Ware already has a pedestrian footbridge.I think this assumes you couldn't just close it (perhaps with a pedestrian footbridge or subway added) and divert traffic to a nearby bridge.
Ware already has a pedestrian footbridge.I think this assumes you couldn't just close it (perhaps with a pedestrian footbridge or subway added) and divert traffic to a nearby bridge.
Ok, I sit corrected, we can be more pragmatic than I had assumed. Which makes me wonder why those sort of solutions haven't been used more.Your link doesn't work for me so I can't comment fully, but here are two UK examples, both built about 15 years ago to replace flat crossings of a road and a railway respectively:
a single-lane, traffic light controlled bridge on a public road over the A1 at Rainton in North Yorkshire:
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.www.google.co.uk
a single narrow lane, traffic-light controlled, very low headroom underpass on a public road under the Rugby-Birmingham line at Berkswell:
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.www.google.co.uk
Perhaps just an example of the silliest crossings, but the twin set across the A259 on the Marshlink line near Rye are more likely to be closed just by moving the whole road onto the other side of the railway
Maybe Network Fail should buy the house & solve the problem.
The OS and Google Street View map show several houses, and a "pumping station", served by that section of road. Presumably the latter, at least, can't be moved so would still require access. The fields between the road and the river would also need to be accessible by their owners. Replacing two fully controlled crossings by an occupation crossing might not be any safer.This idea also occurs to me every time I use Marshlink.
Then each time I look at the map & see a house is served by
the piece of road that this otherwise excellent plan would close.
Maybe Network Fail should buy the house & solve the problem.
Indeed it's used so infrequently as a crossing, that the lines leading up to it are used as car parking on one side and a sitting area on the other.Sheringham, between the NR station and the North Norfolk Railway is a really useful connection, and used so infrequently that it is of little disruption to the town itself
I am assured by somebody connected to the North Norfolk Railway that this is officially a tramway rather than a level crossing, so a different set of rules apply.Sheringham, between the NR station and the North Norfolk Railway is a really useful connection, and used so infrequently that it is of little disruption to the town itself
Agree with these. Both are on busy major roads in the New Forest national park and I can’t see any bypass for these going down well with the Verderers.Brockenhurst, Lymington town
These two I’m not so convinced about. Wool has room for a bypass of the A352 so that could potentially allow the crossing to be severed, including the nearby one at East Burton. As for Totton, I am pretty sure there have been proposals as recently as last year to bridge its crossing which could be achieved by using industrial land to the west.Wool, Totton
The StreetMap website shows OS Maps, and a level crossing is shownA bit OT: many years ago, when I lived in the area, I noticed that the Ordnance Survey maps showed a bridge over the Vale of Rheidol railway at Aberffrwd, where no bridge would be feasible. Do the maps still show a bridge or do they now correctly show a level crossing (I have no easy access to the maps as I live in Canada)?
I guess so, seeing that there aren't any barriers!I am assured by somebody connected to the North Norfolk Railway that this is officially a tramway rather than a level crossing, so a different set of rules apply.
It’s had a road closed sign on it the last few weeks. Or do they just put that there if there’s no crossing keeper available?Bishton, near Newport. Falls in to category 3. There is an adjacent rail-over bridge for low vehicles. Only high vehicles have to use the crossing. Only ever sees one school bus a day in each direction and the very occasional delivery van.
It's so infrequently used it would be difficult to justify the cost of a new road-over bridge or deepening the road under the current rail-over bridge
Usually that's just because there's no crossing keeper. It's definitely still officially openIt’s had a road closed sign on it the last few weeks. Or do they just put that there if there’s no crossing keeper available?
Thanks. I did not know about that site but I can see it being useful in the future.The StreetMap website shows OS Maps, and a level crossing is shown
Map of Aberffrwd, Ceredigion / Sir Ceredigion [City/Town/Village] (streetmap.co.uk)
I thought about that one. The time to have done it would have been when the Motherwell Bridge works site was being cleared, but you’d probably have had to remove some of Derby CS as well. The boat has sailed on that one now it’s all housing I think.Logans Road, Motherwell. It’s been looked at in the past for elimination, and it’s one that both NR and the local authority would like rid of as it’s a major headache in the event of failure/damage. Just no easy answer.
Possibly a copyright trap, ordnance survey maps have minor features that are wrong, so they can catch out other publishers copying their mapsA bit OT: many years ago, when I lived in the area, I noticed that the Ordnance Survey maps showed a bridge over the Vale of Rheidol railway at Aberffrwd, where no bridge would be feasible. Do the maps still show a bridge or do they now correctly show a level crossing (I have no easy access to the maps as I live in Canada)?
At Eggesford the barriers open once a train has passed, so when the Barnstaple bound train stops short, operates the barriers, crosses over them the barriers raise. Once the Exeter bound train is ready then the guard operates the barriers and they go. So they're never down for any extended period of time
Makes sense. Must be a pretty boring job in that box, no wonder they never wave.Usually that's just because there's no crossing keeper. It's definitely still officially open
I got a wave from a chap the other week. He was leaning out of the window and everything.Makes sense. Must be a pretty boring job in that box, no wonder they never wave.
Lymington, including the Town station is outside the National Park. As per the previous post, the areas surrounding these crossings are built up.Agree with these. Both are on busy major roads in the New Forest national park and I can’t see any bypass for these going down well with the Verderers.
My map of the area is the OS Landranger (1:50000 scale) and dates from 2001/2002, and it clearly shows LC (Level Crossing/Croesfan wastad) just east of Aberffrwd station.A bit OT: many years ago, when I lived in the area, I noticed that the Ordnance Survey maps showed a bridge over the Vale of Rheidol railway at Aberffrwd, where no bridge would be feasible. Do the maps still show a bridge or do they now correctly show a level crossing (I have no easy access to the maps as I live in Canada)?
I was there in the late 60s - it sounds like it was a genuine error.My map of the area is the OS Landranger (1:50000 scale) and dates from 2001/2002, and it clearly shows LC (Level Crossing/Croesfan wastad) just east of Aberffrwd station.
See also link below and zoom out on the accompanying map.
The Aberffrwd level crossing © John Lucas cc-by-sa/2.0
The road climbs steeply out of the hamlet, levelling only where it crosses the railway.www.geograph.org.uk
I know that commercial publishers did this. Bartholomews showed a road on the wrong side of the railway near where I grew up, but it didn’t occur to me that the OS might do the same. I suppose it should have done as they’ve been a semi/commercial operation for decades.Possibly a copyright trap, ordnance survey maps have minor features that are wrong, so they can catch out other publishers copying their maps
Petersfield level crossing on Station Road immediately north of the station.It is endeavoured that as many level crossings as possible should be closed permanently to improve safety and reduce congestion. While many have been successfully closed or replaced with a bridge, there are still many where doing so would be problematic or impractical for one of the following reasons:
In terms of crossings that are least likely to be removed, I would imagine most of the valid examples would be those in the first two categories. For the third category, the road could alternatively be severed on each side but this would depend on whether there is a suitable alternative route in the vicinity.
- The road passes through a built-up area where building a bridge would require extensive demolition.
- The road passes through a National park or AONB, and hence permission for a new bridge is unlikely to be granted.
- The road sees so little traffic that the case for a bridge would be very weak. Same for crossings with only a small handful of train movements per day.
I will begin with the level crossing at Brockenhurst. Busy A-road, no suitable alternative route for traffic to divert to and right in the middle of a national park.