Sydney Gardens - paling into insignificance

free2grice · Post by **free2grice** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:12 pm

horace wrote:Fence is in place for track lowering as explained in my pic.

No it's not. It's to do with the safety of trespassers. See my email from
the Liberal Democrat cllr. for Bathwick. <BJ>

''Dear Mr Jones,

Network Rail have been trying for several years to build a fence along the line at Sydney Gardens, which is one of the most exposed parts of the high speed train network. They are prompted by the safety concerns of the Rail Regulator, who are able to compel action. Cllr David Martin and I do not think that the safety case has been adequately made to ourselves or the public.

After many years of neglect, the Lib Dems on BathNES Council have established a project to improve Sydney Gardens (Cabinet November 2011) and set aside money to get the project going (Capital Budget February 2012). This is just the start of the process; residents and park users will be involved, but it may take several years yet. We think that the current safety concerns, and also the risk posed by the high voltage power lines of electrification, can be overcome by a good design that reconciles the different needs. For example, secluded areas beside the track prone to inappropriate behaviour could be closed completely, while we would like a large, pleasant and safe viewing area to remain.

Previous proposals by Network Rail were for larger permanent fences which might not have suited the new project to improve the Sydney Gardens. While we have not been convinced of the need for this fence, Network Rail are entitled to put it up. The timber fence it is less intrusive and cheaper for the public purse than earlier designs and will allow us to find a more acceptable and comprehensive solution in the future.''

Yours,

Cllr Nicholas Coombes
Bathwick, Liberal Democrat

free2grice · Post by **free2grice** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:16 pm

A letter kindly sent to Mr Rees-Mogg by local rail photographer Glen Batten.

''Dear Mr Rees-Mogg,

I was horrified to see the ramshackle, allotment-style, 5ft fence recently erected alongside the railway in Bath's iconic Sydney Gardens. It is a monstrosity, jarring horribly with the Georgian architecture and completely ruining the view of passing trains which has for over a century been such an attraction there for children, tourists, photographers and train enthusiasts. (Just last Sunday evening the soon-to-be-ruined vantage point was crowded with visitors watching the steam train returning from Weymouth).

I understand the fence is 'temporary' and has something to do with safety of trespassers (!) but it is a huge mistake and simply makes Bath and the UK look like ridiculous 'health and safety' obsessives. What next: a 6ft fence around Pulteney Weir or along North Parade Bridge? I believe more people have come to grief at these spots than by falling onto the track in the Gardens.

Please look into this and bring a sense of proportion before Bath becomes a laughing stock. The media are already onto it''.

Yours sincerely,

Glen Batten

horace · Post by **horace** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:29 pm

Health and safety whilst the lower the track and erect 25,000 volt overhead lines. It is the same as any building site, unless of course you are volunteering to stand on top the wall whilst the switch the wires on, I wish you well if you do.
They cannot put up a permanent fence without getting planning permission not only from the council but English heritage etc. etc. There have been no planning notices!!!
I tend to believe the rail workers rather than some MP that is probably lying through his teeth to preserve his backside.

horace · Post by **horace** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:32 pm

free2grice wrote:
horace wrote:Fence is in place for track lowering as explained in my pic.
No it's not. It's to do with the safety of trespassers. See my email from
the Liberal Democrat cllr. for Bathwick. <BJ>

''Dear Mr Jones,

We think that the current safety concerns, and also the risk posed by the high voltage power lines of electrification, can be overcome by a good design that reconciles the different needs. For example, secluded areas beside the track prone to inappropriate behaviour could be closed completely, while we would like a large, pleasant and safe viewing area to remain.

Previous proposals by Network Rail were for larger permanent fences which might not have suited the new project to improve the Sydney Gardens. While we have not been convinced of the need for this fence, Network Rail are entitled to put it up. The timber fence it is less intrusive and cheaper for the public purse than earlier designs and will allow us to find a more acceptable and comprehensive solution in the future.''

Yours,

Cllr Nicholas Coombes
Bathwick, Liberal Democrat

As stated here it is temporary.

horace · Post by **horace** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:40 pm

There problem is they cannot find an acceptable solution for a world heritage site. So they have resorted to the usual fence that protects any construction site. Chestnut pailings. I doubt whether they will ever find an acceptable solution, as can been seen here the amount of objection would stop it. I i stated earlier the amount of permissions they would need to erect a permanent fence along here would entail numerous permissions from numerous bodies. It will take years to get through. Until one sees planning application I would not even lose a nights sleep. Once an application goes in then just flood them with objections and it wont happen. I notice your letter is from a councillor, I would not worry about that one bit, any fence along there needs to get past the minister in charge, a Tory, I don't think he will take to much notice of a lib dem council or councillor, especially a council that wastes millions on a hot tub.
The line I have underlined is the most important, it means the council are trying to kick it into the long grass as they know not only will it be a problem getting a solution, it is also going to be unpopular and cost a fortune.

free2grice · Post by **free2grice** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:47 pm

How long is temporary, 6 months, 6 years? The pathetic fence is basically there to indicate that they have acted to protect the public .....or, that they have ticked the appropriate box. <BJ>

free2grice · Post by **free2grice** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:59 pm

The railway press are interested in the problem now. Let's hope they see sense and support the people of Bath and district who naturally care about the park. Why should we allow the authorities to walk all over us without a fight? <BJ>

horace · Post by **horace** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:13 pm

I would rather have a temporary fence to protect people from getting injured by heavy track laying equipment, heavy excavators, cranes and wire erecting machines for as long as it takes, so far knowing that there has been no application submitted for a permanent fence. When that application is submitted then i will get excited, until then no point. Having worked in the construction industry for over 40 years I can tell you people do try to access construction sites, and when the do get injured it is not very pretty. Far worse looking than any wooden fence. Remember that site will be operating 24 hours a day when it is not possible to see the unauthorised nutters that go climbing over live construction sites

horace · Post by **horace** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:50 pm

I can imagine the lowering of the tracks through here will be starting fairly soon and will probably be a long and tedious job. The track itself needs to have been lowered a considerable time before the wires are erected as the tracks needs to have bedded down so that the wires will be at the correct height. There is also the problem of the foundations for the wire supports as i cannot see permission being given for the wire supports to be fixed to the wall on one side. Great care will have to be taken when installing foundations next to the existing walls as any damage to the walls would cause great concern. To be perfectly honest the thought of having to thread such a railway through such a highly protected area is something that is not easy. One needs to remember as can be seen in this forum, Sydney Gardens is high on the list of Baths most sensitive areas. I have in my time been in charge of construction projects in some very sensitive areas, but this one is one that I am glad somebody else will be tackling.

horace · Post by **horace** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:36 pm

Having now read the English Heritage map for listed structures that are to be reviewed and not to be reviewed I can find none of the structures in Sydney Gardens that are up for review. This means none of them are being touched by the electrification works.
I rest my case.
The fence is temporary for the time being as is stated in the letter on free2grices posting.
Ok that does not mean in the future things may change, but for now there is a fence that is there for construction works.

jules · Post by **jules** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:48 pm

A few (pertinent) questions:

1. How close is the wall to the nearest running rail?
2. What is the line speed?

It seems to me that under current PTS, anybody stood directly at the wall would otherwise be considered "on or near the line" (within 3m / 10ft) if it weren't for the particular closeness of the boundary at this location. The technical consideration of what would otherwise be "lineside" is from 3m / 10ft of the nearest running rail then out to the boundary, which in this case, because of the close proximity of the wall, is a very short distance indeed.

To be in a place of safety, a trackworker here would have to be in the cess at least 1.25m / 4ft from the nearest running rail (up to 100mph) or 2m / 6ft6in (over 100mph) - though most trackworkers allow quite a bit more than this if they can. As there are no "limited clearance" markers at Sydney Gardens, then this safe distance must exist between the nearest running rail and the lineside limit at the wall, as you would hardly expect someone to climb over the wall to get to a place of safety.

My point is that in any other location, the boundary would be much further out and it would be fenced to avoid the public/animals etc. getting onto "lineside". The closeness of the boundary and the ease of ingress to the very small lineside area or even worse to "on or about the line" would seem, from PTS rules at least, to make this an exceptional location.

There are yet again different rules if actual work is taking place and it becomes a work site.

PTS is non-negotiable for rail staff, so you can be sure if the public are able to come anywhere close to what would be considered "on or about the line" or even "lineside" - e.g. by standing or sitting on the wall, sooner or later, it's going to get fenced.

Incidentally, the erection of overhead line equipment does not affect the safe distances from the track for people on the ground - only upwards! You (or anything you are holding) must not come within 9ft of any live conductor, so OHLE per se isn't going to make any difference here, unless you can get within 9ft of it by standing on something. (As if you'd want to!)

jules · Post by **jules** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:02 pm

Network Rail have been trying for several years to build a fence along the line at Sydney Gardens, which is one of the most exposed parts of the high speed train network. They are prompted by the safety concerns of the Rail Regulator, who are able to compel action.

There you have it. If Network Rail are compelled by the Rail Regulator along the lines of my last post re: PTS and safety of the public at the lineside here, no amount of planning protests will stop the safety of the site being "improved".

They will go ahead and do whatever is deemed acceptable to improve safety, "deemed" being the appropriate word (see thread re: Hitachi and planning at the new depot at Stoke Gifford). One death (even of an idiot or worse a careless child) will not be considered worth the thousands of lost pictures of trains through Sydney Gardens or the heritage nature of the site, no matter who protests or how loudly they do it (politicians / public / English Heritage etc.)

Sorry!

horace · Post by **horace** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:15 pm

The new train depot is not being built on a one world heritage site, let alone two.
if you read the English heritage documents you will see there are no alterations being made to the structures through Sydney gardens. The rail regulator can have a paddy, can throw all of his toys out of his pram as many times as he wants he cant do a thing. But as stated during the construction phase different rules apply. It is like covering a cathedral with scaffolding for restoration, once finished it goes. The fence will be gone once construction finishes. Nowhere in the consultation documents or plans is there any mention of making any changes to any structure in Sydney gardens. If the amend any they are breaking the law, the rail regulator may think he is above the law, he is not. The new train depot is a completely different case. All of the land they are building on belongs to the railway and all of the adjacent land belongs to the railway, and above all none of it is protected land, listed or a world heritage site. that's like comparing the building of a control tower at Heathrow to the building of the new visitors centre at Stonehenge. The former took very little time for the planning authorities, the later has taken about 20 years to get permission for. If you want to see what it would be like try making changes to a listed building where you cant even paint it the colour you want especially in Bath. Find out about the yellow door on Royal crescent that took years and years and thousands in legal fees to resolve.

horace · Post by **horace** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:27 pm

I will give you an example of how powerless the rail regulator will be. The A303 past Stonehenge is responsible for multiple deaths every year. The highways agency, transport ministers, prime ministers, and local MP's have promised for years to do something about it. I was working on schemes for A303 improvement schemes 20 years ago. None of them have ever happened for one simple reason, a pile of rocks called Stonehenge. Sydney Gardens and Bath has exactly the same status as Stonehenge. If ever there was a health and safety case it is the A303 from Amesbury to Wylye, it is a killer, a serial killer, but what can they do about it, Nothing because of its status.
One also needs to compare Sydney Gardens to Dawlish, again a low wall that separates the public from the trains, again nothing can be done as it is again protected.
The one thing the UK has over and above most places is very strict building protection laws, no application made equals no changes proposed. No application approved equals no changes to made, even if the rail regulator dreams about it every night, he can deem what he wants but he cant do a thing. Why did St Pancras cost so much, because it was protected and had to kept in tact. Long gone are the days of demolishing the Euston Arch, that in part was responsible for some of the present day laws.
The only action the Rail regulator can compel is a application to build a fence, that is the limit of his powers, then the long journey through the planning acts, listed building consents, public enquiries begins. The rail regulator is not above the law.

APW · Post by **APW** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:38 pm

jules wrote:..., so OHLE per se isn't going to make any difference here, unless you can get within 9ft of it by standing on something. (As if you'd want to!)

To get OHLE under here:

http://bristol-rail.co.uk/wiki/File:Sydney_Gardens3.jpg

will surely bring the OHLE at about the same height as a persons head, and only a few short feet away, certainly within 9ft.

And what about this angle (remember the young boy sitting on the wet wall):

http://bristol-rail.co.uk/wiki/File:1598-1.jpg

Third rail anyone?