East Boldon - proposed level crossings closures

[swt_passenger]

Saw this earlier, via “skyscrapercity”...

Network Rail have stated their intention to close two AHBC crossings on the Durham coast line, and replace them with full barriers, however South Tyneside have proposed complete closure and a single road bridge and local road changes instead. (There are diagrams of the intended road alterations accessed via the link below.)

The interesting point is that it says Network Rail would transfer the funds they would have spent on the two level crossings to the council:

There are road safety concerns at both Tilesheds and Boldon level crossings.

The concerns are due to misuse of the current half barrier system, which has led to several serious road traffic accidents over the years.

To help resolve the road safety problem, Network Rail are planning to install a full barrier system in 2024 to replace the current half barrier system.

An alternative solution to this is being explored by South Tyneside Council. This solution is in the form of a proposed new road bridge, which would go over the rail lines. The bridge option means the two level crossings could close, the road safety risk with the level crossings would be removed and any future congestion problems alleviated.

Boldon and Tilesheds level crossings (BTLC) - South Tyneside Council

Would this be standard practice for NR to contribute this sort of money, presumably the saving is the long term signaller costs for a full barrier crossing?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Well at least there is some attempt at joined up thinking on this so that is a good thing.

 

[miami]

Would this be standard practice for NR to contribute this sort of money

I'd hope so. If NR are willing to spend £x to convert a half barrier to a full barrier, they would hopefully be willing to spend at least £x to completely close the crossing.

 

[Bald Rick]

Saw this earlier, via “skyscrapercity”...

Network Rail have stated their intention to close two AHBC crossings on the Durham coast line, and replace them with full barriers, however South Tyneside have proposed complete closure and a single road bridge and local road changes instead. (There are diagrams of the intended road alterations accessed via the link below.)

The interesting point is that it says Network Rail would transfer the funds they would have spent on the two level crossings to the council:


Would this be standard practice for NR to contribute this sort of money, presumably the saving is the long term signaller costs for a full barrier crossing?

I wouldn’t say ‘standard practice’, but there have been a few examples where NR have made contributions. It is surprisingly hard to do, for a variety of reasons.

Always best to do it at the time of renewal. I don’t know this line well, but an MCB-OD can easily cost £5m with all the signalling alterations required, especially if new signals have to be installed. The long term savings for an MCB OD are mostly maintenance; highway crossings on complicated lines can easily cost £100kpa or more a year to keep going. However the big beneficiaries in the business case are motorists in terms of journey time. Many years ago I did get the principle agreed that we could use railway money to improve the lot of motorists - it had the rather notable side effect of closing a couple of crossings so that was worth it in my book.

 

[swt_passenger]

I wouldn’t say ‘standard practice’, but there have been a few examples where NR have made contributions. It is surprisingly hard to do, for a variety of reasons.

Always best to do it at the time of renewal. I don’t know this line well, but an MCB-OD can easily cost £5m with all the signalling alterations required, especially if new signals have to be installed. The long term savings for an MCB OD are mostly maintenance; highway crossings on complicated lines can easily cost £100kpa or more a year to keep going. However the big beneficiaries in the business case are motorists in terms of journey time. Many years ago I did get the principle agreed that we could use railway money to improve the lot of motorists - it had the rather notable side effects closing a couple of crossings so that was worth it in my book.

Thanks Bald Rick - I thought there might be a slight catch to this as a general policy. But it’s interesting to see your figures, say £10m plus ongoing operating costs. The council reckon costs of £15m or so, but I wasn’t sure if that was on top of NR’s contribution. I’ve no idea what bridges and roads cost unfortunately...

 

[MarkyT]

I'd hope so. If NR are willing to spend £x to convert a half barrier to a full barrier, they would hopefully be willing to spend at least £x to completely close the crossing.

It's likely the conversions would be synchronised with a scheduled complete renewal of crossing and control equipment, and NR is electing to change the type to improve safety and futureproof against future traffic changes. The new configuration would almost certainly be 'MCB-OD' with obstacle detection technology and some additional protecting rail signals might be required in the vicinity, so the budget for renewal and conversion could be quite substantial. Like most signalling equipment, crossings are assumed to have an asset life of around 40 years, so abolition of them would save future major renewal and ongoing maintenance costs. A well-constructed replacement bridge and associated earthworks should have an expected life of 100 years or more and require very little maintenance. Road closure time for each train is usually extended significantly when converting from AHBC to MCB, so the proposed abolition will avoid this affecting local traffic.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks Bald Rick - I thought there might be a slight catch to this as a general policy. But it’s interesting to see your figures, say £10m plus ongoing operating costs. The council reckon costs of £15m or so, but I wasn’t sure if that was on top of NR’s contribution. I’ve no idea what bridges and roads cost unfortunately...

A simple road bridge with short approaches across a simple railway in open country will cost about £10m. £15m sounds about right for this.

Often the NR ‘contribution’ will be paying for the costs of closing the crossing. This can sometimes be quite expensive, but NR are not in a strong negotiating position!

I reckon there will be a good case to close approximately half of all highway crossings, but the stars need to align and everyone needs to be happy with it. It would be a LOT of money. I once had one councillor tell me he liked the (multiple) crossings just outside his town as it regulated the traffic and enabled his constituents to be able to get on to the main road easily.

Road closure time for each train is usually extended significantly when converting from AHBC to MCB, so the proposed abolition will avoid this affecting local traffic.

That’s the case here, and evidently the council has done a good job to work that out (potentially with a nudge from NR, I don’t know), and will be pushing the bridge on the basis of improving traffic. That’s what their videos imply.

I always sensed that some (not all) signalling engineers were resistant to closing LX though, as an LX helps them show off their skills!

 

[MarkyT]

I always sensed that some (not all) signalling engineers were resistant to closing LX though, as an LX helps them show off their skills!

It's good steady work, sometimes complex, but often very easy and standardised. In my first couple of years as a rookie in the drawing office I was given masses of small crossing jobs which proved a great training exercise. There were always new small upgrades to undertake, often as a result of a recent incident somewhere in the country highlighting a weakness in the design or materials; changing lights, relay specs, minor wiring mods, updating signage etc, etc. All ongoing costs of course.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's good steady work, sometimes complex, but often very easy and standardised. In my first couple of years as a rookie in the drawing office I was given masses of small crossing jobs which proved a great training exercise. There were always new small upgrades to undertake, often as a result of a recent incident somewhere in the country highlighting a weakness in the design or materials; changing lights, relay specs, minor wiring mods, updating signage etc, etc. All ongoing costs of course.

One thing that I could never be to the bottom of is how much power a standard Highway LX uses. I always imagined that the REB would still draw quite a bit ticking over, regardless fo how many lower / raise cycles.

 

[MarkyT]

One thing that I could never be to the bottom of is how much power a standard Highway LX uses. I always imagined that the REB would still draw quite a bit ticking over, regardless fo how many lower / raise cycles.

Not much really. A few relays held energised, a few track circuits. The tech turning up and switching on the fluorescent lights in the REB will probably draw more. It all floats on a big 24v battery that is supposed to provide 12 hours backup at the particular site's typical duty cycle, so a crossing never represents a major load on the supply, and at rural locations a guaranteed signalling supply is not required and a standard REC supply can suffice. I don't know much about the OD sensor systems, but I'd guess they'd only be switched on during a warning cycle, so again probably not a constant load.

 

[bluenoxid]

I am surprised the designs have gone for roundabouts as whilst this area is fields, there’s settlements either side, which would lend themselves to reasonable amount of non motorised users crossing the roads

My impression is that this project will compromise a proposal to connect South Shields to Sunderland using the previous formation but my impression is that this proposal has not gained traction recently even with all of the enthusiasm to restore railway lines.

 

[Elecman]

Not much really. A few relays held energised, a few track circuits. The tech turning up and switching on the fluorescent lights in the REB will probably draw more. It all floats on a big 24v battery that is supposed to provide 12 hours backup at the particular site's typical duty cycle, so a crossing never represents a major load on the supply, and at rural locations a guaranteed signalling supply is not required and a standard REC supply can suffice. I don't know much about the OD sensor systems, but I'd guess they'd only be switched on during a warning cycle, so again probably not a constant load.

The biggest load will be the REB domestic load ( lighting and heating/cooling) and any associated crossing lighting

 

[Bald Rick]

Having looked at the plans now, the council do seem to be building a lot of road to solve the issue. However it looks like that has been done to avoid a skewed bridge, ie a longer road with a bridge perpendicular to the line will be cheaper than a shorter road with a skew bridge. (Caveat, I’m no highway engineer!)

 

[swt_passenger]

Having looked at the plans now, the council do seem to be building a lot of road to solve the issue. However it looks like that has been done to avoid a skewed bridge, ie a longer road with a bridge perpendicular to the line will be cheaper than a shorter road with a skew bridge. (Caveat, I’m no highway engineer!)

Perhaps they’re also allowing for future development, eg with a roundabout rather than a T junction at top left. But that’s probably getting away from the main topic.

 

[Taunton]

One thing that I could never be to the bottom of is how much power a standard Highway LX uses. I always imagined that the REB would still draw quite a bit ticking over, regardless fo how many lower / raise cycles.

I'm surprised you say this as well. In the USA the whole thing is just driven off batteries, nowadays charged by trackside solar arrays. That includes high intensity floodlights (comparable to car headlights) that come on and the ear-piercing clanging bell all the time it operates. All 12 volts I understand.

 

[arbeia]

What the road scheme doesn't seem to consider is the fact that Nexus and the local authorities have seemed keen to reopen the track from Tyne Dock to East Boldon for future Metro expansion, which would if it happened, cause them another future headache.

 

[swt_passenger]

What the road scheme doesn't seem to consider is the fact that Nexus and the local authorities have seemed keen to reopen the track from Tyne Dock to East Boldon for future Metro expansion, which would if it happened, cause them another future headache.

The 2016 Metro Futures report suggested connecting via the existing South to East curve at Brockley Whins.

 

[Bald Rick]

The 2016 Metro Futures report suggested connecting via the existing South to East curve at Brockley Whins.

Indeed. I’m astounded anyone would think it would be more sensible not to use the route of an existing line, but t9 instead build a brand new line through the middle of two housing estates.

 

[arbeia]

Where is the "existing" line from Tyne Dock metro to Boldon East Curve?

 

[swt_passenger]

Where is the "existing" line from Tyne Dock metro to Boldon East Curve?

I suggest they’re just referring to that “existing rail corridor” rather than the other one straight through the various housing areas. It would need a new junction near Tyne Dock station whichever way it’s approached.

 

[Bald Rick]

Where is the "existing" line from Tyne Dock metro to Boldon East Curve?

Yep the line from Boldon North Jn to Green Lane Junction, then on to Tyne dock itself. (Brilliantly, line code LN666)

 

[arbeia]

That was lifted a good few years ago after the closing of the last deep mine. Harton Junction is the divergence just after Tyne Dock Metro. I suppose any of the two could be relaid, but they have talked about it for so many years, that's all it seems to be talk! I don't use the system, but from a neutral position, going the old route of the South Shields-Sunderland line would attract more passengers, and quicker.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't use the system, but from a neutral position, going the old route of the South Shields-Sunderland line would attract more passengers, and quicker.

But would go through two housing estates, and never get permission, as there is a perfectly viable route on existing railway corridors that could be built entirely within existing railway corridors.

 

[arbeia]

Surely the idea of Metro is to serve as many housing estates as it can. I wouldn't pretend to get into the Politics of it all, except as a laymen, I cannot believe it will ever happen. To go back to the original point, its just that IF it did go the old route, then the original line would be breached by the proposed road.

 

[Chester1]

But would go through two housing estates, and never get permission, as there is a perfectly viable route on existing railway corridors that could be built entirely within existing railway corridors.

You are forgetting that every bit of old railway line is sacred land...

 

[Bald Rick]

Surely the idea of Metro is to serve as many housing estates as it can.

Well yes, but not to bulldoze some of the prospective customer’s property in the process!

 

[arbeia]

To my knowledge, I cannot see where any house would need to be demolished. The whole of the line has been converted into a walkway.

 

[swt_passenger]

To my knowledge, I cannot see where any house would need to be demolished. The whole of the line has been converted into a walkway.

But it’s all the same level. So how many ramped foot bridges would be needed? Modern standards aren’t going to allow numerous level crossings, surely?

 

[arbeia]

I only enquired what houses would need demolishing. You tell me how many ramped footbridges would be needed? Only problem area would be Green Lane.

 

[bluenoxid]

But it’s all the same level. So how many ramped foot bridges would be needed? Modern standards aren’t going to allow numerous level crossings, surely?

It’s down half an embankment for most of its length.

5 or 6 bridges plus upgrades to the existing three bridges if you were going to meet existing requirements.