Sydney Gardens, Bath.

[Condor7]

If you have seen the latest issue of the Railway Magazine, you will have seen the item on Sydney Gardens in Bath, with until recently an excellent view of the passing trains.
Now a chestnut cleft fence has been erected obscuring the view.

I am trying to work out the logic.
Obviously the low wall that has been there for the last 170 years is easy to jump over it someone was stupid enought to do so.

However what about main roads, which are far more dangerous. Will Bath council working on the same principle fence off all main roads?

Is this just another case of health and safty gone mad, or are there other reasons I (and obviously RM) not aware of?

 

[bnm]

When you see a parent letting little Tommy walk along the wall, as I did a few months ago from a passing HST, or a photter standing on the wall using a tripod to get that shot of Oliver Cromwell you can quite understand why Network Rail have put up this temporary fence.

I believe Network Rail are consulting with Bath City Council and other interested parties such as English Heritage on a more permanent solution, and I see no reason why there shouldn't be a fence. The wall is not a playground or a suitable perch for inconsiderate photographers.

 

[John55]

If you have seen the latest issue of the Railway Magazine, you will have seen the item on Sydney Gardens in Bath, with until recently an excellent view of the passing trains.
Now a chestnut cleft fence has been erected obscuring the view.

I am trying to work out the logic.
Obviously the low wall that has been there for the last 170 years is easy to jump over it someone was stupid enought to do so.

However what about main roads, which are far more dangerous. Will Bath council working on the same principle fence off all main roads?

Is this just another case of health and safty gone mad, or are there other reasons I (and obviously RM) not aware of?

The railway is about to be electrified and the fencing of electrified lines is normally more substantial than on other lines. Anywhere else the fence would look much worse than that!

In the photo in RM the stone wall appears to be not much more than knee high to an adult and therefore easily climbed by a small child. Local press reports the fence has been erected because of action by the Rail Regulator on Network Rail and the current temporary fence is there while there is a debate about a permanent solution to the problem.

 

[John Webb]

If you have seen the latest issue of the Railway Magazine, you will have seen the item on Sydney Gardens in Bath, with until recently an excellent view of the passing trains.
Now a chestnut cleft fence has been erected obscuring the view.

I am trying to work out the logic.
Obviously the low wall that has been there for the last 170 years is easy to jump over it someone was stupid enought to do so.

However what about main roads, which are far more dangerous. Will Bath council working on the same principle fence off all main roads?

Is this just another case of health and safty gone mad, or are there other reasons I (and obviously RM) not aware of?

The RM article makes it clear that I K Brunel agreed the existing arrangement when the line was first built. It seems that with the plans to electrify the line NR don't want people being able to access the track (tools, cables at risk of theft?) and have erected this fence as a temporary measure while they sort out a fence acceptable to all in the context of the gardens.

I don't understand, however, why they've also closed the adjacent cast-iron footbridge either - unless they are asserting their authority because they'll eventually want to raise the bridge parapet as well as is common on electrified lines.

So I don't think it's H&S 'gone mad' - just NR wanting to protect some idiots from their own folly once the line is electrified?

 

[Tiny Tim]

It's a shame that the unusual view of the rails at Sydney Gardens has to be interrupted, the addition of OHLE won't improve the view much, either. It's too late now, of course, but a more transparent fence might have been better. Some users of the park might be glad to have the railway obscured from view, not everybody is an enthusiast.

 

[jopsuk]

Is it a trespass "blackspot" at all?

 

[John Webb]

Is it a trespass "blackspot" at all?

The RM article doesn't tell us anything about any trespass rates at this point.

 

[BestWestern]

Is it a trespass "blackspot" at all?

It was not at all unusual to see people perched on the wall as trains passed. They would either be facing the line and thus have their legs dangling over what is essentially the railway boundary, or be facing away and therefore have their back to the line with the inherent risk of falling backwards onto the lineside. It is a definite 'hotspot' and has needed resolving for a very long time, but the historic status of the area has brought limitations as to what could be done. The current fence is pretty insubstantial, but is better than nothing. Views and historic structures etc are very pleasant, but it is first and foremost a busy mainline railway, and that brings safety requirements which cannot be ignored.

 

[Southernrover]

Okay it won't be electrified I know but based on all the sound reasons set out above for fencing how much longer will it be before we see the sea wall between the two Dawlish staions fenced off in the same way. The line is just as accessible here as it is (was) at Bath.

 

[John Webb]

Okay it won't be electrified I know but based on all the sound reasons set out above for fencing how much longer will it be before we see the sea wall between the two Dawlish staions fenced off in the same way. The line is just as accessible here as it is (was) at Bath.

I assume you mean between Dawlish and Teignmouth, not just the two stations in Dawlish? The same thought had occured to me, as I spent several delightful holidays in Teignmouth mostly trainspotting just where the line turns inland from the sea wall.
But the wall between pedestrians and railway at Teignmouth is a foot or two higher than the one at Sydney Gardens. I wonder too how any sort of fence added to that wall would stand up to the water that sometimes washes over?

 

[Squaddie]

Further background can be found on the website of the Lib Dem councillors for Bathwick.

This week Network Rail will erect a temporary fence alongside the railway line in Sydney Gardens.

They have been attempting for several years to increase the separation between the high speed trains on the Great Western line and park users. The rail regulator has powers to compel safety improvements.

Many will have attended an exhibition of proposed permentant fences a few years ago. This fence being erected this week is a temporary fence made of chestnut paling. After negotiations with BathNES Council a temporary solution was accepted so that a permenant and more acceptable solution can be found when the park is restored in the next few years.

A feature on This is Bath in 2010 gives further reasons:

A public exhibition is being held today to display plans aimed at stopping people trespassing on to the railway line through Bath.

The event follows a consultation in February last year where nearly 100 per cent of respondents agreed that something needed to be done to prevent people from being able to get on to the line.

And the fencing doesn't look so bad to me, as a temporary measure; you can see how dangerous the low wall might have been...

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Damned either way, I'm afraid.

If you put up 10' pallisade with electrified razor wire on top, you will simultaneously get 1) someone complaining its ugly 2) someone cutting a hole in it to allow them to walk their dog and 3) someone's offspring climbing through the hole to kill themselves.

If you do nothing, you will simultaneously get 1) someone complaining that NR doesn't take safety seriously 2) an enforcement order from ORR and 3) someone's offspring climbing onto the line to kill themselves.

All that said, the requirements for fencing electrified lines are in a Group standard and there is little NR can really do.

 

[John Webb]

I wonder if a 'Ha-ha' might help to solve the problem? That is dig a \| shaped ditch in the park so that the low balustrade then becomes much higher above the ground level adjacent to it. This type of ditch was a feature of many estates where the owner wanted a clear view out from his garden but didn't want the cattle or sheep in the adjacent fields getting into the garden.

 

[bnm]

I wonder if a 'Ha-ha' might help to solve the problem?

Or a ho-ho. Like a ha-ha, only deeper.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Wouldn't we then have some smart Alec claiming the Ha Ha was a dangerous hazard as someone might fall into it and therefore demand a fence to be put up in front of the Ha Ha?

 

[Temple Meads]

Further background can be found on the website of the Lib Dem councillors for Bathwick.


A feature on This is Bath in 2010 gives further reasons:


And the fencing doesn't look so bad to me, as a temporary measure; you can see how dangerous the low wall might have been...

Doesn't seem too bad to me in that picture, a bit too much fuss about not very much IMO.

 

[eastdyke]

Looks like those seats were placed so as to watch trains?

Ideal place to stand to see over the fence?

Better to now take the seats away in case anyone falls off.

Some interesting background from Bath Heritage Watchdog can be found here:

http://www.bathheritagewatchdog.org/brunel.htm#

(Quite a lot in fact)

Well into the document (in circa 2009) you will see:

"For approximately 250m only a small balustrade wall separates Sydney Gardens from the operational railway where trains can run up to 40 miles per hour. As the railway is accessible, it is open to trespass and/or vandalism. Since 2005 there have been:
• 95 serious incidents of trespass, of which 29% involved children or youths
• 6 incidents of objects being placed on the line"

With that in mind I am very surprised that it has taken so long to put up the temporary fence.