On 10 Oct 2015 at 5:29pm jennyb wrote:
Please sign to stop this ridiculous state of affairs.
Check it out here »
On 10 Oct 2015 at 6:37pm Celine wrote:
Signed it. Good luck.
On 10 Oct 2015 at 6:44pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
This bullying by Network Rail is completely unacceptable. This is payback for not granting them planning permission to get rid of the old gates.
I hope this goes viral.
On 10 Oct 2015 at 10:31pm Country Boy wrote:
If you or I had flouted planning law, we would soon feel the full weight of the authorities bearing down on us.
As late as today Network Rail and their contractors continue to work on the crossing, removing cables and constructing concrete bases yet their risk assessment acknowledges their proposal isn't as safe it is cracked up to be, particularly as it identifies the likelihood of an increase in crossing misuse. It also identifies that the proposed technology is little used in the south east and consequently there is minimal knowledge of maintenance and troubleshooting methods.
On 11 Oct 2015 at 1:48am Peasant wrote:
Plumpton residents must be very passive. If network rail cut the road access to my village, we would cut their ability to use their railway.
On 11 Oct 2015 at 7:29am Tesco Trolly wrote:
There you go Peasant - wheel one of they to Plumpton and cast it across the 3rd. rail and runner. Please hold onto it as you do so. That'll stop the railway for a couple of days.You'll be as famous as Jack Cade then.
On 11 Oct 2015 at 7:36am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Disabling the railway in protest would be very much in keeping with the "we won't be druv" ethos.
Hundreds of commuters would be very cross though.
On 11 Oct 2015 at 8:01am Bob wrote:
As I type, Network Rail has a team of signalling testers on site getting ready to switch over to the new signalling without which, the new crossing wouldn't work. They clearly think they are just going steamroller this through!
One point though - what would happen if the Highway authority refused an extension of the road closure?
On 11 Oct 2015 at 9:05am Dizzy Blonde wrote:
When gates have failed do you not stop approaching trains at the protecting signal, make sure the gates are secured (chain and padlock) closed to road traffic then allow train to proceed?
On 11 Oct 2015 at 12:42pm Sussex Jim wrote:
Sorry, but I don't agree with this protest. It is the sort of futile thing that Norman Baker would have encouraged in order to have his picture in the paper.
This is a modern railway allowing half of Sussex to commute to London, etc. and we must end this farce now and give Notwork Rail permission to proceed. The road must be reopened forthwith.
Keep the listed signal box by all means, as at Uckfield; but install a simpler faster crossing and donate the old equipment to a heritage railway.
On 11 Oct 2015 at 1:10pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Why should Network Rail be allowed to ride roughshod over the planning process? They should be prosecuted for starting work when planning permission has been refused and ordered to restore the previous gates and signalling gear and reopen the road, although they'd undoubtedly hire some mega-expensive planning brief to convince the judge it wasn't possible.
Bob, I'd love to know what would happen if an extension to the closure was refused, too. I daresay the refusal would be challenged by Network Rail, who would claim that it would be unsafe to reopen the road as the gates no longer work, Network Rail having seen to that themselves.
It may even be that rail safety trumps all else in these cases. I8 understand that the reason highway authorities rarely refuse the utility companies permission to dig up the roads is that they just do it anyway using emergency powers.
All these companies are so big that rules don't seem to apply to them. It's high time someone showed them differently.
On 11 Oct 2015 at 1:52pm Lewes Nimby Councils wrote:
The Gates Must Remain
On 11 Oct 2015 at 3:00pm Bob wrote:
Annette, who says Rail has priority over road? If the Highway Authority refused an extension of the road closure, Network Rail would have the option of closing the rail line if it really wasn't safe. It would cost them a huge amount of money in compensation though. The current situation suits them perfectly because it costs them nothing, but causes a huge amount of pain to many others.
On 11 Oct 2015 at 3:03pm Bob wrote:
What really sucks is that Network continued (and are still continuing) with the work after planning consent was refused - that really is a flagrant breach. But who is going to stop them?
On 11 Oct 2015 at 4:39pm Lewes Nimby Councils wrote:
We will stop them
On 11 Oct 2015 at 5:03pm Bob wrote:
Public meeting with Network Rail chaired by Maria Caulfield this coming Friday. Venue to be advised. Network Rail say 3 month road closure is determined by East Sussex County Council Highways - nothing like passing the buck!
On 11 Oct 2015 at 7:42pm Dexter wrote:
Maria 'No Oxygen coverage in Barcombe' Caulfield
On 12 Oct 2015 at 10:42am Dripping Pan Stan wrote:
So, if I have this right, Network Rail want to improve the safety of the crossing and there's some residents complaining that some old gates will get taken away.
If that's really all they have to worry about they need to get out a bit more.
On 12 Oct 2015 at 12:05pm Country Boy wrote:
Hey, Dripping Pan Stan, are you any good at maths? No matter how many times I have tried, I can't make ZERO ACCIDENTS, 63% safer.
On 12 Oct 2015 at 12:08pm ar10642 wrote:
"Why should Network Rail be allowed to ride roughshod over the planning process?"
You could equally ask how sensible it ever was to add a listing to a working piece of machinery from the 19th century on a working railway. This outcome was always going to happen. NR have been upgrading and standardising level crossings and signalling across the region for centralised control at Three Bridges on the grounds of safety, standardisation and cost. They were never going to allow LDC to force them to maintain this single manually controlled crossing. I understand the locals like the look of the old gates, but this is a modern railway, not the Bluebell.
"Bob, I'd love to know what would happen if an extension to the closure was refused"
NR will close the crossing until that decision was reversed most likely. It might be a compromise can be found with the signal box, but I doubt there's any scenario where those gates will continue to be operated by hand.
On 12 Oct 2015 at 1:58pm Country Boy wrote:
Ar10642, the problem is, NR presented their case on Safety Grounds and the risk assessment doesn't stack up. I fully realise that NR want uniformity across the Network but to use lies snd ill informed argument is not the way to go about it. You may be aware that the ORR, in their guidance on level crossings, encourage the use of innovative solutions. A remotely operated motorised gate (hinged or sliding) should not be beyond the expertise available.
On 12 Oct 2015 at 2:43pm ar10642 wrote:
Well, hopefully a compromise can be found, but I doubt there's the legal framework in place to motorise the gates. At the very least they'd probably have to install the flashing lights and audible warnings to satisfy the safety requirements.
I'm not saying the way NR have behaved is particularly good, but I just saw this outcome as inevitable.
On 12 Oct 2015 at 3:24pm Country Boy wrote:
Gated crossings have the best safety record by a country mile. 3% of reported events compared with 20% of barriered crossings - Rail Safety Standards Board statistics.
On 12 Oct 2015 at 9:40pm a christie wrote:
Unanimous decision to reject Network Fails application by the powers that be.
Please, no back tracking by Lewes District Council planning officers.
On 23 Oct 2015 at 5:16pm Reg Stoned wrote:
The new OD crossing is the highest safety rated crossing NR have. The grounds for renewal are the existing level crossing is in poor condition and in need of full renewal. When renewing a level crossing NR have to bring it to current standards. The ORR agrees the new crossing is much safer and have said so in writing. So please don't pretend it isn't. all this info is in the public domain on the planning portal as I have read it there.
The old crossing has no seperated pedestrian crossing so mothers with pushchairs compete with cars to cross. There are no road traffic lights to give motorist a chance to slow down before needing to stop. There is no audible warning for pedestrians. There are no tactile pavings for partially sighted people and the list goes on. the new crossing is clearly safer and should be encouraged. Please find out the facts before repeating mistruths. The trouble is a few misguided people are spreading lies to pretend NR have done something wrong. NR haven't breached any laws and if you believe otherwise prove it. Even the conservation and heritage officer for Lewes District Council agrees with NR that the public benefits outweigh the loss of the gates. His report is also on the planning portal recommending that NR was given approval.