Trivia: Level crossings that are unlikely to ever be removed

[Ediswan]

I think this assumes you couldn't just close it (perhaps with a pedestrian footbridge or subway added) and divert traffic to a nearby bridge.

Ware already has a pedestrian footbridge.

 

[adrock1976]

West Midlands:

Langley Green - the road links the A4123 Birmingham - Wolverhampton New Road to The Merivale and the shopping area. The former metalworks on the Stourbridge side of the crossing and on the Birmingham side of the line has a new residential development on it today.

South of the Thames:

Unsure if impossible to close Bollo Lane, as they cross both the North London and a freight line consecutively.

Yorkshire:

Starbeck. The A59 crosses the line at the station, with there being a greater chance of Elvis being found alive and well than the local residents and the townsfolk of Harrogate agreeing to demolition of buildings to raise the road on a bridge.

Ayrshire:

Ardrossan Town - crossing at the station on a single track section, with buildings either side. Also a short run to the Harbour.

 

[stuu]

Your link doesn't work for me so I can't comment fully, but here are two UK examples, both built about 15 years ago to replace flat crossings of a road and a railway respectively:

a single-lane, traffic light controlled bridge on a public road over the A1 at Rainton in North Yorkshire:

Google Maps

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

www.google.co.uk

a single narrow lane, traffic-light controlled, very low headroom underpass on a public road under the Rugby-Birmingham line at Berkswell:

Google Maps

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

www.google.co.uk

Ok, I sit corrected, we can be more pragmatic than I had assumed. Which makes me wonder why those sort of solutions haven't been used more.

Any idea what the story is behind the A1 bridge? Seems strange to build a brand new bridge only one lane wide

 

[alf]

Perhaps just an example of the silliest crossings, but the twin set across the A259 on the Marshlink line near Rye are more likely to be closed just by moving the whole road onto the other side of the railway

This idea also occurs to me every time I use Marshlink.

Then each time I look at the map & see a house is served by
the piece of road that this otherwise excellent plan would close.

Maybe Network Fail should buy the house & solve the problem.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe Network Fail should buy the house & solve the problem.

That has been done before.

 

[TrainTrackJack]

Newland East
For a good 15 years more the signalbox will there plus access to a travellers site and several houses next to the crossing.

 

[norbitonflyer]

This idea also occurs to me every time I use Marshlink.

Then each time I look at the map & see a house is served by
the piece of road that this otherwise excellent plan would close.

Maybe Network Fail should buy the house & solve the problem.

The OS and Google Street View map show several houses, and a "pumping station", served by that section of road. Presumably the latter, at least, can't be moved so would still require access. The fields between the road and the river would also need to be accessible by their owners. Replacing two fully controlled crossings by an occupation crossing might not be any safer.

Given the line is single track, the chances of being held up at both crossings must be minimal - you would either have to be very quick (to overtake the same train between the crossings) or very slow (so you meet a train at the second crossing that has crossed with the first at Rye)

 

[MadMac]

Logans Road, Motherwell. It’s been looked at in the past for elimination, and it’s one that both NR and the local authority would like rid of as it’s a major headache in the event of failure/damage. Just no easy answer.

 

[RSimons]

A bit OT: many years ago, when I lived in the area, I noticed that the Ordnance Survey maps showed a bridge over the Vale of Rheidol railway at Aberffrwd, where no bridge would be feasible. Do the maps still show a bridge or do they now correctly show a level crossing (I have no easy access to the maps as I live in Canada)?

 

[apinnard]

All of the level crossings on the fast bits of the GEML between Ipswich and Chelmsford. Can’t remember them all, but the ones that spring to mind:

- Ardleigh
- Bentley
- Church Lane Margaretting
- Ingatestone station
- Church Street Kelvedon
- Chitts Hill near Colchester
- Manningtree/Lawford (technically has an underpass already but is height limited and excludes vehicles taller than a small van.

 

[plugwash]

Sheringham, between the NR station and the North Norfolk Railway is a really useful connection, and used so infrequently that it is of little disruption to the town itself

Indeed it's used so infrequently as a crossing, that the lines leading up to it are used as car parking on one side and a sitting area on the other.

Google Maps

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

www.google.com

 

[Ediswan]

Sheringham, between the NR station and the North Norfolk Railway is a really useful connection, and used so infrequently that it is of little disruption to the town itself

I am assured by somebody connected to the North Norfolk Railway that this is officially a tramway rather than a level crossing, so a different set of rules apply.

 

[PTR 444]

Brockenhurst, Lymington town

Agree with these. Both are on busy major roads in the New Forest national park and I can’t see any bypass for these going down well with the Verderers.

Wool, Totton

These two I’m not so convinced about. Wool has room for a bypass of the A352 so that could potentially allow the crossing to be severed, including the nearby one at East Burton. As for Totton, I am pretty sure there have been proposals as recently as last year to bridge its crossing which could be achieved by using industrial land to the west.

 

[norbitonflyer]

A bit OT: many years ago, when I lived in the area, I noticed that the Ordnance Survey maps showed a bridge over the Vale of Rheidol railway at Aberffrwd, where no bridge would be feasible. Do the maps still show a bridge or do they now correctly show a level crossing (I have no easy access to the maps as I live in Canada)?

The StreetMap website shows OS Maps, and a level crossing is shown
Map of Aberffrwd, Ceredigion / Sir Ceredigion [City/Town/Village] (streetmap.co.uk)

 

[Mikey C]

I am assured by somebody connected to the North Norfolk Railway that this is officially a tramway rather than a level crossing, so a different set of rules apply.

I guess so, seeing that there aren't any barriers!

 

[theageofthetra]

I'm sure Charlton Lane crossing in SE London would like to be shut by NR, but unlikely.?

 

[Efini92]

Bishton, near Newport. Falls in to category 3. There is an adjacent rail-over bridge for low vehicles. Only high vehicles have to use the crossing. Only ever sees one school bus a day in each direction and the very occasional delivery van.

It's so infrequently used it would be difficult to justify the cost of a new road-over bridge or deepening the road under the current rail-over bridge

It’s had a road closed sign on it the last few weeks. Or do they just put that there if there’s no crossing keeper available?

 

[tiptoptaff]

It’s had a road closed sign on it the last few weeks. Or do they just put that there if there’s no crossing keeper available?

Usually that's just because there's no crossing keeper. It's definitely still officially open

 

[RSimons]

The StreetMap website shows OS Maps, and a level crossing is shown
Map of Aberffrwd, Ceredigion / Sir Ceredigion [City/Town/Village] (streetmap.co.uk)

Thanks. I did not know about that site but I can see it being useful in the future.

 

[alangla]

Logans Road, Motherwell. It’s been looked at in the past for elimination, and it’s one that both NR and the local authority would like rid of as it’s a major headache in the event of failure/damage. Just no easy answer.

I thought about that one. The time to have done it would have been when the Motherwell Bridge works site was being cleared, but you’d probably have had to remove some of Derby CS as well. The boat has sailed on that one now it’s all housing I think.

 

[stuu]

A bit OT: many years ago, when I lived in the area, I noticed that the Ordnance Survey maps showed a bridge over the Vale of Rheidol railway at Aberffrwd, where no bridge would be feasible. Do the maps still show a bridge or do they now correctly show a level crossing (I have no easy access to the maps as I live in Canada)?

Possibly a copyright trap, ordnance survey maps have minor features that are wrong, so they can catch out other publishers copying their maps

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Tal-Y-Cafn

 

[Grecian 1998]

At Eggesford the barriers open once a train has passed, so when the Barnstaple bound train stops short, operates the barriers, crosses over them the barriers raise. Once the Exeter bound train is ready then the guard operates the barriers and they go. So they're never down for any extended period of time

Thanks - makes sense.


Sherborne is another one where the crossing is right next to the station and would be difficult to move.

Castle Hill in Axminster would be difficult to alter - buildings on one side, road bridge over the river on another.

 

[Efini92]

Usually that's just because there's no crossing keeper. It's definitely still officially open

Makes sense. Must be a pretty boring job in that box, no wonder they never wave.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Makes sense. Must be a pretty boring job in that box, no wonder they never wave.

I got a wave from a chap the other week. He was leaning out of the window and everything.

Obviously can't have been there long.

 

[Eyersey468]

The level crossing at Goole is impossible to bypass as due to it being a built up area and having road junctions on either side of the crossing there is nowhere to put a bridge

 

[341o2]

Agree with these. Both are on busy major roads in the New Forest national park and I can’t see any bypass for these going down well with the Verderers.

Lymington, including the Town station is outside the National Park. As per the previous post, the areas surrounding these crossings are built up.
to be precise, the national park includes Lymington river as far as the B3054 where the level crossing is.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

A bit OT: many years ago, when I lived in the area, I noticed that the Ordnance Survey maps showed a bridge over the Vale of Rheidol railway at Aberffrwd, where no bridge would be feasible. Do the maps still show a bridge or do they now correctly show a level crossing (I have no easy access to the maps as I live in Canada)?

My map of the area is the OS Landranger (1:50000 scale) and dates from 2001/2002, and it clearly shows LC (Level Crossing/Croesfan wastad) just east of Aberffrwd station.

See also link below and zoom out on the accompanying map.

The Aberffrwd level crossing © John Lucas cc-by-sa/2.0

The road climbs steeply out of the hamlet, levelling only where it crosses the railway.

www.geograph.org.uk

 

[RSimons]

My map of the area is the OS Landranger (1:50000 scale) and dates from 2001/2002, and it clearly shows LC (Level Crossing/Croesfan wastad) just east of Aberffrwd station.

See also link below and zoom out on the accompanying map.

The Aberffrwd level crossing © John Lucas cc-by-sa/2.0

The road climbs steeply out of the hamlet, levelling only where it crosses the railway.

www.geograph.org.uk

I was there in the late 60s - it sounds like it was a genuine error.

Possibly a copyright trap, ordnance survey maps have minor features that are wrong, so they can catch out other publishers copying their maps

I know that commercial publishers did this. Bartholomews showed a road on the wrong side of the railway near where I grew up, but it didn’t occur to me that the OS might do the same. I suppose it should have done as they’ve been a semi/commercial operation for decades.

 

[mullinsj08]

It is endeavoured that as many level crossings as possible should be closed permanently to improve safety and reduce congestion. While many have been successfully closed or replaced with a bridge, there are still many where doing so would be problematic or impractical for one of the following reasons:

• The road passes through a built-up area where building a bridge would require extensive demolition.
• The road passes through a National park or AONB, and hence permission for a new bridge is unlikely to be granted.
• The road sees so little traffic that the case for a bridge would be very weak. Same for crossings with only a small handful of train movements per day.

In terms of crossings that are least likely to be removed, I would imagine most of the valid examples would be those in the first two categories. For the third category, the road could alternatively be severed on each side but this would depend on whether there is a suitable alternative route in the vicinity.

I will begin with the level crossing at Brockenhurst. Busy A-road, no suitable alternative route for traffic to divert to and right in the middle of a national park.

Petersfield level crossing on Station Road immediately north of the station.

Surrounded by too many properties and there are actually plans to rebuild it as it covers too much of the road so Network Rail want to move the barriers closer so to reduce the amount of time cars spend crossing. But to do that, they must dismantle the signal cabin and assemble it again elsewhere because it's a listed building.