Should a Level of Futureproofing be built into Public Transport Infrastructure Upgrades

[BrianW]

Because even a change of 1/100 of a radian could change the dynamic actions of the train (wear profile, sideways forces on passengers, the train leaning out in the corner so cant needing to be changed), meaning the current linespeed may not be able to be maintained.

Not if you leave the existing bridge and build a new span alongside, so the railway only needs to be closed for very short period.

If the new gantries for OLE or signals need to be mounted where the current tracks are, you can't begin piling until you have the tracks out of the way. This means installing new temporary structures, slueing the track, then piling and installing the permanent equipment. If you laid new tracks alongside, you skip straight to stage 3.

Hmmh. From your excellent and helpful photo Bromham Road bridge doesn't look exactly old- are we looking at some more lack of forethought there? A new bridge alongside will surely involve more demolitions; more homes 'swept away'. Maybe 'replacement homes' will be planned onto the site of the current bridge?

 

[Bald Rick]

From your excellent and helpful photo Bromham Road bridge doesn't look exactly old- are we looking at some more lack of forethought there?

The bridge was rebuilt a couple of years ago for electrification.

Surely it is incumbent on 'the railway' to demonstrate it is taking 'all reasonable measures' to avoid demolitions

Indeed. And had it been built for extra tracks at the time of electrification, it would have been justifiably kicked out as there was no reasonable need at that time.

 

[The Planner]

Yes you are, its still not a committed scheme so no amount of passive provision is going to be put in unless the prior scheme is funded to do it. Consider the fact of how long the MML electrifcation was in design for before it got built and whether E-W in that area was even past the back of a fag packet design at that point. Lets face it, that bridge will still have been there a decade or more before anything happens.

 

[snowball]

Outwood Lane, a dual carriageway approach road to Manchester Airport from the M56, was dug up four times in less than 25 years to put bridges under it for railway lines and station platforms. First for the original two-platform airport station, then for the third platform, then for the fourth Network Rail platform, then for the two Metrolink platforms. If I remember correctly the last one started before the previous one finished.

 

[Brush 4]

It's called future proofing. I don't know how long the gaps between each alteration at Manchester Airport station were but, the plans must have been known in at least some of them. Planning ahead means co-ordination. That means bringing forward decisions on other plans to avoid future costly disruptions Digging up the road 4 times in 25 years can't have been cheaper than building the wide bridge from the start but cheapness is at the heart of everything in infrastructure.... apparently. Some rbts were built for flyovers in the future, with wide approaches. Some are still waiting but others have been built, A419 Commonhead is one, there are others. Are there any examples of futureproofing on the railway? Okehamptom is preparing for an increased service in 2022 and, Parkway is being planned for. I'm sure there are others.

 

[Ianno87]

Outwood Lane, a dual carriageway approach road to Manchester Airport from the M56, was dug up four times in less than 25 years to put bridges under it for railway lines and station platforms. First for the original two-platform airport station, then for the third platform, then for the fourth Network Rail platform, then for the two Metrolink platforms. If I remember correctly the last one started before the previous one finished.

No, the 4th platform works included the bridge necessary for Metrolink. The whole project was done as one by Metrolink's contractors. (I think when it was figured that they'd otherwise be building a bridge for one to pretty much immediately demolish it for the other).

 

[snowball]

No, the 4th platform works included the bridge necessary for Metrolink. The whole project was done as one by Metrolink's contractors. (I think when it was figured that they'd otherwise be building a bridge for one to pretty much immediately demolish it for the other).

I think that's an oversimplification. I'm beginning to remember a bit more about it. The projects were followed closely on a thread on Skyscrapercity, with people posting photographs frequently. To remind myself fully I'd have to go back and reread that long thread, but as I recall, one set of works proceeded for a long time as if the other wasn't happening, then suddenly expanded to include the other.

 

[A0wen]

It's called future proofing. I don't know how long the gaps between each alteration at Manchester Airport station were but, the plans must have been known in at least some of them. Planning ahead means co-ordination. That means bringing forward decisions on other plans to avoid future costly disruptions Digging up the road 4 times in 25 years can't have been cheaper than building the wide bridge from the start but cheapness is at the heart of everything in infrastructure.... apparently. Some rbts were built for flyovers in the future, with wide approaches. Some are still waiting but others have been built, A419 Commonhead is one, there are others. Are there any examples of futureproofing on the railway? Okehamptom is preparing for an increased service in 2022 and, Parkway is being planned for. I'm sure there are others.

But how "future" proof is reasonable?

You could argue the Woodhead route was "future proof" when electrified in the the 1950s but in less than 20 years it had lost its passenger service and in a little over 30 years was closed.

Look around the motorway network at the weird junctions with earthworks in place for their extensions which never happened.

Hindsight is wonderful for making statements such as yours but you'd be on here complaining about works which were done unnecessarily "just in case" and their wasted cost.

 

[Ianno87]

But how "future" proof is reasonable?

You could argue the Woodhead route was "future proof" when electrified in the the 1950s but in less than 20 years it had lost its passenger service and in a little over 30 years was closed.

Look around the motorway network at the weird junctions with earthworks in place for their extensions which never happened.

Hindsight is wonderful for making statements such as yours but you'd be on here complaining about works which were done unnecessarily "just in case" and their wasted cost.

The sensible definition of "Future proof" is either:
-Don't do anything that you know you are going to have to come back and change very shortly afterwards, or
-For everything else, don't do anything that makes coming back and doing something else you might want to do prohibitively expensive or impossible. But you may have to accept changing something you are building at a later date.

 

[jfowkes]

Were as you haven't actually listed places on the motorway network with these so called "weird junctions".

The most obvious ones are the various bits of infrastructure for the aborted Ringways scheme for London.

 

[Steve Harris]

The most obvious ones are the various bits of infrastructure for the aborted Ringways scheme for London.

Road Numbers ? Build Dates? Actual Locations ??

Don't tell me, they were built whilst Boris was Mayor ??

 

[jfowkes]

Road Numbers ? Build Dates? Actual Locations ??

Don't tell me, they were built whilst Boris was Mayor ??

Here, have a YouTube video, it's all I know about the scheme anyway:

 

[snowball]

I know it's only 1 example but at least my statment is true/factual and can be backed up with maps. Were as you haven't actually listed places on the motorway network with these so called "weird junctions".

Why is it jfowkes's responsibility to list them? Are you suggesting he's making them up? I could name a dozen if I spent half an hour thinking about it. For starters, the north end of the M23, or the M69 west of its junction with the M1, or this on Blaydon Highway near Gateshead:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.co.uk

Some have involved bridges and have been expensively partially demolished and rebuilt due to changes of plan, for example the original north end of the M1 in Leeds, now the junction on the M621 where it changes direction.

 

[ashkeba]

But some extensions do happen !! For example Hardwicke roundabout (A47/A10 Junction) just outside Kings Lynn. (No it's not a motorway, but it is a major trunk road).

I have no idea when the dual carriageway to the west of that roundabout was built, but the approach to the roundabout was left wide with room in the middle left for a future flyover over the roundabout. As a kid in the 1970's I can remember the junction clealy (due to the oddity). Come the 2000's and the flyover was finally built !!!!

The A10/A47 is a notorious example in transport planning of wasting money starting to build a flyover in 1973-5 only to spend more to demolish it and build a different layout in 2002-3. Exactly why not to have guessed what EWR will need from bridges in Bedford before the consultation!

See https://www.roads.org.uk/blog/imperfectly-odd-hardwick-roundabout

Unexpectedly, they cleared away all the embankments that had been built up in the 1970s, built a viaduct spanning the whole junction

 

[Mikey C]

On a rail related example (so off topic but not as off topic!) London's Jubilee Line, when extended in the 1990s took a different route than the one planned for in the 1970s, bypassing its section to Charing Cross, making the platforms and track redundant (though very good for filming purposes!)

 

[Ianno87]

On a rail related example (so off topic but not as off topic!) London's Jubilee Line, when extended in the 1990s took a different route than the one planned for in the 1970s, bypassing its section to Charing Cross, making the platforms and track redundant (though very good for filming purposes!)

Although in that example, Charing Cross had a viable purpose for 20+ years - it wasn't fully abortive as it worked "standalone" until the extension was built, and was probably cheaper than building (say) to Waterloo (terminating there) via Westminster.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Road Numbers ? Build Dates? Actual Locations ??

Don't tell me, they were built whilst Boris was Mayor ??

The Ringway scheme was a late 1960s proposal that petered out in the '70s: long before Boris Johnson was even a black cloud on the horizon. His contribution to the list of now useless attempts at future-proofing is at the junction of the A406 North Circular Road and the A13. The two A406 carriageways separate to leave room for a future flyover avoiding the roundabout. Boris the buffoon ordered trees to be planted there!

Why is it jfowkes's responsibility to list them? Are you suggesting he's making them up? I could name a dozen if I spent half an hour thinking about it. For starters, the north end of the M23 . . . .

That is the most striking example in the London and Home Counties area.

 

[A0wen]

The Ringway scheme was a late 1960s proposal that petered out in the '70s: long before Boris Johnson was even a black cloud on the horizon. His contribution to the list of now useless attempts at future-proofing is at the junction of the A406 North Circular Road and the A13. The two A406 carriageways separate to leave room for a future flyover avoiding the roundabout. Boris the buffoon ordered trees to be planted there!

Trees can be removed fairly easily if and when the development takes place - it doesn't stop or preclude the future building - whereas building houses or offices on land makes it far more difficult and costly. So whilst there are many things people can criticise Boris for, that probably isn't one of them.

 

[Ianno87]

Trees can be removed fairly easily if and when the development takes place - it doesn't stop or preclude the future building - whereas building houses or offices on land makes it far more difficult and costly. So whilst there are many things people can criticise Boris for, that probably isn't one of them.

It's not exactly obvious where free flowing traffic via a flyover would end up...soon afterwards the North Circular becomes a boat....

 

[thatapanydude]

It's not exactly obvious where free flowing traffic via a flyover would end up...soon afterwards the North Circular becomes a boat....

Ought to be a flyover and crossing the Thames at Woolwich with the dual carriageway extending to the A2 at Falconwood - that would solve a lot of the traffic issues at Blackwall.

 

[AForumUser]

It's not exactly obvious where free flowing traffic via a flyover would end up...soon afterwards the North Circular becomes a boat....

There is what I presume to be the start of a never-built bridge just north of gallions reach DLR station.

 

[ashkeba]

There is what I presume to be the start of a never-built bridge just north of gallions reach DLR station.

Yes, at least three bridges have been designed for it.

East London’s unused heliport and unbuilt bridge

Not far from Beckton DLR depot is an odd road that seems somewhat oversized and impressive for the minimal amount of traffic that uses it.

www.ianvisits.co.uk

what’s left is the spur road, officially the Eastern Gateway Grade Separation Bridge that runs up to a junction that faces a fenced off dead end of a bridge.

It runs just a few metres, pointing towards Thamesmead but will never reach it — and unless the overpass is demolished, will probably be an unused stump of a road for decades to come.

 

[daodao]

In answer to the original question, probably not, as it is profligate, but if further capacity increases are likely to be needed, it is wise to design the infrastructure in such a way that further expansion is not made too difficult to undertake.

One example of "futureproofing" that springs to mind is the median strip in Mauldeth Road West and the extremely wide Hardy Lane in Chorlton-cum-Hardy, Manchester. These roads were built in the late 1920s to accommodate a proposed express tramway to Sale, which was aborted by the change of policy for Manchester Corporation Tramways following the untimely death of its general manager in 1928. About 85 years later, the capacity provided was actually used for the new tramway to Wythenshawe and Manchester Airport.

Central reservation of Mauldeth Road... © Phil Champion cc-by-sa/2.0

Near Chorlton Park Primary School. This road was built in the 1920s with a wide central strip reserved for electric trams. The tram tracks were never laid and instead two rows of trees were planted, mainly London planes. These were felled during summer 2011 to make way for an extension to the...

www.geograph.org.uk

 

[Steve Harris]

Here, have a YouTube video, it's all I know about the scheme anyway:

Ta

The A10/A47 is a notorious example in transport planning of wasting money starting to build a flyover in 1973-5 only to spend more to demolish it and build a different layout in 2002-3. Exactly why not to have guessed what EWR will need from bridges in Bedford before the consultation!

See https://www.roads.org.uk/blog/imperfectly-odd-hardwick-roundabout

Unexpectedly, they cleared away all the embankments that had been built up in the 1970s, built a viaduct spanning the whole junction

I think there is a little bit of poetic license going on there ! As there was never an embankment on the eastern side of the roundabout. I'm guessing what the poster is trying to say is they demolished the embankment on the western side and rebuilt it (presumably because the civil engineers didn't know it's make up or it didn't meet modern standards).

As for wasting money, that's typical of politicians not seeing a project through becuase they change their mind or the other party comes to power.

 

[ashkeba]

I think there is a little bit of poetic license going on there ! As there was never an embankment on the eastern side of the roundabout. I'm guessing what the poster is trying to say is they demolished the embankment on the western side and rebuilt it (presumably because the civil engineers didn't know it's make up or it didn't meet modern standards).

The western and central embankments was built. Did the eastern side need one? I thought that was "Constitution Hill" but maybe it is not close enough as an old railway is between them.