Sir Peter Hendy, Brigg Line

[sheff'd victoria]

Word is getting around that Sir Peter Hendy is cracking the whip already and common sense has arrived at last on the Brigg Line where over the last few years millions have been wasted in a Network Rail tick box exercise.

For those that are not aware the footbridges at Brigg and Gainsborough Central were in a bad way, a common sense approach was first mooted where both would be repaired, sand blasted and painted, however Network Rail tick box management decided that they would replace both with a like for like structure, this also included closing the foot crossing at Gainsborough Central, this would mean customers would have to travel to Retford Low Level to be taken over a manned foot crossing and then Northern Rail picking up the bill for taxing them back to Gainsborough.

The new " non ramp " footbridge at Brigg was erected in December 2015 which is useless for a retirement town, at Gainsborough Central work has started on the foundation for the " non ramp " footbridge but details filtered through this weekend that the contactors had been told to " Down Tools " a result for common sense we hope, the cost of both " non ramp " footbridges had shot up from £200000 to £400000, with concerns raised that a ramp can not be attached to the Brigg footbridge as the ground is unstable and that the new signalling cabling has been placed on the removed track on the line instead of putting on the embankments as planned, thus allowing re doubling, its sadly another bloody nose for Network Rail and their incompetent management.

The golden rule is : Is what your doing benefiting the customer, large or small ?

Inside knowledge says expect the P45's soon for this one.

 

[lincolnshire]

The best bit about the footbridge at Brigg station is that its going to be used again I understand on some heritage line, so why as said above could,t it have been sandblasted repaired and painted to give a few more years with out the cost of the expensive replacement that has been put in. Does the new one at Brigg meet the requirements for the overhead line electrification height standards ? or will this need renewing again if and when electrification arrives.

I think the big boss man wants to get out and about on the trains and see the amount of money been wasted in assets been left at the rail side in both leftover new equipment and scrap around the countries linesides.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I think the big boss man wants to get out and about on the trains and see the amount of money been wasted in assets been left at the rail side in both leftover new equipment and scrap around the countries linesides.

Which is a good thing IMHO.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The best bit about the footbridge at Brigg station is that its going to be used again I understand on some heritage line, so why as said above could,t it have been sandblasted repaired and painted to give a few more years with out the cost of the expensive replacement that has been put in. Does the new one at Brigg meet the requirements for the overhead line electrification height standards ? or will this need renewing again if and when electrification arrives.

I think the big boss man wants to get out and about on the trains and see the amount of money been wasted in assets been left at the rail side in both leftover new equipment and scrap around the countries linesides.

Mythbusters time.

We did the same eventually with the footbridge from Dunblane station, despite much annoyance from Historic Scotland (as was, at the time). It's off to the Caledonian Railway at Brechin, after it gets shotblasted and repainted. It's been replaced by an accessible bridge which meets our requirements for the forthcoming electrification scheme.

No new structure is approved unless it meets the current requirements for OLE installation, that's road bridges, foot bridges, signalling compounds etc, so the new structures will meet the requirements for OLE installation without further replacement or significant alteration. Signalling needs to be immunised and all structures should be capable of earth bonding, or otherwise be insusceptible to static discharge etc.

Items left trackside are not always (and very rarely are) wasted - some items are left in strategic locations to enable rapid repairs in the event of a derailment or failure of a piece of infrastructure. It's easy to get half a dozen guys out to a site, it's not so easy to get half a dozen guys and a half ton components out to site.

Components of this nature should be barcoded or labelled, but you might not notice this from a passing train.

Scrap is collected but we're trying not to use unnecessary possessions, so sometimes scrap to be recovered will have to wait weeks or months before the line is closed again and the waste materials can be recovered during a possession elsewhere on the line, this can be especially true if the possession overran an little, and there wasn't time to finish collecting waste materials, scrap etc.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Mythbusters time.

Thank God for people like you and Joseph Locke on this board.

 

[tsr]

Components of this nature should be barcoded or labelled, but you might not notice this from a passing train.

Scrap is collected but we're trying not to use unnecessary possessions, so sometimes scrap to be recovered will have to wait weeks or months before the line is closed again and the waste materials can be recovered during a possession elsewhere on the line, this can be especially true if the possession overran an little, and there wasn't time to finish collecting waste materials, scrap etc.

Quite. Only today at a local station I noticed and remarked to myself upon the neatness of some freshly marked rail, clearly labelled scrap following recent replacement, and I believe there is already scope for removing it from site in the next few days or a little more. The railway does occasionally learn the hard way that loose / mislaid / ancient items can cause myriad problems short-circuiting stuff, getting in the way or attracting thieves. There's plenty of lineside debris that isn't cleared away, but equally it seems evident that more and more is being removed quicker and quicker. I would not be surprised if practices are refined and developed further so that there is a marked and notable tidying in the next few years. It's helpful to everybody, if blocks/possessions can be granted.

 

[route:oxford]

Mythbusters time.

We did the same eventually with the footbridge from Dunblane station, despite much annoyance from Historic Scotland (as was, at the time). It's off to the Caledonian Railway at Brechin, after it gets shotblasted and repainted. It's been replaced by an accessible bridge which meets our requirements for the forthcoming electrification scheme.

The replacement managed to be in-keeping, attractive and functional at Dunblane.

I understand that the majority of rail-using locals (which is most of them) were in favour of the removal of the former Caledonian bridge and it was just a small number of anti-change grumblers who wanted it kept.

 

[lincolnshire]

Brigg Station footbridge is reported to have cost £300,000 and not even has disabled access, its just steps.

Only 3 trains at present stop at Brigg station on a Saturday as thats the only day trains passenger trains run at present.

A very expensive ugly replacement bridge.

Its funny how I can see all the scrap etc at the line side and its not strategic spares and all the bags of ballast that have been there for months/ years.

A good clean up line side is required.

 

[Ships]

Thank God for people like you and Joseph Locke on this board.

It's nice to see there are folks on here who know what they're talking about, as opposed to some of the nonsense spewed by those not in the know

 

[Harpers Tate]

Only 3 trains at present stop at Brigg station on a Saturday as thats the only day trains passenger trains run at present.

[pedant mode] I think you'll find there are six scheduled calls. [/pedant mode]

 

[lincolnshire]

[pedant mode] I think you'll find there are six scheduled calls. [/pedant mode]

If you know Brigg station , yes there maybe 6 trains call at Brigg station on a Saturday ( only day passenger trains run) but only 3 trains require the use of the bridge to get to the Gainsborough / Retford side platform the same as at Gainsborough Central where the new footbridge seems to have been cancelled for now.

 

[Grumpy]

Why do you need a bridge? Simply put some boards down and make a barrow-type crossing.

 

[lincolnshire]

Why do you need a bridge? Simply put some boards down and make a barrow-type crossing.

At one time there was one at east end of the station at Brigg.

Now we seem to be obsessed with not allowing passengers to cross the line except by a bridge.

 

[LowLevel]

Network Rail has committed itself to closing all public barrow crossings where possible, there won't be any new ones.

 

[sheff'd victoria]

Bad News

Work has now started again at Gainsborough Central.

New footbridge to be erected in the next few weeks.

So that £ 400000 for a footbridge a Brigg that the retirement town can not use and £400000 for one at Gainsborough Central where 99% of people use the foot crossing as its easier.

How many trains would £800000 subsidize, on a line where people have had nothing and been left to suffer ?

 

[DarloRich]

Bad News

Work has now started again at Gainsborough Central.

New footbridge to be erected in the next few weeks.

So that £ 400000 for a footbridge a Brigg that the retirement town can not use and £400000 for one at Gainsborough Central where 99% of people use the foot crossing as its easier.

How many trains would £800000 subsidize, on a line where people have had nothing and been left to suffer ?

I assume you haven't had a chance to read the post by Phillip Phlopp? That said it is shame experts such as yourself don't apply for jobs on the railway. I am sure you could sort out the issues with the industry in seconds

 

[Bookd]

As I understand it the main complaint arises from closure of the barrow crossings. I can understand this on safety grounds, but for three trains a week from the opposite platform the cost of the new bridges would easily pay for an attendant to be on duty to control each crossing. A part time job for one day a week could be paid for during several lifetimes. If it were the intention to increase the level of service that might be a different matter.

 

[MarkyT]

Network Rail has committed itself to closing all public barrow crossings where possible, there won't be any new ones.

That is also in line with ORR policy, and control centralisation means there will be progressively fewer small local signalboxes remaining to supervise barrow crossings. The crossings that remain with warning lights are often useable by the public only when accompanied by staff, but at Gainsborough Central there are no platform staff and aren't ever likely to be. Brigg never had level access over to the far platform, so replacing the bridge like-for-like at least isn't making matters any worse than today. Gainsborough is different as a new rampless bridge design coupled with removal of the crossing makes access worse.

At Gainsborough Central there is a public footpath subway at the south end of the station right next to the signalbox. This has a gentle ramp access from the town side, and I can't really see any obstacle in the rough open ground on the other side of the railway that could stop construction of a graded ramp up the side of the embankment to the other platform. That would avoid the need for a new footbridge entirely. The subway lines up nicely with the pedestrian path that runs up the south side of Marshalls Yard so would be convenient for access to the town centre.

 

[Class 170101]

At Gainsborough Central there is a public footpath subway at the south end of the station right next to the signalbox. This has a gentle ramp access from the town side, and I can't really see any obstacle in the rough open ground on the other side of the railway that could stop construction of a graded ramp up the side of the embankment to the other platform. That would avoid the need for a new footbridge entirely. The subway lines up nicely with the pedestrian path that runs up the south side of Marshalls Yard so would be convenient for access to the town centre.

Does NR own the land upon which this 'new' ramp should go? If not that might be your obstacle.

 

[MarkyT]

Does NR own the land upon which this 'new' ramp should go? If not that might be your obstacle.

I remember a post on a previous thread suggested the land was not under NR ownership today. However it can't have much real value with its access constraints. In the unlikely event it was proposed for development, NR might have reasonable grounds to object if the new use was completely incompatible with a station access on that side. They could also try negotiating with a landowner for purchase of a strip sufficient for a ramp, but clearly the owner might demand an unreasonable price for what essentially has become a ransom strip. The railway could then feasibly resort to T&W Act procedures to get compulsory powers at a reasonable compensation price, although that might take ages and cost a fortune in professional fees. Perhaps in the short term with the very limited passenger service, the proposed non-accessible new bridge really is the most pragmatic way forward, with the option of the subway ramp planned and safeguarded in the background for a future when the line gets a proper service, and accessibility gains real importance once more.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I remember a post on a previous thread suggested the land was not under NR ownership today. However it can't have much real value with its access constraints. In the unlikely event it was proposed for development, NR might have reasonable grounds to object if the new use was completely incompatible with a station access on that side. They could also try negotiating with a landowner for purchase of a strip sufficient for a ramp, but clearly the owner might demand an unreasonable price for what essentially has become a ransom strip. The railway could then feasibly resort to T&W Act procedures to get compulsory powers at a reasonable compensation price, although that might take ages and cost a fortune in professional fees. Perhaps in the short term with the very limited passenger service, the proposed non-accessible new bridge really is the most pragmatic way forward, with the option of the subway ramp planned and safeguarded in the background for a future when the line gets a proper service, and accessibility gains real importance once more.

It's a modular bridge anyway, isn't it ? Brigg's certainly is. They can have a ramp added at a later date, just remove the parapet/railing opposite the top of the steps, and it's fully accessible. The bolt holes for the ramp should be visible on the bridge, opposite the steps.

 

[MarkyT]

Another thought for a short term option: As the line is single from a connection a little over a mile to the north of Gainsborough Central nearly to Brigg, resignalling, if so designed, could allow bidirectional working over the down line so passenger trains in both directions could use platform 2, with Sheffield bound trains regaining the up line at the existing crossover immediately to the south of the station. With the limited service that shouldn't be a major problem as (presumably) on Saturdays, when the passenger trains run, there is little or no freight. That could allow platfrom 1 to close and the old bridge to be demolished and not replaced at all. From here: http://www.signalbox.org/sectionc.php?year=2015 Gainsborough was supposed to be resignalled in 2015. Anyone know whether that happened or what revised dates are? Presumably if the barrow crossing is still there that implies the signalbox also remains currently to supervise it.

 

[Class 170101]

In terms of crossings haven't NR (re-)opened one at Stamford just recently?

 

[LowLevel]

The Stamford one is an all singing all dancing affair with magnetic locks released by the signaller following a phone call, the same as the one at Melton Mowbray.

Conversely the ones at Alfreton and Spalding for example have been withdrawn from use - Alfreton with a taxi provided from Chesterfield or Spalding with train replatforming and acceptance of consequential delay should the accessible platform be required by two trains at once. To be fair I can imagine Alfreton barrow crossing being lethal if misused as it's on a fairly fast stretch of railway with poor sighting.

 

[MarkyT]

The new Gainsborough Central bridge being erected today:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jospon/sets/72157664210564111/

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

A barrow crossing should be installed, Market Rasen copes with far higher rail and passenger traffic. A bridge which makes it impossible for disabled people to use the train shouldn't be made unless some equal provision is made for them.

 

[route:oxford]

A barrow crossing should be installed, Market Rasen copes with far higher rail and passenger traffic. A bridge which makes it impossible for disabled people to use the train shouldn't be made unless some equal provision is made for them.

I was speaking to a friend of mine whose elderly parents live near Brigg. His 70 year old father is disabled, he has practically no strength in his left arm following a stroke. His mother is partially deaf.

He assures me that even though they are disabled, neither will have any difficulty whatsoever in using the stairs. Although clearly it would be helpful if there is a handrail on both sides of the bridge stairs!

 

[sheff'd victoria]

I assume you haven't had a chance to read the post by Phillip Phlopp? That said it is shame experts such as yourself don't apply for jobs on the railway. I am sure you could sort out the issues with the industry in seconds

The details of Network Rail and the Brigg Line are been handled by Sir Peter Hendry, one member of the Gainsborough rail group was in management at London Transport and Peter Hendy was his apprentice, details of all of the serious issues on the Brigg Line and the fact that we need to get management more locally focus has been highlighted and will be taken on board, restructuring of Milton Keynes will be on the cards that's for sure.

It's a modular bridge anyway, isn't it ? Brigg's certainly is. They can have a ramp added at a later date, just remove the parapet/railing opposite the top of the steps, and it's fully accessible. The bolt holes for the ramp should be visible on the bridge, opposite the steps.

A ramp can not be provided on the Sheffield platform at Brigg as the out of use platform is unstable and would cost a fortune to put right, this was highlighted by an independent structural engineer but Network Rail North East took no notice and went on their tick box exercise, again this has been highlighted to Sir Peter Hendy.

 

[DarloRich]

The details of Network Rail and the Brigg Line are been handled by Sir Peter Hendry, one member of the Gainsborough rail group was in management at London Transport and Peter Hendy was his apprentice, details of all of the serious issues on the Brigg Line and the fact that we need to get management more locally focus has been highlighted and will be taken on board, restructuring of Milton Keynes will be on the cards that's for sure.

EDIT: not getting involved - i will be banned - although I am unhappy with the gloating tone of this post considering the OP is talking about peoples livelihoods.

 

[trivran]

I was speaking to a friend of mine whose elderly parents live near Brigg. His 70 year old father is disabled, he has practically no strength in his left arm following a stroke. His mother is partially deaf.

He assures me that even though they are disabled, neither will have any difficulty whatsoever in using the stairs. Although clearly it would be helpful if there is a handrail on both sides of the bridge stairs!

That's all well and good, but what about people in wheelchairs?