Closure of Long Rock Mexico Crossing

Summary: The users of this footpath crossing are angry about the process which fails to take into account the wider effects on users, even to the point of exposing them to a greater risk of death while removing a hugely valued amenity. The crossings: The Mexico Crossing is a heavily used footpath-only crossing of a single track section of the main line between Penzance and Paddington. It is close to the centre of the village of Long Rock and gives locals easy access to a superb beach. It is by far the best feature of this village and its value is shown by the estimated reduction of individual local house values of over 20,000. The route existed before the railway and was formerly a road crossing which was moved 200m west and made into a gated vehicle crossing into a car park to the west of the beach access. This has been proposed as a suitable alternative by NR and the ORR. In fact it adds over 1km to a round trip to the beach or the coastal footpath to the east. Worse, the vehicle crossing gates are closed for periods of over 20 minutes at a time and on occasion walkers have been trapped on the seaward side for over 75 minutes at dusk and then had to walk to a dangerous road bridge to the east and cross it in darkness. The Mexico Crossing was over twin track for most of its 160 years of existence, and train movements were much commoner in the days of freight. The wider effects of closure: Loss of amenity, recreation etc: The unpredictable periods when the gates on the alternative vehicle crossing are down plus the extra 1km on a round trip has had three effects: 1. Walkers displaced onto more dangerous routes: Users walking east to the attractive village of Marazion and St. Michaels Mount do not head west for the pleasure of standing amid car fumes in front of closed gates for some unpredictable period. So they walk along a road with no pavements to a road bridge that is angled across the railway and consequently blind and very dangerous. Near misses here run at several per day, far above the level on the rail crossing. The risk of death here must exceed that at the closed crossing, even allowing for the lower numbers of walkers. 2. Loss of recreation: Many older users dont go the coast any more, losing the exercise and enjoyment, and shortening and impoverishing their lives. A public meeting here attracted over 200 people representing over 6000 years of Long Rock residency and voted unanimously for the closure to be lifted. 3. Loss of jobs / income: Those providing holiday accommodation in the village will go out of business and the village shop, that has just re-opened, and is very close to the crossing, will be at risk of failing again, as it depended on a lot of beach trade in the summer. The process of closure: Two deaths in the vicinity are known since the railway arrived 160 years ago. The first was in 1972 and was of a lady trying to get her unrestrained dog off the track. The second, in 2011, was an elderly lady and regular user of the crossing in 2011 and had strong features of being a suicide but the verdict in the Coroners court was accidental death.

1. RAIB: The RAIB investigate the crossing and did not recommend closure. 2. ORR. The ORR reported that the crossing was low risk but after meeting the bereaved family (not themselves local) who pressed for closure they agreed to recommend closure, assuming the alternative as satisfactory and describing local opposition as illogical and disappointing. The ORR Director of Railway Safety says they are not competent to assess wider effects, but nevertheless they do recommend closures. The logical implication would be that they should recommend investigation by those that can do the joined up thinking and pass on their assessment of risk to them. The ORRs response to our one letter to them has a major error in their calculation of risk on the crossing, and shows a serious lack of statistically awareness. 3. The Coroner. The Coroner described closure as causing minimal inconvenience, repeated the as-the-crow-flies distance between crossings of 200m as 200yards and wrote a rule 43 letter to NR and Cornwall Council recommending closure. At the inquest the RAIBs officer did not recommend closure (letter from director of RAIB). We know little more of the inquest as the Coroner refuses to disclose it to us, or reply to our letters, except by referring us to Cornwall Council, who say they cannot disclose any of that material without the Coroners permission, which is not forthcoming. 4. Cornwall Council, whose Highways Department had never had to deal with a rule 43 letter, treated the letter as an edict and made a temporary closure order, citing the Coroner and minor inconvenience but again making no attempt to assess wider impacts. Discussion with them revealed that they believed that assessment of closures under the Highways Act 1980 did not include wider impacts, although we read the Act as requiring all circumstances to be considered. 5. NR states that they will be applying for permanent closure on the basis of the Coroners recommendation, although they know that this crossing does not appear to be high risk. NRs regional safety improvement officer says they intend to close all pedestrian crossings and I will sleep better in my bed when they are all closed. However responsible NR staff said, reasonably, at a site meeting that they do not know how to assess wider implications. 6. DfTs Rail safety advisor, John Smith, says : With level crossings, like all aspects of the railway, Network Rail's, first priority is safety, and they are committed to working towards making the railway safer to a point where there are no accidents on the railway. That position confines the consideration of risks to those on the railway. The Health and Safety Executive has been keen to distance itself from such zero-risk policies, but this one has the further damaging feature that it ignores risks created off the railway which can be larger than the risks removed. Our view: The Deputy Assistant Coroner followed what he saw as recommendations from NR, the ORR, and the bereaved family, and made no attempt to further assess the impact. Now he is quoted by NR, ORR and CC as though he is the leader of the move to close the crossing. He has no expertise in diagnosis or safety policy. At this point no attempt has been made by any of these agencies to assess wider effects. What we see is the mis-informed leading the mis-informed, with NR, ORR and DfT following inappropriately narrow and risky safety policies, in support of which NR has ulterior motives.

For Long Rock this closure is appalling. The very reason many of us moved here has been taken away and we are subjected to patronising positions and incompetence on an issue that does us serious damage.

Dr Nick Tregenza, for the Friends of Long Rock Mexico Crossing 5 Beach Terrace, Long Rock, TR20 8JE 11th March 2013 n.tregenza@btinternet.com 01736 732462