More Level Crossing Lunacy ! Manningtree and Colchester

[Llanigraham]

This shows just how close the roundabout is to the crossing.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...a09c5970901!8m2!3d51.948984!4d1.0451121?hl=en

 

[rs101]

The tailbacks in the first video were due to roadworks just out of shot - installation of a new cycleway as part of the approval for 250+ new houses just over the river in Brantham.

It's extremely common to see people going up and over the crossing rather than under the bridge to try and save 30 seconds. Something which will only get worse when 1,000 new homes get built in the area.

 

[Dave1987]

In the morning, because of the way the priority is setup for traffic coming over the crossing going northbound, you will often see cars racing across the level crossing because they can ‘beat the queue’. Change the priority on the northern side of the crossing and you immediately take away the reasons for racing across the crossing.

 

[Meerkat]

In the morning, because of the way the priority is setup for traffic coming over the crossing going northbound, you will often see cars racing across the level crossing because they can ‘beat the queue’. Change the priority on the northern side of the crossing and you immediately take away the reasons for racing across the crossing.

Change the priority and you greatly increase the risk that traffic waiting there backs up over the crossing

 

[notlob.divad]

That manningtree crossing looks crazy. This is no excuse for the awful driving particularly the car that was going far too fast and was incredibly lucky not to either rear-end the queue of cars or flip the thing. I have some sympathy for the white van as with the steep rise and fall over the line it won't nessesarily be obvious that the traffic is backed up as they reach the white line. It would surely be of benefit to widen the adjacent bridge at the expense of a narrower level crossing. Keeping two lanes of flowing traffic for vehicles of a low height. Then a single lane bi-directional crossing, to allow oversized vehicles to cross.

 

[Meerkat]

Manningtree is a very tricky one. It’s going to need a big bridge with long approaches, might even need to go round to the East of the station for aesthetic landscape reasons but unlikely to unlock developable land to mitigate the cost.
Are there examples of bridges tunnelled under with high capacity pumping that would be viable to keep an important road open in most conceivable weather situations?

 

[Dave1987]

Change the priority and you greatly increase the risk that traffic waiting there backs up over the crossing

Well the Southern end has the priority set for cars going under and traffic doesn’t back up onto the crossing so it clearly isn’t an issue.

 

[Edders23]

and how about this lunacy in the US from an impatient driver

 

[thelem]

What do Network Rail expect to achieve by sharing these videos?

White car in the first video starts to cross before the amber light shows. Traffic ahead of him was moving, so it's not particularly surprising that he started to cross, before getting caught out by the queue. He was easily clear of the rails, but not the barrier. A yellow box would be easy to install and may have made him think twice about starting to cross. Summary: Small error by driver, larger error by Network Rail.

Black car in the first video. That's just dangerous driving. I'm not sure what the level crossing has to do with it, except maybe he's accelerated to beat the lights, but you can't tell that from the video.

Second video. The car successfully crosses without damage. Lesson: If you time it right, you can get through even if the first barrier has already come down. Surely they have videos of similar incidents where it has gone wrong, either the car getting stranded between the barriers or worse.

 

[Lucan]

In the first video, why do the red lights stop flashing at around 10 seconds in?

 

[Class 170101]

Problem with a fly-over/bridge is the closeness of the roundabout just over the crossing.

The flyover would have to be south of the station and create a new junction some distance to the north and south of the station and not use the existing roundabouts.

 

[Darandio]

In the first video, why do the red lights stop flashing at around 10 seconds in?

Looks like the closure process was cancelled due to the vehicle obstructing where the barriers would fall.

 

[306024]

Another option, close the bridge, widen the crossing and have full barriers, getting rid of the two junctions each end of the Bridge Road, would ease the flow as well.

Lowering the road, they would end up with the same situation they did with the so called Brantham Depot !

Horrible tailbacks around the roundabout and beyond in that case when the gates are down. That would affect traffic not even going near the level crossing. At least with the current arrangement cars and small vans can continue.

The only sensible solution is a wide underpass, and deal with the water table problem (if there is indeed one, does anyone actually know or are we all just assuming?) In any case Holland seems to cope with a high water table. The station drive would have to be diverted to come onto the roundabout, making that junction safer in the process, to allow the underpass to slope down immediately after the roundabout.

Of course the construction would be expensive and hugely disruptive. The diversionary route with the road closed is considerable. The residents of the nearby row of houses probably wouldn’t be too keen on that solution either. Meanwhile it is suggested traffic lights for the underpass will help. The jury is out on that.

 

[LAX54]

Or on a Temp basis, well long term temporary, make the crossing Bus / High vehicle only, (with CCTV) the only reason cars use it, is to jump the queue !

 

[LAX54]

In the first video, why do the red lights stop flashing at around 10 seconds in?

Whenever the Signaller can see there is a problem, he will press the stop button, the will halt the sequence, if the booms have not started to move, the lights will go out, if they have the barriers will stop, and lights will continue to flash.

 

[Meerkat]

Are there laws and signage to allow high vehicles and ban low ones? Could be very confusing
Otherwise a decent idea.

 

[LAX54]

Are there laws and signage to allow high vehicles and ban low ones? Could be very confusing
Otherwise a decent idea.

or maybe simply "NO CARS" over the level crossing route ?

 

[Meole]

Is it possible to move the railway, this is after all the source of the problem.

 

[Chris M]

or maybe simply "NO CARS" over the level crossing route ?

That sign means "no motor vehicles". Bus lanes are a thing though, and I'm sure I've seen "no car lane" signs somewhere (Newcastle?) so the necessary legislation presumably exists.

 

[Meerkat]

or maybe simply "NO CARS" over the level crossing route ?

That sign would need an exception for vehicles over a certain height. Not sure there is a precedent for that and it would be pretty confusing, which could increase bridge strike risk (or lorry stopping before bridge and causing chaos trying to reverse.

 

[Edders23]

Is it possible to move the railway, this is after all the source of the problem.

most railways are hemmed in by subsequent development usually a bridge is the solution or a bypass with a bridge

 

[Darandio]

Is it possible to move the railway, this is after all the source of the problem.

Assuming your post is serious, I fail to understand how it is the source of the problem. Utter clowns that disobey the rules for using such crossings are the problem.

 

[LAX54]

That sign would need an exception for vehicles over a certain height. Not sure there is a precedent for that and it would be pretty confusing, which could increase bridge strike risk (or lorry stopping before bridge and causing chaos trying to reverse.

That is almost a DAILY happening, and a bridge bash, monthly !

 

[eastdyke]

Is it possible to move the railway, this is after all the source of the problem.

The problem is rather the interface between rail and road. Now simply outmoded for the current level of use for both. I think that moving the road is likely to be a lower cost solution.
A by-pass using approach roads and ramps to a tunnel under the station have been suggested in the past.
Some of the issues include:
1. Intrusion into Dedham Vale AONB. Map here:
http://www.dedhamvalestourvalley.org/assets/Maps/Project-map-high-res.pdf
2. Dealing with water table and drainage. But as @306024 notes above the Dutch seem to be able to manage ok!
3. Funding. Using the Werrington grade separation project (which does have at least some similarities) as a yardstick then cost could be ballpark £200million.

 

[HORNIMANS]

As I live a few hundred yards from here a few thoughts.
Space on the south side of the crossing is extremely limited due to entrance to station, roundabout and houses.
It is on boundary of Constable country and Dedham Vale.
railway traffic is a lot more especially since GEML electrification in the 1980s.
Although Brantham depot not going to be built now trains will be stabled now at Harwich Parkeston Quay where more sidings are being built for GA new trains.

 

[GB]

As I live a few hundred yards from here a few thoughts.
Space on the south side of the crossing is extremely limited due to entrance to station, roundabout and houses.
It is on boundary of Constable country and Dedham Vale.
railway traffic is a lot more especially since GEML electrification in the 1980s.
Although Brantham depot not going to be built now trains will be stabled now at Harwich Parkeston Quay where more sidings are being built for GA new trains.

You could create a new station access road off of Coxs Hill roundabout and enter into one of the carparks. Then you could block off the current access road which will give you enough length for an underpass. But as with most things its comes down to £££.

 

[306024]

You could create a new station access road off of Coxs Hill roundabout and enter into one of the carparks. Then you could block off the current access road which will give you enough length for an underpass. But as with most things its comes down to £££.

That indeed is what I was suggesting in post #43. An underpass is also the only solution not to materially affect Dedham Vale AONB. However the A137 can be used as a diversion if the A12 is closed so any underpass would have to be a significant height, although there doesn’t seem to be a highways standard as to what that height is.

It’s an interesting discussion, but as everyone agrees unless £,£££,£££s are found it ain’t gonna happen.

 

[Edders23]

The problem is rather the interface between rail and road. Now simply outmoded for the current level of use for both. I think that moving the road is likely to be a lower cost solution.
A by-pass using approach roads and ramps to a tunnel under the station have been suggested in the past.
Some of the issues include:
1. Intrusion into Dedham Vale AONB. Map here:
http://www.dedhamvalestourvalley.org/assets/Maps/Project-map-high-res.pdf
2. Dealing with water table and drainage. But as @306024 notes above the Dutch seem to be able to manage ok!
3. Funding. Using the Werrington grade separation project (which does have at least some similarities) as a yardstick then cost could be ballpark £200million.

Unless a friendly developer can be found to build it with guaranteed permission for a couple of thousand houses which is how the managed it in Oakham (Rutland) mind you that crossing is still very busy with local traffic just not the lorries any more

 

[Llanigraham]

or maybe simply "NO CARS" over the level crossing route ?

And when I fit the roof rack to carry my bikes on the roof of my car where do I go?
Believe it or not, I would be breaking the Law if I took the "lorry" route.

 

[Chris M]

That indeed is what I was suggesting in post #43. An underpass is also the only solution not to materially affect Dedham Vale AONB. However the A137 can be used as a diversion if the A12 is closed so any underpass would have to be a significant height, although there doesn’t seem to be a highways standard as to what that height is.

This DfT/NR/TfL document about bridge strikes says at paragraph 1.04 on page 6:

The standard minimum clearance to be provided over every part of the carriageway of a public highway is 16’6” (5.03m). All bridges with headroom less than this value should be signed to identify the maximum height of a vehicle which can safely pass on the carriageway under the bridge without impacting on it.

Which would suggest that any new underpass would need to offer at least that clearance.

If there is a need to keep a route for higher vehicles than this, then the crossing could be retained but with gates normally closed across the road that are opened only with the signaller's permission.