Low Moor station put back another year to 2015

[DarloRich]

York and Bristol come to mind immediately, not forgetting the Midland side platforms at Birmingham New Street.

If they spent as much time on the actual planning as they do on the amount wasted by over the top Health & Safety, we would have an excellent rail system.

This, this, this, this, this.

it may be "over the top health and safety" rubbish - BUT IT IS THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!

Stations have to comply with access for all legislation and HSEA rules. Whining about it wont help. Deal with it.

 

[WestRiding]

Close Outwood station, its on a corner! Close Morely, its on a corner! Close Batley, its on a corner! Close Ravensthorpe, its on a corner! Marsden, thats a corner too, close it! Keighley, close it! Shipley, another corner, shut it! Crossflats, corner, shut! Garforth, shut it!

Health and safety nonsense, because of the big scary corners. Its nothing to do with not wanting a safe railway, i feel perfectly safe boarding the train at Shipley.

 

[HSTEd]

Are you suggesting that customers should use a station which doesn't comply with the latest safety requirements, placing themselves in danger and creating a potential legal mine field for Network Rail?

What danger?

When was the last time someone was killed on a curved platform in a way that would have been prevented had the platform being completely straight?

 

[DarloRich]

Close Outwood station, its on a corner! Close Morely, its on a corner! Close Batley, its on a corner! Close Ravensthorpe, its on a corner! Marsden, thats a corner too, close it! Keighley, close it! Shipley, another corner, shut it! Crossflats, corner, shut! Garforth, shut it!

Health and safety nonsense, because of the big scary corners. Its nothing to do with not wanting a safe railway, i feel perfectly safe boarding the train at Shipley.

dont be so bloody obtuse! They are covered by grandfather rights and are allowed . I doubt you could build any of those stations today. (as i am sure you know)

Also, whilst you, who i assume to be fully mobile and fit, are able to board the train easily many can not. Should they be prevented from using public transport for your convenience?

But hey 'elf and safety gone mad is much more fitting with your views isn't it?

Look - many of the rules seem, and perhaps are excessive, some even stupid, but they are the rules that must be followed. Whining about it wont help anyone. If you want it changing write to your MP. However,the world we live in today is such that you fail to follow those rules at your peril, both personally and financially.

 

[HSTEd]

dont be so bloody obtuse! They are covered by grandfather rights and are allowed . I doubt you could build any of those stations today. (as i am sure you know)

Also, whilst you, who i assume to be fully mobile and fit, are able to board the train easily many can not. Should they be prevented from using public transport for your convenience?

But hey 'elf and safety gone mad is much more fitting with your views isn't it?

Look - many of the rules seem, and perhaps are excessive, some even stupid, but they are the rules that must be followed. Whining about it wont help anyone. If you want it changing write to your MP. However,the world we live in today is such that you fail to follow those rules at your peril, both personally and financially.

If no station is built, they are prevented from using public transport anyway, and everyone looses out.

 

[ainsworth74]

Now hang on a minute, the whole point of this thread is to highlight the safety issues concerning new stations which are planned to be built on a curve. Now as far as I can see none of the stations which you have quoted are on curved track which makes your argument irrelevant.

Okay how about this? Or this? Or here? Are any of those unsafe, especially the first which I can't believe would have been an especially expensive construction job?

 

[DarloRich]

If no station is built, they are prevented from using public transport anyway, and everyone looses out.

Obviously.

So the answer is to try and build the cheapest station you can to meet all the requirements. It might well be a case here that the design has to pared down to the bone to get he thing built.

I doubt that the fact it is on corner is the main reason for the cost increases.

One thing that always concerns me is the price charged to the railways for any kind of work. No one seems worried about this...........

 

[HSTEd]

One thing that always concerns me is the price charged to the railways for any kind of work. No one seems worried about this...........

Being as this appears to have been a result of the massive fragmentation of the industry caused by privatisation this is a forbidden subject as doing anything about it would be socialism.

 

[WestRiding]

Obtuse! Listen to yourself. For many many years, corners have been an integral part of the network. Some corners have stations on them, and have been used without a problem for the same amount of years. So why be so contrary and not build them on corners now too? I must ask my grandmother, bound to crutches, if she finds the access at Outwood and Shipley a hinderence, and if those big scary corners bother her. As far as i am aware, she loves using the train, because of its easy access. Oh and il ask the next driver i speak to in the signal box, if he or she gets scared when approaching a corner with a station on it. Meadowhall, platforms 3 and 4, shut them. They are on a corner.

 

[DarloRich]

Obtuse! Listen to yourself. For many many years, corners have been an integral part of the network. Some corners have stations on them, and have been used without a problem for the same amount of years. So why be so contrary and not build them on corners now too? I must ask my grandmother, bound to crutches, if she finds the access at Outwood and Shipley a hinderence, and if those big scary corners bother her. As far as i am aware, she loves using the train, because of its easy access. Oh and il ask the next driver i speak to in the signal box, if he or she gets scared when approaching a corner with a station on it. Meadowhall, platforms 3 and 4, shut them. They are on a corner.

whatever. Do you actually understand anything that is being said to you?

I am not entirely convinced anyone has said you CANT build on corners

 

[WestRiding]

No but i work for the railways, i have opinions, as do you. I am not a health and safety obsesive, and genuinely do not see the problem with stations and corners. So, to quote an immature word.... Whatever!

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Kimflop - you work on the railway? Not in the Infrastructure side, I'm guessing?

As to new stations on curves, you can, if you must (see page A.8.14 of NR/L2/TR/2049 for further guidance on NR, also page 7 of GI/RT7016 is quite clear too)

If the curve has a radius of less that 1000m, then other considerations become mandatory, such as platform despatch, CCTV provison for DOO, stepping distances, maximum cant at platforms, end throw, centre throw, signal sighting, etc., so it gets harder and harder to justify, the tighter the radius. Also, not all trains comply with standards :roll: so making a tightly curved platform work for all stock can be a nightmare.

If you are really interested, take a gander at the number of deviations granted to 7016 in the register - I count 243 instances, and that's just post-privatisation.

So, step one is to see if you really really really have to put on a curve, which for a station that already exists is an easy one really ...

 

[John S2]

Now hang on a minute, the whole point of this thread is to highlight the safety issues concerning new stations which are planned to be built on a curve.

That is not how I see this subject. Low Moor was proposed for reopening years ago and further delay is unacceptable. For anyone that doesn't have a car, some degree of social exclusion is likely if there is no railway station within easy reach. In West Yorkshire it is essential to be able to travel to Leeds as that is the centre for many types of activity.

 

[tbtc]

I really don't think some people understand "Grandfather Rights"...

 

[eastdyke]

Now hang on a minute, the whole point of this thread is to highlight the safety issues concerning new stations which are planned to be built on a curve. Now as far as I can see none of the stations which you have quoted are on curved track which makes your argument irrelevant.

Nope, the point of the thread was to draw attention to the construction delay and to try to understand the costs which 'changes in engineering safety requirements' have imposed (for a 'simple station') at Low Moor.

Whilst we have seen what some of the engineering issues might be we have still not got to the specifics of this case.

 

[RichmondCommu]

What danger?

When was the last time someone was killed on a curved platform in a way that would have been prevented had the platform being completely straight?

Well clearly Civil Engineers have decided that the current design would compromise customer safety leading one to conclude that there is a risk of injury or worse a fatality.

Safety on our railway network has to be of paramount importance. I'm afraid some of the comments on here would not be out of place in the gutter press i.e. the Daily Express and the Daily Mail. It's all too easy to have cheap shots at health and safety, especially if you have no understanding of the subject.

As DarloRich has already stated on this thread, the question we should all be asking is why such projects cost so much money.

 

[Intercity]

given some of the ludicrous "health and safety has gone mad" posts in this thread, i imagine a fair few members would not be happy unless we were hanging off the side of trains on a morning like the indians.

 

[yorksrob]

Also, whilst you, who i assume to be fully mobile and fit, are able to board the train easily many can not. Should they be prevented from using public transport for your convenience?

Fortunately all the trains around here have someone on hand to assist people who need it when boarding the train. This is unlikely to change in the near future given that this is the only way the TOC has of collecting revenue.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I really don't think some people understand "Grandfather Rights"...

I don't think it's a lack of understanding of the concept of "Grandfather Rights", more a questioning of whether such a concept is appropriate in such circumstances where identical structures can be deemed perfectly safe to use in one instance, but dangerous in another, purely on the basis of when they happened to have been built.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As DarloRich has already stated on this thread, the question we should all be asking is why such projects cost so much money.

But as I understand it, the money to build Low Moor in one form or another has already been set aside, therefore given the title of this thread, it seems appropriate to question why that cannot now go ahead.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not being au fait about Low Moor and its environs, are there no straight stretches of line in that town would make a station site acceptable for the town ?

 

[tbtc]

I really don't think some people understand "Grandfather Rights"...

I don't think it's a lack of understanding of the concept of "Grandfather Rights", more a questioning of whether such a concept is appropriate in such circumstances where identical structures can be deemed perfectly safe to use in one instance, but dangerous in another, purely on the basis of when they happened to have been built

It's a fairly simple concept and applies to most infrastructure (you couldn't build my house today because it doesn't meet 2012 regulations on things, but that doesn't mean it's "unsafe") - I can't see why there's so much confusion on this thread.

 

[bluenoxid]

I don't know but I have made a complaint to Metro about what would appear to be poor management of the project so maybe that will offer some answers.

My advice would be that you submit an FoI request instead.

 

[eastdyke]

It seems that Northern didn't like the G1 Network Change proposal and formally objected to it on 12th June 2012.

Whether or not that objection has since been withdrawn, I have no idea.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...lway station/d ncg12012lne017 response nr.pdf

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And I thought that WYPTE (Metro) were working in partnership with Network Rail, Northern Rail and City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council.

Seems a bit late in the process to be raising these issues?

 

[HSTEd]

It's a fairly simple concept and applies to most infrastructure (you couldn't build my house today because it doesn't meet 2012 regulations on things, but that doesn't mean it's "unsafe") - I can't see why there's so much confusion on this thread.

Most other regulations where there are 'grandfather' rights tend to have a regulating body who is willing to grant waivers to new builds in certain circumstances, this does not appear to be the case here.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

It seems that Northern didn't like the G1 Network Change proposal and formally objected to it on 12th June 2012.

Whether or not that objection has since been withdrawn, I have no idea.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...lway station/d ncg12012lne017 response nr.pdf

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And I thought that WYPTE (Metro) were working in partnership with Network Rail, Northern Rail and City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council.

Seems a bit late in the process to be raising these issues?

That objection is two parts - the factual bit is that NR didn't (in Northern's view) give Northern enough information.

The other part is, I suspect, A bit of politics. NR has live plans to re-signal and re-control between Bradford Mill Lane and Halifax (onto Leeds, and thence to York), and the projected Northern Hub service specification (which will apply in 2018) is based on the infrastructure being available to deliver it. The 2018 plan includes a call at Low Moor.

It sounds to me like Northern don't want a station here quite as much as they want other new stations ...


So, it isn't a curved station problem, or a rising-cost issue - it's just good old TOC Consultation under the Network Code - just a normal day then!

 

[eastdyke]

And delaying construction until 2015 circumvents the need for any reply at all to Northern as their franchise will (currently) end 1st April 2014.

Low Moor can simply be part of the next franchise/concession.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

And delaying construction until 2015 circumvents the need for any reply at all to Northern as their franchise will (currently) end 1st April 2014.

Low Moor can simply be part of the next franchise/concession.

I'd go with that (provided that Northern's Franchise does actually end on 1st April 2014 - this is by no means a nailed-on certainty after WCML-gate).

 

[Welshman]

Not being au fait about Low Moor and its environs, are there no straight stretches of line in that town would make a station site acceptable for the town ?

As far as I remember, no.
On the journey from Bradford Interchange you come out of Bowling tunnel to a left curve, with the line in a cutting, then it opens out to a gentle right curve past the old mpd and through site of the old station, past the old carriage sidings on the left and then curves left into New Furnace Tunnel, followed by Wyke Tunnel.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As far as I remember, no.
On the journey from Bradford Interchange you come out of Bowling tunnel to a left curve, with the line in a cutting, then it opens out to a gentle right curve past the old mpd and through site of the old station, past the old carriage sidings on the left and then curves left into New Furnace Tunnel, followed by Wyke Tunnel.

Would the area in-between Woodside Road (A641) and Westfield Lane be too far out of the town for a railway station at Low Moor ? A neighbour near to us made this suggestion as he has somewhat vague memories of the area.

 

[CompactDstrxion]

Response from Metro giving some more specifics for this case:

Dear Mr X,

Thank you for your feedback relating to the delay to Low moor rail station.

In the past stations have been built on curves, however modern standards require stations to be built to an acceptable level of safety risk and a curved platform can lead to unacceptably large stepping distances for passengers and a greater risk of falling between the platform and train. In addition accessibility standards for mobility impaired passengers are much higher for today’s passengers than in the past. The independent Railway Safety and Standard Board require that we comply with the rail industry standards.

Workington North station cannot be compared with the development and construction of Low Moor; the station was a temporary solution in exceptional emergency circumstances.

Metro and City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council are equally disappointed at the delay in delivering the scheme and remain committed to working with our rail industry partners to deliver the new station at Low Moor.

May I thank you for contacting Metro and if I can be of further assistance, please let me know.

 

[yorksrob]

Ah, so it is a a curvy platform issue.

It's a fairly simple concept and applies to most infrastructure (you couldn't build my house today because it doesn't meet 2012 regulations on things, but that doesn't mean it's "unsafe") - I can't see why there's so much confusion on this thread.

Most building standards aren't related to health and safety and so aren't directly comparable to this instance.