and 'Streetview' show the UWC is immediately adjacent to the Bath end of the two platforms.
But I have to agree that it's a bit unlikely anything could be done here in the present financial climate.

Sorry - my bad. Streetview does indeed show it in the shadow of the footbridge. It'd be interesting to see who owns the land either side but I still think the OP would be on a hiding to nothing. Still, it wouldn't hurt to ask NR/GWR to see what they say. I think if it were me I'd be asking NR to put me in touch with the Level Crossing Manager for the area first to have a quick chat as they'll know the land owner and what access restrictions will be in place for the crossing. One important thing to note is that the crossing appears to exist to give access to a local sewage treatment works so could be expected to be in regular use by persons who would have to be briefed (usually by their employer) in the crossing's use so NR are unlikely to want to give general access for pedestrians for various obvious performance and safety reasons.

More unofficial info at https://map.crossinginspector.co.uk/map?crossing=freshford-uwct

 

[The exile]

It's also worth noting that NR shows Freshford as having no step free access to either platform so NR/GWR would have to factor in making the station step-free as well in the unlikely event of providing a crossing.

That must be an error or some technicality. Platform /train interface used to be very challenging (!) but car-park to platform is level.

 

[Farigiraf]

New barrow crossings don't appear to be on the table, they're inherently less safe than a bridge or underpass and attempting to make them fit modern H&S standards wouldn't result in any affordable options. Chances are that the only hope for Freshford is getting a new footbridge, but currently Network Rail doesn't have a rolling programme of accessibility improvements, applications for 'access for all' are assessed on a case by case basis, and there's a long list of stations which are waiting for funding. However:

Near me we have Swanwick (563,000) and Hedge End (400,000) in the ‘active design’ status.

I dare say anything standing out or looking that modern could get a very cold welcome around Freshford, a conservation area that in many places barely looks touched by the 20th Century, let alone 21st. I'm surprised the place hasn't been used for more filming work.

noting these two factors, it's unlikely that the small village station of Freshford, which would have a very sparse service if it wasn't on a regional mainline, will ever see the top of the AFA list within the next decade or two.

It must be really frustrating, especially in villages like Freshford where the railway's the main lifeline for people who can't/don't drive, however NR don't assess AFA applications by what proportion of passengers it'll help, but based on pure numbers (and geographical spread). If 25% of Freshford's 55,000 users a year would welcome step-free access to the southbound platform, while only 3% of Gunnersbury's 5 million annual users would welcome accessibility improvements, Gunnersbury station getting lifts still helps out more people overall (approx 150,000 v Freshford's approx 14,000). Add to that the recent AFA improvements at Bradford-on-Avon, which NR can (incorrectly, IMO) use an excuse to ask disabled passengers to drive to B-o-A.

The railway's never exactly been particularly ambitious when it comes to accessibility - remember that accessibility only really became a thing on its radar in the late 90s, so every project since then has been essentially part of a game of catch-up. From a fairness perspective, it should be prioritised more, but it's nowhere near as profitable of an endeavour as other avenues of investment, so current DfT/Treasury economics don't see it as that important. At least new rolling stock is required to have level boarding now.

 

[najaB]

It must be really frustrating, especially in villages like Freshford where the railway's the main lifeline for people who can't/don't drive, however NR don't assess AFA applications by what proportion of passengers it'll help, but based on pure numbers (and geographical spread).

In an environment where money is a limited resource, it is hard to argue that it should be done otherwise than to spend the money where it will benefit the greatest number of people possible. From a hard-nosed perspective, it would be cheaper and provide greater overall benefit to simply provide taxi services for the people of Freshford to a station that has accessibility provisions for all platforms.

 

[mickey]

I have nothing specific to add to comments above, but want to give credit to the local councillor pro-actively trying to seek solutions to a problem raised by their constituents and willing to go the extra mile to find them, however unlikely they may be. We could do with more like that… my local ones don’t engage at all, and as everyone else jumped straight into the negatives (!) thought I’d at least mention it.

 

[Harpo]

as everyone else jumped straight into the negatives

I suspect the preferred term is safety perspectives?

 

[ricoblade]

I saw the one at Retford Low Level being used to take a wheelchair passenger across but can't remember if it was before the lifts were done or while they were not working.

 

[Belperpete]

Agreed that virtually no chance of getting a new barrow crossing.

The existing UWC will have an authorised user who is responsible for the safety of those using the crossing on their behalf. I very much doubt that they would be prepared to take responsibility for members of the public using the crossing. The crossing would likely have to be reclassified as a public crossing. Virtually no chance of this passing any risk assesment.

Getting paths built either side of the railway to an existing under bridge sounds good, but the paths would likely need lighting. And who is going to take responsibility for the ongoing maintenance and liability issues?

 

[Merle Haggard]

Barrow crossings are self evidently for barrows to cross. Bearing in mind that there was no need for barrows on stations once parcels and mail traffic ceased why are any still left? They were removed at most stations and it would seem to me that they now have no legitimate use. When they did exist they always (I recollect) had signs prohibiting the use by passengers.

 

[The exile]

Barrow crossings are self evidently for barrows to cross. Bearing in mind that there was no need for barrows on stations once parcels and mail traffic ceased why are any still left? They were removed at most stations and it would seem to me that they now have no legitimate use. When they did exist they always (I recollect) had signs prohibiting the use by passengers.

There are several where they are still the only permitted way of crossing the track (either to get to the other platform, or in at least one case I can think of (though I've forgotten where) to get from the only platform to the exit. They may not officially be "barrow crossings", but on minor lines where everything is stopping at the station anyway, the risk is considerably lower than it would be at Freshford - on what is now a very busy line.

 

[Merle Haggard]

There are several where they are still the only permitted way of crossing the track (either to get to the other platform, or in at least one case I can think of (though I've forgotten where) to get from the only platform to the exit. They may not officially be "barrow crossings", but on minor lines where everything is stopping at the station anyway, the risk is considerably lower than it would be at Freshford - on what is now a very busy line.

Thanks.
My bold;
You've reminded me that I stayed at a hotel somewhere down the Newquay branch (as a base for route-bashing) and the station, surprisingly, had that arrangement. It wasn't quite an 'everything stops there' station because, on Saturdays (??) the stopping service was suspended so that GWR and XC expresses could go down the branch non stop.

 

[Trackman]

Barrow crossings are self evidently for barrows to cross. Bearing in mind that there was no need for barrows on stations once parcels and mail traffic ceased why are any still left? They were removed at most stations and it would seem to me that they now have no legitimate use. When they did exist they always (I recollect) had signs prohibiting the use by passengers.

I always thought barrow crossings where for stations for passengers to cross the line when there are no other means, like a bridge or underpass. I suppose barrows used them as well hence the name as the 'barrow'.

 

[zwk500]

I always thought barrow crossings where for stations for passengers to cross the line when there are no other means, like a bridge or underpass. I suppose barrows used them as well hence the name as the 'barrow'.

AIUI the primary purpose was always for barrows, evidenced by them being provided even where alternatives were available. Passengers were generally prohibited from using them if there was a ready alternative. As @Merle Haggard says, they were intended for Mail, Parcels, Milk, newspapers and so on that would often just be in the guards van of a passenger train so wouldn't have it's own wagon shunted to the yard, the items just being handed to the station staff.

Barrow crossings are self evidently for barrows to cross. Bearing in mind that there was no need for barrows on stations once parcels and mail traffic ceased why are any still left?

Many are left because there's no reason to take them out once you've gated the end of the platform, unless you are extending or rebuilding the platforms. Network Rail does not install new ramps any more (I think, although there's bound to be an exception somewhere), and will instead install steps down from the platform end.