Network Rail in Arthington station safety apology

A rail company has apologised for “over-looking” road safety concerns raised more than six weeks ago.

Network Rail has been using the spot of the old railway station in Station Road, Arthington, as the base for line works vehicles, and the low-loader lorries transp-orting them, for the past few months.

But the parish council has been worried about the giant vehicles having to back out onto the busy A659 Arthington Lane to turn, without warning signs being put up or assistants to guide them.

Parish council chairman, Councillor Ian Lister, called Network Rail’s national helpline more than a month-and-a-half ago to raise his concerns, but heard nothing back.

Coun Lister, who has now complained to the company’s head office about the lack of response, said: “I feel there’s an accident waiting to happen here, but we haven’t been able to get anyone to speak to us about that or the damage that’s been done to the roads.

“They’re backing these things onto the main road but there are no ‘plant crossing’ signs to warn people, and these vehicles are coming and going at all times. It has been very frustrating not being able to get anyone to talk to. If they had we, could have tried to work something out between us, but it feels like we’ve been ignored.”

A Network Rail spokeswoman said: “I apologise on behalf of Network Rail.

“We have responded to a private resident and to Leeds City Council on matters relating to this site, but the parish council appears to have been overlooked.

“This is being rectified today. I have checked with the project team and they assure me vehicle movements are being completed under an agreed, safe system of work. In addition, our contractors have been briefed that they need to keep noise and any other disturbance at a minimum.”

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree