Lines for Level Crossing Closures

I was wondering what impact level crossings have on line speeds.

If you had the funding, which lines would you choose to close all the level crossings where you think would have a greatest impact? Also, what techniques would you use? Bridges, road diversions, wildlife crossings, cuttings (if water table allows), embankments, or...

It doesn't have to be a full route but a particular crossing that you hate.

Personally and selfishly, I would choose Leeds to Hull line which has various types of crossings. I'd probably lower the tracks where possible and build a new road bridge over it (or divert a road). For farms and other User Worked Crossings, I would probably build either simple bridges or build some wildlife/green crossings. I try and favour rail going under roads.

By far the most pressing is the ECML south of Northallerton, and the GWML west of Didcot. That there are any level crossings on busy 125mph stretches of line is, in my personal opinion, an anachronism.

Bald Rick said:

That there are any level crossings on busy 125mph stretches of line is, in my personal opinion, an anachronism.

Click to expand...

Absolutely!

Not sure whether it would affect the line speed, but it is astonishing that while millions was spent building the M74 motorway, the user-worked LC at Bodsbury on the parallel WCML between Carstairs and Lockerbie, was not abolished - There has been at least one serious accident there.

Its an anchronism that red zone working is banned but foot crossings still exist.

Harpo said:

Its an anchronism that red zone working is banned but foot crossings still exist.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

A number of SWR Reading Line crossings are very disruptive for several reasons.
Firstly, they often cause quite severe issues with local traffic in peak times.
Secondly, they have held back a lot of important improvement or new service schemes in the past, including Heathrow Airtrack.
Unfortunately, there are some that are impossible to close without major works (like the crossing at Wokingham station), but most should be easy to replace.

1.) Easthampstead Road, Wokingham - railway overbridge.
2.) Prune Hill, Egham - road overbridge, to the south of the existing road crossing.
3.) Vicarage Road, Egham - road overbridge, slightly to the west of the existing crossing - overbridge (would require demolition of a few residential properties).
4.) Thorpe Road, Staines - railway overbridge, quite a constrained site, but should be possible.
5.) White Hart Lane, Mortlake - railway overbridge. Possible need for demolition of light commercial properties on south side of level crossing.

It's also an issue on the East Lancs Line.
1.) Station Road, Bamber Bridge. Difficult to know what to do here, the station and level crossing are rather hemmed in by development. Perhaps a combination of a new road overbridge connecting Meanygate and Old Hall Drive would be a decent plan, with the old crossing restricted to public transport/pedestrian/cycle only, and the existing level crossing infrastructure donated to a heritage railway with the new crossing converted to CCTV monitored operation.
2.) Brindle Road, Walton Summit. Railway overbridge, may require demolition of a couple of properties on the northern side, but not a huge issue.
3.) Gregson Lane, near Hoghton. Road overbridge - plenty of land either side, lesser priority though as the level crossing is not busy and the infrastructure is modern.
4.) Station Road, Hoghton. Closure, with a pedestrian footbridge over if really needed. There's already a perfectly serviceable and relatively lightly used overbridge close by, and this is just a waste of resources.
5.) Enfield Road, Huncoat - reuse and refurbish the disused Meadow Top overbridge further up, construct a connecting section of road north of Huncoat station towards it, then close the level crossing

AlastairFraser said:

A number of SWR Reading Line crossings are very disruptive for several reasons.
Firstly, they often cause quite severe issues with local traffic in peak times.
Secondly, they have held back a lot of important improvement or new service schemes in the past, including Heathrow Airtrack.
Unfortunately, there are some that are impossible to close without major works (like the crossing at Wokingham station), but most should be easy to replace.

1.) Easthampstead Road, Wokingham - railway overbridge.
2.) Prune Hill, Egham - road overbridge, to the south of the existing road crossing.
3.) Vicarage Road, Egham - road overbridge, slightly to the west of the existing crossing - overbridge (would require demolition of a few residential properties).
4.) Thorpe Road, Staines - railway overbridge, quite a constrained site, but should be possible.
5.) White Hart Lane, Mortlake - railway overbridge. Possible need for demolition of light commercial properties on south side of level crossing.

Click to expand...

It’s a common thing re how often the amount of property needed to build bits of new railway is very significantly underestimated. Having been responsible for a number of level crossing closures in the past, some of which never made it off the drawing board, the land required can be massive.

I think the reason for underestimating is usually because those proposing can imagine the end result (in this case, new bridges), but don’t consider how to get to the end result. In the case of elevating the railway, it will be a requirement to buy immediately adjacent properties, partly as they would become uninhabitable during construction, and partly because after construction many would have trains at height looking right into their bathroom.

Anywhere that meets any of the following criteria:
- 110mph or higher
- 4 or more tracks in regular use
- Requires crossing attendant/locally controlled signals

I'd also prioritise crossings where:
- Trains are not allowed to use loops/platforms to their full effectiveness
- electrification is present
- there are lots of crossings in a short area.

Based on this, Helpston Junction should be the number on priority!

This is separate from the more general critieria of rail/road business and impact of closure, ease of replacement and so on.

zwk500 said:

I'd also prioritise crossings where:
...
- electrification is present
- there are lots of crossings in a short area.
...

Click to expand...

Welcome to Southport, where on the third rail electrified line between Southport Station and Crescent Road (approximately 1.5 miles), there are no fewer than 5 level crossings! In turn: Portland Street, Duke Street, Aughton Road, Birkdale Station and Crescent Road.

TheSel said:

Welcome to Southport, where on the third rail electrified line between Southport Station and Crescent Road (approximately 1.5 miles), there are no fewer than 5 level crossings! In turn: Portland Street, Duke Street, Aughton Road, Birkdale Station and Crescent Road.

Click to expand...

Indeed, although a lower linespeed! But I think we're quite far behind where we should be on level crossing replacement/removal so I'm not surprised there'll be lots of places fitting that criteria.

All the crossings in the immediate vicinity of Ely North Junction (as they are a capacity limitation and safety issue for both rail and road traffic).

It's interesting that as far back as the 1860s the Midland Railway designed their 'London Extension' from Bedford to St Pancras without a single level crossing on it - entirely over/under bridges!

Bald Rick said:

It’s a common thing re how often the amount of property needed to build bits of new railway is very significantly underestimated. Having been responsible for a number of level crossing closures in the past, some of which never made it off the drawing board, the land required can be massive.

I think the reason for underestimating is usually because those proposing can imagine the end result (in this case, new bridges), but don’t consider how to get to the end result. In the case of elevating the railway, it will be a requirement to buy immediately adjacent properties, partly as they would become uninhabitable during construction, and partly because after construction many would have trains at height looking right into their bathroom.

Click to expand...

Fair point. So that makes crossing projects 4/5 on my SWR Reading line list more difficult, the others are unaffected (unless you think I've been pessimistic in estimating that only a few would need to be demolished at Vicarage Road).

I believe the temporary speed restriction for the foot crossing between Needham and Stowmarket is still in place 10 years on?

AlastairFraser said:

Fair point. So that makes crossing projects 4/5 on my SWR Reading line list more difficult, the others are unaffected (unless you think I've been pessimistic in estimating that only a few would need to be demolished at Vicarage Road).

Click to expand...

It’s for all bridging proposals, regardless of whether road or rail goes over or under.

Brent Goose said:

I believe the temporary speed restriction for the foot crossing between Needham ad Stiwmarket is still in place 10 years on?

Click to expand...

14 years. Should be off now the crossing is shut.

Bald Rick said:

It’s for all bridging proposals, regardless of whether road or rail goes over or under.

Click to expand...

Where there is residential property in close proximity (there isn't at e.g. Prune Hill/Gregson Lane crossing).

AlastairFraser said:

Where there is residential property in close proximity (there isn't at e.g. Prune Hill/Gregson Lane crossing).

Click to expand...

Sorry, yes, I’m referring to sites in urban areas. That crossing at Egham has open country next door.

Bald Rick said:

Sorry, yes, I’m referring to sites in urban areas. That crossing at Egham has open country next door.

Click to expand...

Seems like a good candidate for replacement then!

TheSel said:

Welcome to Southport, where on the third rail electrified line between Southport Station and Crescent Road (approximately 1.5 miles), there are no fewer than 5 level crossings! In turn: Portland Street, Duke Street, Aughton Road, Birkdale Station and Crescent Road.

Click to expand...

Fixing that would be a real mess!

Given how closed in the railway is, can't see much alternative to a literal underground railway, with an underground station at Birkdale and probably Hillside. You'd have to tunnel all the way out of southport to the golf course because there is nowhere to build a portal without closing the railway for years.

The ones either side of Paignton station, as they prevent the two platforms both being used to turn trains round in without shunting, and slow the DSR down.

Brent Goose said:

I believe the temporary speed restriction for the foot crossing between Needham and Stowmarket is still in place 10 years on?

Click to expand...

It had been on since 2011 and was finally removed two weeks ago.

I remember lots of debate about a possible footbridge, was that ever buil?

Brent Goose said:

I remember lots of debate about a possible footbridge, was that ever buil?

Click to expand...

repurposed underpass (culvert) and diverted footpath to it.

Brent Goose said:

I remember lots of debate about a possible footbridge, was that ever buil?

Click to expand...

No footbridge as it would overlook private gardens. Now an underpass a little way away as the original would be below the water table. Wasn’t cheap but it’s railway so nothing ever is

Kildwick level crossing really needs to be removed. It’s closed for circa 25 minutes per hour at the busiest times, is known to have a lot of miss use and most importantly of all it’s on the quickest road route from Skipton and beyond to Airedale hospital, so ambulances need to avoid it.

Cononley level crossing is a difficult one as well given its proximity to the station, meaning that the barriers have to be down for extended periods whilst trains slow down to stop at the station. Personally I’d close the station so the barriers spend less time down and replace it with one in a far more sensible location at Cross Hills but that wouldn’t be the most popular proposal.

At both of these crossings it’s common for fast trains (Leeds to Morecambe and Carlisle) to have to slow down as they’re approaching cautionary aspects caused by the barriers not being down.

Halish Railway said:

Kildwick level crossing really needs to be removed. It’s closed for circa 25 minutes per hour at the busiest times, is known to have a lot of miss use and most importantly of all it’s on the quickest road route from Skipton and beyond to Airedale hospital, so ambulances need to avoid it.

Click to expand...

I wonder if there's just enough room to build a bridge over the line, maybe with a mix of sinking the line a bit.

Legolash2o said:

I wonder if there's just enough room to build a bridge over the line, maybe with a mix of sinking the line a bit.

Click to expand...

I know the area well from many holidays around there. I would have though a better bet would be to build a bridge over the railway line a little south-east of the crossing and a new section of road for the A6068 to join the A629 at a new junction. The new bit of road would run on the north side and parallel to the Eastburn Beck where there is a reasonably clear run. Putting a bridge at the Kildwick crossing is difficult due to both housing and industry close to the site.

brad465 said:

The ones either side of Paignton station, as they prevent the two platforms both being used to turn trains round in without shunting, and slow the DSR down.

Click to expand...

It's the lack of a left handed crossover that prevents the starting of a train towards Newton Abbot from platform 1.

At the other end, the GWR planned to close Paignton South crossing over Sands Road before WW2 as part of a major station redevelopment that would created five long through platforms. The railway helped finance the diversion of traffic over a new bridge about 120m south of the crossing to allow the platform extensions and new junctions.

The scheme was deferred at outbreak of hostilities and never restarted after the war. Hence Sands Road crossing remains open today, although it's a one way road and very quiet now.

The proximity of the crossings does limit standage however. A 9-car cl.80x just fits between the signals in both platforms. A train formed of 2x 5-car doesn't fit however.

In a brief period of Liberal Democrat control of the council a few years ago, the north crossing would have lost most of its traffic with a scheme to partially pedestrianise Torbay Rd. It would have remained very busy with those on foot like Lincoln High St. and Poole. As soon as Conservatives regained control the plan was reversed. In a town centre location it would be very difficult to provide grade separation for motor traffic anywhere near the site.

MarkyT said:

It's the lack of a left handed crossover that prevents the starting of a train towards Newton Abbot from platform 1.

Click to expand...

But is the level crossing layout a reason why no left-handed crossover exists there?

MarkyT said:

At the other end, the GWR planned to close Paignton South crossing over Sands Road before WW2 as part of a major station redevelopment that would seem five long through platforms. The railway helped finance the diversion of traffic over a new bridge about 120m south of the crossing to allow the platform extensions and new junctions.

The scheme was deferred at outbreak of hostilities and never restarted after the war. Hence Sands Road crossing remains open today, although it's a one way road and very quiet now.

The proximity of the crossings does limit standage however. A 9-car cl.80x just fits between the signals in both platforms. A train formed of 2x 5-car doesn't fit however.

Click to expand...

Interesting to know, sounds like at least closing this one can bring benefits without too much disruption elsewhere.

brad465 said:

But is the level crossing layout a reason why no left-handed crossover exists there?

Click to expand...

No. In the previous mechanical layout, there was a scissors crossover just north of the crossing so trains could be started from #1, but the move couldn't be made by loaded passenger trains as the points didn't have a facing point lock, as there were no spare levers to add one in the tiny signalbox. The move was mostly used for shunting and loco run rounds. When resignalling occurred in the mid/late 1980s, the scissors was removed and a new right hand crossover installed. That a matching left hander wasn't also provided is indicative of BRs cash strapped status at the time, rather than any limitation imposed by the crossing.

brad465 said:

Interesting to know, sounds like at least closing this one can bring benefits without too much disruption elsewhere.

Click to expand...

While closing Sands Lane would be of benefit, unfortunately that alone wouldn't allow platform standage to be increased. Before the crossing, the 2 NR running lines converge to one line to allow the parallel single line of the Dartmouth Steam Railway to also pass over the level crossing within the former double track alignment. It's that point work that determines where signals are placed. There has been development close to the railway in this area since WW2 that would make widening difficult now.

Movements over the south crossing are slow because it is train crew operated, so often a simple shunt between platforms is performed at the north end to save time. Some trains must pass over the south crossing clearly as they layover for a time in Goodrington sidings.