Ideas for Red Cow Crossing (Exeter)

[AlastairFraser]

Moderator note : split from

Exeter St Davids Platform 2

Seen on another forum the buildings are being knocked down to restore the platform to take 5 car 800s. This was first mooted 3/4 years ago.

www.railforums.co.uk

No argument here,I just hate to see nice buildings demolished.
There was a proposal in the 1980s for just such a bridge to replace the crossing. I believe it would have involved demolishing the Red House (the twin building),the Great Western Hotel and part of Red Cow Village. I understand the stumbling block was the Station Road side ramp. With both the river and flood relief bridges in the way there would have been no room to drop down to St Andrews Road.

You could fix it by popping a small multistorey on the existing car park directly outside the easterly main station entrance, building a ramp through the West Yard car park up to a level to allow electrification, cross and then a ramp down to street level on under utitilised railway land. Then close the existing level crossing. It might be overkill and a longer way round, but it would be the easiest way to avoid property demolition and there's not a huge amount of traffic heading over the crossing anyway.

 

[REVUpminster]

You could fix it by popping a small multistorey on the existing car park directly outside the easterly main station entrance, building a ramp through the West Yard car park up to a level to allow electrification, cross and then a ramp down to street level on under utitilised railway land. Then close the existing level crossing. It might be overkill and a longer way round, but it would be the easiest way to avoid property demolition and there's not a huge amount of traffic heading over the crossing anyway.

This is the best way to provide a crossing. Only needs to be single carriageway. Car parking would still be available under the slope uprights or put a multistory on the rest of the car park.

Years ago in London 'temporary' structures of steel flyovers were constructed at Gallows Corner Romford (single carriageway A12/127) and Chiswick flyover (one lane) and they are still going. Plans were afoot to replace Gallows Corner with a dual carriageway flyover or underpass but nothing came of it.

 

[MarkyT]

Here's my idea to move Red Cow crossing about 80m north of it's current position.

The station throat could then be widened to the east through the car park area and by demolishing the Exeter Brewery building. To the west, the 'transit shed' is the problem for widening on that side. That is an ancient and rare broad - narrow gauge goods transhipment facility, disused for decades. The brewery/pub business might be relocated there; its all NR owned land on both sides of the railway here (source - http://map.whoownsengland.org/):

The crossing and the associated river and flood relief channel bridges may not be particularly busy with motorised vehicular traffic, but this is an important pedestrian and cycle route between Exwick and the station, University and parts of the city centre. A footbridge with stairs and ramps, roughly where the existing road crossing is, might also be constructed to cater for this.

 

[stuu]

I would have thought the best solution would be a bridge further north than the existing one, crossing the railway and the river. Access to the depot etc. would be via the new bridge and then back over the river via the old one. Raise Cowley Bridge Road to meet the bridge. Might get some change from £50m

 

[zwk500]

The crossing and the associated river and flood relief channel bridges may not be particularly busy with motorised vehicular traffic, but this is an important pedestrian and cycle route between Exwick and the station, University and parts of the city centre. A footbridge with stairs and ramps, roughly where the existing road crossing is, might also be constructed to cater for this.

If it's not busy for vehicular traffic, could an accessible footbridge be provided and the Level Crossing be completely abolished? Access would be diverted around the existing road network. Otherwise the only reasonable alternatives I can see would be to raise Cowley Bridge Road to permit replacement of the bridge on it's current alignment, or to build a new bridge from New North Road, but both of those involve demolition and substantial engineering works.

 

[Xavi]

There was an outline plan 30-40 years ago that included a new rail / river bridge crossing north of the existing level crossing. On the west side of the flood prevention channel this would have led to a new Exwick relief road running on the raised bank of the channel to New Valley Road and would have alleviated traffic problems at the west end of Station Road.

I can’t remember the exact details though the relief Road did go north and south of Station Road and, I recall, would have ended on New North Road. Something like the attached sketch.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Station Road is exceptionally busy. It provides access to the city from the Exwick housing estates. Closing it would force traffic to use the routes though St Thomas which are already severely congested.

 

[AlastairFraser]

This is the best way to provide a crossing. Only needs to be single carriageway. Car parking would still be available under the slope uprights or put a multistory on the rest of the car park.

Years ago in London 'temporary' structures of steel flyovers were constructed at Gallows Corner Romford (single carriageway A12/127) and Chiswick flyover (one lane) and they are still going. Plans were afoot to replace Gallows Corner with a dual carriageway flyover or underpass but nothing came of it.

Yes, I believe there was one at the Army and Navy roundabout in Chelmsford, but that has been dismantled.

 

[zwk500]

Yes, I believe there was one at the Army and Navy roundabout in Chelmsford, but that has been dismantled.

I suspect those meccano flyovers wouldn't meet modern standards for crashworthiness or gradients. Max gradient of 1 in 20 on a mixed-use road, and a road height above rail top of c.5m for bridge deck clearances you're looking at c.100m to gain the necessary height, with 3.5m wide lanes, more if on tight bends.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Station Road is exceptionally busy. It provides access to the city from the Exwick housing estates. Closing it would force traffic to use the routes though St Thomas which are already severely congested.

Plus GWR need access to their depot on the Exe side of the tracks.

I suspect those meccano flyovers wouldn't meet modern standards for crashworthiness or gradients. Max gradient of 1 in 20 on a mixed-use road, and a road height above rail top of c.5m for bridge deck clearances you're looking at c.100m to gain the necessary height, with 3.5m wide lanes, more if on tight bends.

Perhaps not a steel based flyover, but a concrete flyover could be built to the standards described above within the pockets of railway land available.

 

[zwk500]

Station Road is exceptionally busy. It provides access to the city from the Exwick housing estates. Closing it would force traffic to use the routes though St Thomas which are already severely congested.

Plus GWR need access to their depot on the Exe side of the tracks.

Closing the Level Crossing would just require rerouting of traffic. Interventions in favour or alternative modes would potentially encourage modal shift to bus/foot. Cycle to St David's station is possible, although climbing the hill to the City Centre may put people off that leg.

Perhaps not a steel based flyover, but a concrete flyover could be built to the standards described above within the pockets of railway land available.

True, and those standards (especially gradient) can be relaxed if other mitigation is present. Building a separate pedestrian/Cycle bridge would allow road gradients to be tightened. Either way would still require losing some car park though, so some mitigation for that would be required however you do it.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Closing the Level Crossing would just require rerouting of traffic. Interventions in favour or alternative modes would potentially encourage modal shift to bus/foot. Cycle to St David's station is possible, although climbing the hill to the City Centre may put people off that leg.

True, and those standards (especially gradient) can be relaxed if other mitigation is present. Building a separate pedestrian/Cycle bridge would allow road gradients to be tightened. Either way would still require losing some car park though, so some mitigation for that would be required however you do it.

Ashley Hill has already explained that the pressure of rerouting traffic would be too intensive on the roads in St Thomas.
While it may induce modal shift, we shouldn’t count on that and perhaps an additional pedestrian and cycle bridge might be a good idea.
As for the loss of parking spaces, that’s why I suggested mitigation by decking over the car pack directly outside the eastern entrance to St David’s.

 

[zwk500]

Ashley Hill has already explained that the pressure of rerouting traffic would be too intensive on the roads in St Thomas.
While it may induce modal shift, we shouldn’t count on that and perhaps an additional pedestrian and cycle bridge might be a good idea.

I disagree, making car traffic as unattractive as possible and making it possible to live car-free in an urban area is a goal we should be looking to.

As for the loss of parking spaces, that’s why I suggested mitigation by decking over the car pack directly outside the eastern entrance to St David’s.

Indeed, and I agree with that suggestion. I also wonder if you could do something rather radical with a big loop to the south of the existing road to gain the elevation, and put an upper deck on the northern half of the west yard parking, with an entrance at the upper level.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I disagree, making car traffic as unattractive as possible and making it possible to live car-free in an urban area is a goal we should be looking to.

Indeed, and I agree with that suggestion. I also wonder if you could do something rather radical with a big loop to the south of the existing road to gain the elevation, and put an upper deck on the northern half of the west yard parking, with an entrance at the upper level.

I agree in general, but modal shift cannot be enforced unfortunately.
If this was in a larger conurbation, there would be more options and incentive to switch so I would agree totally.

I disagree, making car traffic as unattractive as possible and making it possible to live car-free in an urban area is a goal we should be looking to.

Indeed, and I agree with that suggestion. I also wonder if you could do something rather radical with a big loop to the south of the existing road to gain the elevation, and put an upper deck on the northern half of the west yard parking, with an entrance at the upper level.

As for the second part, perhaps, but this would increase design complexity, instead of using a standard design.

 

[REVUpminster]

This was my version how I would build a flyover to replace Red Cow. It would have to be adjusted for the new fuel depot. Did this some years ago.

 

[MarkyT]

View attachment 124918

This was my version how I would build a flyover to replace Red Cow. It would have to be adjusted for the new fuel depot. Did this some years ago.

I thought of something similar for a bridge solution. Note your underlying aerial image is rather out of date and (as you say) omits some new structures to the north of Station Road associated with the GWR depot development. The east side ramp could start from further back to limit gradient, diverging from Isambard Parade (the road immediately in front of the main station buildings) between the station and the Great Western Hotel (access to car park today). On the west side the river bridge might be replaced with a rising curved bridge structure to also limit gradient. Careful thought is required how road vehicle connections to goods yard and depot might be maintained and how to keep flood prevention measures intact.

 

[Xavi]

Is there enough stock to link the remaining Cardiff - Taunton and Plymouth - Penzance "shuttles"?

With IETs only probably not. When the new stations open (3 years or more) there could be some extra 158s available from elsewhere. Different government and possibly more fare revenue too.