As part of the Narrative Risk Assessment, Network Rail assess the various options available. The information below is taken from this assessment as well as the consultations and answers to questions sent via email.

Step and ramp bridge (Spencer Close)

This is Network Rail’s proposed solution.

Pros
  • Removes risk of being hit by train
  • Provides an accessible route for cyclists, fisherman and vulnerable users
  • Removes the need for the whistle boards / horn
Cons
  • Expensive - £3.7m “working cost”
  • Network Rail not factoring other safety risks
  • New path would extend journey by approx. 0.5KM
  • 1,200m2 of trees would need to be removed
  • Impact on wildlife at Spencer Close
  • Impact of residents at Spencer Close
  • Closure of the ancient right of way across the Hatches
  • Compulsory purchase of 3rd party land
  • Long construction time

Miniature Stop Light (integrated)

Miniature Stop Light systems consist of red and green lights and an auditory warning, which warns level crossing users of the arrival of a train several seconds in advance.

An ‘integrated’ system is connected to the signalling system.

Pros
  • Reduces risk by 60%
  • Medium cost - £800,000
  • Removes the need for the whistle boards / horn
  • Crossing would remain in the same place
  • Provides and accessible route for cyclists, fisherman and vulnerable users
Cons
  • Doesn’t mitigate against deliberate misuse

Miniature Stop Light (overlay)

Miniature Stop Light systems consist of red and green lights and an auditory warning, which warns level crossing users of the arrival of a train several seconds in advance.

An ‘overlay’ system is not connected at all to the signalling system. The way it detects trains is independent of the track circuits.

Pros
  • Low cost - £270,000
  • Reduces risk by 60%
  • Crossing would remain in the same place
  • Removes the need for the whistle boards / horn
  • Provides an accessible route for cyclists, fisherman and vulnerable users
Cons
  • Location not viable for this solution
  • Doesn’t mitigate against deliberate misuse

Stepped bridge (The Hatches)

Building a stepped bridge at The Hatches.

Pros
  • Crossing would remain in the same place
  • Removes the need for the whistle boards / horn
Cons
  • Stepped bridge would not be accessible for cyclists, fisherman and vulnerable users
  • Spatial constraints
  • Impact on resident’s privacy

Crossing attendant and locked gates

A crossing attendants would remain at the crossing for the duration of the planned train table service and would operate the gate so that they would lock for the approach of a train and would remain locked until the train has passed.

Pros
  • Reduces risk by 90%
  • Removes the need for the whistle boards / horn
  • Provides and accessible route for cyclists, fisherman and vulnerable users
Cons
  • Would need to be a welfare accommodation for the attendant
  • Compulsory purchase of 3rd party land
  • High operating expenditure of approx. £150,000 / year

Underpass

Building an underpass at The Hatches.

Pros
  • Crossing would remain in the same place
  • Removes the need for the whistle boards / horn
  • Provides and accessible route for cyclists, fisherman and vulnerable users
Cons
  • Spatial constraints
  • High cost would be disproportionate to the benefits
  • Attract anti-social behaviour
  • Liable to flood
  • Compulsory purchase of 3rd party land
  • Long construction time
  • Construction risk due to complex ground conditions and flooding

Leave crossing as it is

Keeping The Hatches crossing open and making no changes.

Pros
  • No cost
  • Provides and accessible route for cyclists, fisherman and vulnerable users
Cons
  • Risk remains at unacceptable level
  • Whistle boards / horns remain

Closure

Closing The Hatches crossing and not providing an alternative.

Pros
  • Fully eliminates risk
  • Low cost - £100,000 approx
  • Removes the need for the whistle boards / horn
Cons
  • No suitable alternative routes nearby

A Cost Benefit Analysis allows each of the proposed options to be assessed for their ‘value for money’. Any given safety mitigation must show that there is a sufficient safety reduction for the cost of the solution.

Concerns raised

Many residents find it difficult to understand why Network Rail are so set on a bridge when the cost continues to rise and when there is an alternative option in Miniature Stop Lights.

Miniature Stop Lights would increase the safety by approximately 60% on the existing level crossing but at a much lower cost, bringing it down to a level well below many other crossings on the network. It would also remove the need for whistleboards (the horn). The addition of alternative technologies, such as radar controlled obstacle detection will be available soon to further enhance crossing safety, certainly within the lifespan of the bridge and could be installed to further improve safety.

Throughout Network Rail’s risk assessment, consultation and website there seems to be an unbalanced representation of the pros and cons of the two solutions and many residents believe Network Rail have done this draw attention away from this option as there is little difference in their Cost Benefit Analysis scores.

During the final consultation, when questioned, Network Rail representatives were unwilling to say if Miniature Stop Lights would be the “Plan B” if the spiralling cost of the bridge becomes unacceptable. One Network Rail representative even said “they don’t work” which contradicts the 60% safety improvement quoted and used for their own risk assessment.

It also doesn’t align to the news that Network Rail are actively installing 90+ Miniature Stop Lights across Anglia between 2021 and 2024. Why is this solution suitable for each of these crossings but not at the Hatches?

Alongside the cost benefits of Miniature Stop Lights, many of the other concerns raised by residents and users would be addressed.

In the Narrative Risk Assessment – Cost Benefit Analysis, the bridge cost used for the calculation is £2.4m. This document, used to support the bridge solution, was approved in September 2022. Network Rail have previously confirmed in writing that the estimated cost for the bridge was £3m in October 2021 – almost a year before this document was approved (going up to £3.7m due to inflation).

On this basis, it is difficult to justify why Network Rail are using an outdated cost in the Cost Benefit Analysis. If the correct figure of £3m was used (let alone £3.7m), the bridge option would fall below the threshold, failing the Cost Benefit Analysis and likely scoring lower that Miniature Stop Lights.

Network Rail have been asked to provide the formula to calculate the Benefit Cost Ratio to clarify how this would impact the bridge score, but this is yet to be provided.

When challenged, Network Rail were not able to justify this, other than to say that they need to draw a line in the sand at some point, but surely that point should be at the point of approving their own Cost Benefit Analysis? Network Rail representatives went on to say that improving safety was the main concern and the increased cost was secondary. This makes a mockery of the Cost Benefit Analysis and goes against Network Rail’s approach of “As Low As Reasonably Practicable”.

In the Narrative Risk Assessment, the “All Level Crossing Risk Model” (ALCRM) score used in the Cost Benefit Analysis gives the bridge options a perfect safety score as it only considers incidents that occur on a crossing. Of course this is not a true reflection of bridge safety.

One of the main threat to life risks is suicide. It would appear that bridges are a greater risk than crossings and that alone throws Network Rails claim into doubt. They have refused to provide any data on this. They have also failed to provide any other evidence regarding the wider risks related to footbridges (probably because it does not exist). Nonetheless, the claim that a bridge is safer has not been substantiated in any way.

To put level crossing deaths and suicides into perspective, Of the fatalities on the railway in 2019/20 6 occurred on a level crossing, 17 involved people trespassing on the railway, 283 were suicides or suspected suicides.

Here are some examples:

Deaths falling from a rail footbridge bridge (suspected suicides and uncertain circumstances)
Injury

As we enter the winter months, how frequently (and who) will be ensuring the bridge is gritted and safe to cross? With approximately 300 users a day it’s not a high footfall, so surfaces will likely remain unsafe for longer or freeze over. If someone were to slip and fall down the steps (non Spencer Close side) there is the very real risk that they may not be heard or helped for some time.

When asked, Network Rail have not been receptive to installing security cameras, so it would rely on users or residents should any incident occur.

Do you oppose Network Rail's bridge proposal?

If you don’t agree with what Network Rail are proposing, there are things you can do.

Doing nothing will be seen as a positive response by Network Rail.

Take action