37 116 at Parkandillack.
This trip was seen as priority to ensure the ballast train is covered in a few weeks time.
Andrew Triggs Roger Winnen
I hope you are well and keeping safe.
I thought I would send you these photos from earlier today, of 37116 visiting the Parkandillick branch . They are taken at Little Treviscoe and Parkandllick.
Kind regards, Jon Hird
The Clay Country
Andrew Triggs Roger Winnen
Network Rail Measurement train at Penzance
37 116 was on the rear of the train with remote train operating vehicle 9714 on the front.
Report by Mick House.
Hope the pictures are of interest!
All the best, Paul Barlow .
Another Royal Train memory, this time with 67006/67026 with 66201 on the mainline with 150265/234 on the branch. I arrived at St Erth amid high security but on asking if we were allowed on the platform was told "If you buy a ticket, I can't stop you" by the platform staff, so The Queen and Prince Philip and their party rode in 150265, with myself and normal passengers in 150234 on the branch, so I've riden the Royal train in a roundabout way!
All the Best
Footbridge or subway
79c St Mary’s Rd, St Mary’s Bay
Auckland, New Zealand
RT Hon. Derek Thomas Member of Parliament
Dear Mr. Thomas,
I'm writing to you from New Zealand to express my concern for the future of St Erth railway station and the preservation of its listed status and historical assets. I understand that the railway operator,
Network Rail has lodged an application with the Cornwall Council to remove the historic footbridge at St Erth station.
Beside the station building itself, the footbridge is an important historical asset being the most visual structure of the listed buildings that comprise the Station at St Erth. It contributes to the visual flow between platforms 1 and 2, linking the interdependent historic elements which form the overall experience at St Erth Station.
It’s visual contribution to the historic appeal of the station and its attraction to visiting travelers and tourists is irreplaceable.
St Erth Station is one of the last remaining stations that has retained its historic GWR infrastructure.
The completeness of the station’s existing facilities makes it a rare example of a mid-late Victorian rural station architecture. This unique situation must be recognised for its historical relevance.
The high significance of the existing station footbridge lies in its group value as part of the wider historic station complex. The spatial relationships between all the heritage buildings/ assets are appreciated and form part of their significance.
As a single structure, the existing station footbridge is a rare functioning example of GWR architecture.
Any removal of the remaining historic structures will drastically erode and undermine the character of the station and its remaining historic buildings.
Objections to the Proposed Footbridge
The proposed footbridge is visually imposing and disproportionate to the remainder of the station. In my opinion, its featureless box type nature takes on the appearance of a military installment and is completely out of sync with character of the station itself and the wider community area.
The spatial relationship between proposed footbridge and the remaining station structures will be vastly disproportionate and excessive.
It will dominate the skyline in the area and further depreciate the ambience and attractiveness of the station.
Some of the drawings showing the bridge are deceiving by nature of their angle and suggest a lower profile to the proposed footbridge in relation to the existing shelters than the other architectural drawings show. I have used the scale model that I'm building of St Erth (as it was in the 1950s) to demonstrate the point about the size disproportion and architectural misalignment that this will cause.
I have built a scale mock up of the proposed bridge and you can quite graphically see its negative impact.
Alternative Proposal – A Combined Underpass/Lift Solution
This solution would feature a subway with an entrance from the car park level adjacent to platform 1.
The subway passes beneath the track and has a sub-terranean lift at the platform 2 end of its bore. The lift would take passengers up to the ground level in front of the station entrance. The platform 2 end could have a short stairway of concrete construction which would allow natural light in at each end of the underpass.
1. The combined underpass/lift proposal will allow the station to offer an accessible route for wheelchair passenger to access the platform for the St Ives branch or Up trains.
2. The combined underpass/lift solution with its additional capacity access will allow the station to accommodate peak traveler numbers. This will remove the stated issue of queues and safety.
3. The combined underpass/lift solution will allow comfortable transfers of luggage and pushchairs between platforms
4. The combined underpass/lift solution will have the least visual impact on the current appearance of the historic station with the only above ground structure being the upper level of the lift structure which would be located on unused ground adjacent to the footbridge and opposite the station entrance.
5. The combined underpass/lift solution will allow retention of the existing listed Victorian footbridge and retention of the group value of the wider historic station complex.
6. The spatial relationships between all the heritage buildings/ assets that form an irreplaceable part of their significance will be retained.
This proposal of a combined underpass and lift has not been considered in the submissions from Network rail. It clearly allows the needs and obligation of the railway to be met in the long term and at the same time preserves the historical assets of the station at St Erth.
I propose that the engineering viability of this solution is explored before any decisions regarding the footbridge are made.
Visual Impact Comparison
The drawing below shows the graphical difference in visual impact between the proposed bridge from Network Rail and the alternative underpass proposal
Network Rail have the opportunity to rethink its function-based decision making and instead take a holistic approach to infrastructure planning. Instead it can make decisions that positively preserves passenger generating historical assets and that makes Network Rail an inclusive member of the communities it serves and their greater interests.
I would like to see the alternative proposal independently investigated as I'm sure you will agree that it has potential to create a win/win solution for the community and the users of the railways system.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of my submission.