Shepreth Branch Junction - Foot crossing replacement (update)

[jopsuk]

As a follow up to this thread

Construction is now starting. First phase is to construct a compound, then to build a temporary alignment for the busy foot and cycle path. The bridge will assembled in the compound and craned into place, apparently using an overnight possession.

The accommodation crossing will remain, however this will become a POGO and will be secured using a keypad.

 

[Llanigraham]

What's a "POGO"?

 

[Railsigns]

POGO = Power Operated Gate Operators

 

[jopsuk]

What it means is that the tractor driver does not have to walk across the line. At the moment he would have to get out, open both gates (crossing the line twice), get back in, drive across, get out, shut both gates (crossing the line twice) and get back in. With this, he gets out, punches in his PIN, gets back in, drives across, gets out and enters his code again to close the gates.

 

[Llanigraham]

Never heard of one and they don't get mentioned in the Rule Book.

 

[Tomnick]

Surely it's still a UWC (if indeed that's what it is now) as far as the Rule Book's concerned, regardless of the means of operating the gates? Sounds like a good idea to me - even better at regularly misused crossings if the PIN could be changed remotely after every use, forcing the user to phone every time .

 

[jopsuk]

I'm not a railwayman, so I'm not familiar with the rule book. As far as I know Network Rail were keen to close the crossing completely, but the fields to the west are part of the farm to the east.

 

[Tomnick]

Indeed, my point was that the means by which the user operates the gates aren't really relevant to the Rule Book. I'd only vaguely heard of these power-operated gates myself, but wasn't about to dismiss them on that basis alone!

Does this crossing have a history of misuse then? I'm not convinced by the effectiveness of this campaign to close as many crossings as possible, seemingly at any cost, rather than stepping back and taking a more balanced view on whether the reduction in risk is worth the (often significant) cost, especially considering those cases where a crossing closures pushes users into a potentially more dangerous (but non-railway) route instead.

 

[Bald Rick]

Does this crossing have a history of misuse then? I'm not convinced by the effectiveness of this campaign to close as many crossings as possible, seemingly at any cost, rather than stepping back and taking a more balanced view on whether the reduction in risk is worth the (often significant) cost, especially considering those cases where a crossing closures pushes users into a potentially more dangerous (but non-railway) route instead.

Not misuse specifically, but it has very poor sighting from the south, particularly the Royston direction. The choices for the footpath were to close the crossing or put on a very restrictive speed restriction.

 

[Tomnick]

Thanks - it makes sense in that case then. It's some of the new footbridges around our way that really make me wonder: very impressive (and expensive) structures, to replace crossings that see relatively little use. In the one case that I'm most familiar with, yes, sighting was a little dubious from one direction, but there was a phone to the box. There have been a couple of fatalities in the past, but none involving anyone trying to actually use the crossing for its intended purpose (as opposed to trespassers or kids messing around). I'm just not convinced that we should be spending this sort of money so freely just to deal with, in most cases (and excepting those crossings where there really is a problem making it difficult to use them safely!) the inability of the public to apply common sense and take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[WestCountry]

This one definitely merits closing - it's right on the junction, so three directions to look in before crossing, and as Bald Rick says you can only see a couple of hundred yards towards Royston because it's on a curve with housing on the inside.
It's got 16tph across it off-peak, with all but two of those quietish EMUs, and is on the best foot/cycle route from the northern bit of Gt Shelford into the city.

 

[jopsuk]

Construction has now finished, the temporary track removed and compound cleared. No idea if the speed restriction has been resolved yet!

 

[whoosh]

I like the idea of a 'POGO' crossing. I'd not heard of one before either, but it sounds safer for the user, in that they don't have to cross the line more than necessary, and I suppose the keypad code could be changed/deactivated if misuse occurred? Will the keypad just unlock and open the gates with the keypad code, or does permission get given electronically by the signaller for the gates to open? I suppose if that were the case it would be signaller controlled rather than user-worked though wouldn't it?

Sounds like an improvement still though.

 

[dk1]

Construction has now finished, the temporary track removed and compound cleared. No idea if the speed restriction has been resolved yet!

Still on as i passed twice today mate.

 

[jopsuk]

Yeah, saw the signs as I cycled past. Any idea if/when the restriction will now be removed?