Market Gate Bridge

Safety is only half the reason. Yes, the crossing was deemed ‘high risk’, and yes, Network Rail are running a level crossing closure programme to fund LC closures. But, the other reason was that Network Rail were planning to move controls of the crossing to York (as part of another cost saving exercise) and would’ve needed to invest in new barriers and a new system to do this. It made more sense to get it closed if the council could support this. Once the council agreed to the closure the crossing was on the chopping block.

Unfortunately, Network Rail timelines for closure weren’t ideal for the council - due to construction of The Glassworks - but the council didn’t want to lose out on the 2m contribution towards the bridge. Hence going ahead with the closure and accepting the temporary bridge offered by Network Rail. The crossing has since been lifted and the barriers removed. Jumble Lane no longer exists - officially!

A bigger temporary bridge couldn’t be built for a number of reasons. Yorkshire Water need access to dig up the ground around the bridge and the glassworks to divert a sewer. Henry Boot needed the space to safely build the new structures. Space also needed to be saved so the permanent bridge could be built while the temporary bridge is still in use. Oh, and according to Nudger, the council couldn’t be arsed and wanted to cause a load of problems for a laugh.

I could understand the anger and frustration if there were no provisions in place to support the disabled, and if no acceptable diversions were available. However, the diversion down Eldon Street and up Schwäbisch Gmünd Way is less than half a mile and shouldn’t take any longer than 10 minutes on foot. I know the people of Barnsley are supposedly inbred, but surely they have legs? I’m sure most could use the extra bit of exercise.

 

You were doing well with that until the last couple of sentences, no need

 

I have used the bridge a fair number of times & not once have I felt unsafe, not once have I ever come remotely close to being injured or killed, the thing is made from Iron girders fo chuff sake, and no I'm not embarrassed either.

 

WUM

 

Hmmm, is it really that?I very much doubt it. I find playing the WUM card is often something people do, or other people claim they do, when they are proved wrong or realise they have unwittingly come out with something outrageously incorrect (quite often in this posters case)

 

It was intended as a tongue in cheek comment to try and lighten the mood of the post. Evidently the ‘wink wink, nudge nudge’, nature was lost.

I’m Barnsley born and bred, and posting on a Barnsley FC forum, it was never meant as a serious comment or to cause offence! I was merely trying to point out that the diversion (which is only in place for a few hours each week during the football season) is perfectly acceptable for the majority!

 

Fair enough, In my (Weak)defence, it was late last night

 

Freddiel Freddiel Freddiel.
Nice try buster ........ but it’s waffle mixed with excuses ....... the facts remain that for a penny worth of tar Barnsley Council have spoilt the barrel.
Instead of a temporary bridge made out of a Maccano Set - why not build a temporary bridge that can be used.
And when I say used - I mean used for all occasions.
They didn’t - no matter who built it - Barnsley Council allowed an important thoroughfare to be Jerry Built.
And for that - we as residents have no other powers but to vote the leading powers out at the next election.

 

Yet you’re the one posting an opinion, and I’m the one posting facts.

 

Thanks for that - interesting read

 

Yep ..... my opinion is that this important thoroughfare can only be used on a temporary basis.
Which also seems to be a fact.

 

Actually I have to (sort of) agree with YN on this.
If you take the example of an average people carrying lift..it has a designed and tested weight limit that far exceeds the practical capacity in terms of the numbers of people that could occupy the available space.
Therefore, for me it is an appalling lack of foresight /safety that a structure such as a bridge with public access has a maximum safe weight limit that is less than the ingress/egress occupancy capacity. They should have known that on certain days the useage would be high. I remember from many years ago the army built a bailey bridge (temporary structure) I near Darton when a bridge collapsed which lasted over a year until the proper replacement was built. It was so strong it could have handled a convoy of tanks!!
Escalators are another example. The load capacity has to factor in the maximum numbers of people it can carry at any given time. Having to restrict access due to load capacity limitations, IMHO, makes it 'not fit for purpose' as YN has said.
I am amazed it could get a safety certificate with such a caveat... 'Oh you can use it -but only by limiting the numbers using it at any given time'. Crazy!!

 

It’s not a crime to agree with me.
Not everyone will laugh at you.
Not everyone.

 

So what should the council have done then (in your opinion)? Baring in mind the lack of space, possibility of losing £2m in funding and the limited time scales?

 

For anyone sad enough to care, or interested in this type of thing, there’s lots of data around the pedestrian flows over the level crossing here:

https://wwwapplications.barnsley.gov.uk/PlanningExplorerMVC/Home/FileDownload/53356632-a3b2-4aa2-8daf-caeba3b5fa66?ApplicationNumber=2018%2F0989

If you look through this data you’ll notice the sheer increase of pedestrians on match days, but also recognise the very short amount of time the peak lasts. This report also notes how that data has been used to determine the width of the bridge deck for the permanent bridge, lift capacity, and stairs.

Reasons have already been provided around the need for the temporary bridge to be smaller, however, this data should also go some way to explain why it would be nearly impossible to build a temporary bridge large enough to safely accommodate the flows on match days, and also build a permanent bridge while the temporary one is in situ. Not to mention justifying the costs incurred for what is essentially 2 hours of increased flows every other weekend.

There are valid arguments against the need to close the crossing without a permanent bridge in place beforehand, and why the permanent bridge couldn’t be constructed before work on The Glassworks commenced - all of which we could endlessly debate. We’ve got what we’ve got, and most will completely forget it ever happened once the permanent bridge is open.

 

I am pretty sure that even the council at local level or Railtrack (or whoever) would find it hard to legally get a pedestrian public right of way closed long term (even if if does cross railway land) - I'm not sure even the Railways Act would permit the Town to be cut in half by such an action. without providing alternative routing that does not involve a 20 minute detour hike especially given the topography of Barnsley.
As regards TonyTyke..."lack of space" I am no architect so I have to accept the proposal being limited by constraints of the footprint. When it comes to safety though, the argument for 'funding' becomes irrelevant. Other than match days, how is the 'traffic' over the bridge monitored and controlled? Is the actual capacity displayed for the general public to see as it is, for example, in a lift?

 

As far as I'm aware it doesn't, but then does the other bridge over the station? That's not manned on none match days either just like most bridges.


Edit : Correct English

 

At one time any pit fitting shop around here would have knocked up a structure big enough and strong enough for a tank to ride across it never mind people.
It does not matter if this bridge is unsuitable for use during a day, an hour or a single second.
If it’s closed for any period of time - then
ITS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE !!!
End of, full stop, period.

 

There’s clearly lots of differences of opinion on this, and no amount of info or argument from both sides is likely to change that.

 

Especially if there were weekend chitties available