Level foot crossings over railway lines ... we have three in the Melksham area - two in Melksham Without (Beanacre ward) and one in Melksham Town (North ward). Consideration is being given to an increased train service along the line. That would be an extra 3 or 4 passenger trains each way calling at Melksham on top of perhaps 36 train of all sorts which pass through, up to 9 calling each way.

Questions asked - what is needed, if anything, to enhance the safety of these three crossings? It has been suggested that all three might be busy with foot traffic. Do we have any local evidence to confirm or deny this? What action needs to be taken to make the crossings safer? Are they used enough to make it sensible to spend money on them, and if so on what extra facilities? Is it such a big problem that no extra trains should be run and indeed the current train service curtailed? Is there any merit and closing or diverting the footpaths?

---

I am looking at the crossings north to south here - so in descending order

3. Crossing on the path between Beanacre and the Melksham electric substation
Wholly in the parish of Melksham Without




3.1 This crossing has recently been upgraded / refurbished with railings and new signage. There are long straight track sections on the approach to give good visibility. The refurbishment includes steps and a swing-gate style so the crossing is not wheelchair friendly. The line speed limit is 70 mph and it should be expected that trains will be travelling at close to that speed

3.2 From limited local evidence, pedestrian usage of this crossing is low. The crossing itself shows signs of last autumn's leaf mould still there, and the grass growing in the field leading to the gate to the crossing shows only a faint track indicating limited foot passage.

3.3 I am not aware of any planning applications or future developments "community side" that would result in a significant change in pedestrian use. I am aware of proposals so add a second track to some parts of the Chippenham to Trowbridge line, and if that were done past this point the crossing and static barriers would need rebuilding.

---

2. Crossing on the path between Beanacre and Shurnhold Field / Dunch Lane
In the parish of Melksham Without, footpath leads into Melksham Town



2.1 The crossing itself is modern but not the very latest of signage as there is at crossing No. 3. There are steps up meaning it is not suitable for wheelchairs, and also swing-gate styles. Trains here are travelling at about 40 mph as this crossing is on the edge of the change from the 70 limit to the north to the 40 limit through curves at Melksham Station.

2.2 Local evidence suggests that this is the busiest crossing of the three. The path approach is clearly worn, and this is the only one of the three crossings where I have encountered other user - not in my look yesterday to take photos (no-one else around) but in summer weather. However, although the "busiest" that does NOT mean I would describe it as busy - compared (for example) to the foot crossing in Poole I would suggest that the Poole crossing is used by more people in a typical daytime minute than use even this busiest Melksham crossing in a week! (note - data from https://abcrailwayguide.uk/ confirms this)

2.3 Planning applications have been submitted (not sure current status) for land to the south east of the crossing and they could result in a modest increase in foot crossings for people walking to Shurnhold Fields. However, a more logical route for these people to walk would be over the nearby Dunch Lane road bridge. Like the other crossings, work would be required should a second track be relayed here.

---

1. Crossing on the path behind Asda into fields to the west.
In the parish of Melksham Town. Path carries and divides giving access to parished of Melksham Without and Broughton Gifford, as well as back to a public road within Melksham Town.




1.1 This Crossing is currently closed (8th to 27th March) while Network Rail relay the railway. Looking though the fence, it is currently flat access and with fence to close to the track, level across, recent but not latest signage. Access to the crossing is across traditional styles, making it unsuitable for wheelchairs and indeed for anyone not fit enough to climb a style. Trains typically pass at around 40 mph due to the proximity of the curve through Melksham Station - the limit rises to 60mph at around this point.

1.2 Historically this has been the least used of any of the three crossings. I was unable to cross yesterday due to the closure, but I do note that I have not heard a single complaint about the 3 week closure and the very long diversion in a town that is very good at grumbling. The approach to the crossing from the Town side (behind ASDA) has recently been redone - it's now a brand new stone chipping walkway without any chance yet of evidence of passing feet. On a previous visit a couple of years ago, I had to fight my way through brambles and thistles to get to it. - This is the picture to the right

1.3 Planning applications for the "upside" are possible but in the immediate proximity unlikely due to flood plain issues. Housing a little further away would likely lead to traffic over the A365 road bridge which is quite close by. It has been suggested in local plans that this crossing could form part of a strategic walking and cycling path from Melksham to Shaw Hill which is far more direct than the road, using the route of current moribund public footpaths. Also note that this crossing would need re-doing if a second track of railway was restored at this point.

---

In addition to these three level foot crossings in the Melksham area, the Network Rail Sectional Appendix shows three private user worked crossings to the south of Melksham, with telephones, probably for farm vehicles between fields, and I an aware of a further footpath crossing in the Broughton Gifford Parish to the north of the Pack Horse Bridge, providing the only public right of way access to the bridge from that side of the river. These crossings are outside the area of enquiry, but clearly need to be considered within the overall crossing regime.




I am drawing no conclusions here - just providing evidence. Foot crossings ARE dangerous and become more so as train numbers increase, train speeds increase, trains become quieter, foot passages over the crossings increase, and users of the crossings become less familiar with the crossings as they become rarities. There are multiple solutions available to reduce the risk but all have consequences, and there is no "one size fits all". The ABC Railway guide above tells me that tehre have been no accidents at any of the three crossings in the recent past (as of the date it was last updated) and I know of nothing very recent either - but that is not an excuse for us consider the riska ant take any preventative measures as a precaution. We should bear in mind that most of the options would involve substantial cost and might hinder or prevent service improvement.

Options to reduce the risk IF ANY NEEDED include
1. Better / more local publicity
2. Add warning lights that a train is coming (as done on Westbury avoider)
3. Add locking gates or barrier and with CCTV to signal box
4. Provide a footbridge
5. Require all trains to slow down
6. Divert or close the path
7. Limit the number of trains passing
8. Close the railway
And all of these would cost money and / or have dramatic other consequences