Level crossings : eliminating them "a good thing".

[Tomnick]

One of the reasons that the proposed cost of reopening Uckfield - Lewes was so high was because it priced to eliminate all the level crossings on the old line and replace them with flyovers/underpasses.

While it made sense for roads like the A22 bypass, no one seemed to have considered the option of getting a derogation from the group standard for the Uckfield High Street Crossing where a new bridge in the urban area would be both expensive and destructive and nothing would cross faster than 10mph because all trains stop of Uckfield station immediately adjacent to the crossing.

Similarly I would have thought that full barrier CCTV crossings for the minor roads at places like Isfield would get a derogation based on any reasonable risk assessment

I would have thought a derogation with a PSR of 20mph over the crossing would be quite reasonable in this case. There seems to be a lack of this can-do practicality in recent reports on proposed line openings, not least the one that claimed the cost of reopening the missing 20 miles of the Southern route to Plymouth would cost the thick end of £1 billion.

I agree wholeheartedly. The risk associated with a full barrier crossing is minimal, and I think that even a 20mph PSR would be overkill.

 

[21C101]

all safety legislation talks about risks being made 'as low as reasonably possible'

Not quite right, it is AFAIK low as reasonably practicable ,which you have used in subsequent references so perhaps a typo.

It seems to me that if you have a fixed budget, the ALARP thing to do would be to convert AHBs to full barrier CCTV on lines with a linespeed faster than 40mph, rather than replace them with bridges, because it would be a lot cheaper to do it and you would therefore be able to do fasr more with the same budget and get rid of the AHBs more quickly.

This is a problem that IMHO appeared after the requirement for full gated crossings interlocked with the signals was relaxed to allow AHBs in the late '50s (and for a while AOCRs Automatic Open Crossing Remote - which was an AHB without any barriers).

I would love to see level crossing statistics for incidents based on the type of crossing and suspect the incidents on CCTV or local full barrier crossings interlocked to the signalling tend to zero.

The funny thing is that red zone working where a worker has a few seconds notice to get clear of the track from a lookout is considered highly dangerous with efforts to prevent it wherever possible while AHBs, where a 40 tonne truck is given a few seconds notice to get clear of the track from a flashing light, is accepted.

 

[455driver]

It seems to me that if you have a fixed budget, the ALARP thing to do would be to convert AHBs to full barrier CCTV on lines with a linespeed faster than 40mph, rather than replace them with bridges, because it would be a lot cheaper to do it and you would therefore be able to do fasr more with the same budget and get rid of the AHBs more quickly.

So you want to slow the trains down or have the crossing closed for a couple of minutes each time do you?
AHBs are not linked to the signalling but full barriers are, so youeither bring the train down almost to a stand before lowering the barriers (minimising delays to the road traffic) or you lower the barriers early enough so the train doesnt pass the distant signal at yellow (or possible the singal before at double yellow) which would mean the barriers are down for 2, 3 or possibly 4 minutes each time.

Either scenario is not going to be very popular.

This is a problem that IMHO appeared after the requirement for full gated crossings interlocked with the signals was relaxed to allow AHBs in the late '50s (and for a while AOCRs Automatic Open Crossing Remote - which was an AHB without any barriers).

The reason AHBs are not interlocked with the signals is because they are used at locations which do not warrant full barriers, they are also much much cheaper to instal and maintain.

I would love to see level crossing statistics for incidents based on the type of crossing and suspect the incidents on CCTV or local full barrier crossings interlocked to the signalling tend to zero.

You would be surprised!

The funny thing is that red zone working where a worker has a few seconds notice to get clear of the track from a lookout is considered highly dangerous with efforts to prevent it wherever possible while AHBs, where a 40 tonne truck is given a few seconds notice to get clear of the track from a flashing light, is accepted.

Because how many 40 tonne trucks use the type of roads where AHBs are installed?

 

[Tomnick]

Because how many 40 tonne trucks use the type of roads where AHBs are installed?

Quite a few! Two that spring to mind are the A16 and A17 in Lincolnshire (especially the latter), both well-used routes for freight into and out of East Anglia. Plenty of others on less important roads are still used by HGVs for local access - those roads often being rather less than suitable for them!

 

[Bald Rick]

One of the reasons that the proposed cost of reopening Uckfield - Lewes was so high was because it priced to eliminate all the level crossings on the old line and replace them with flyovers/underpasses.

While it made sense for roads like the A22 bypass, no one seemed to have considered the option of getting a derogation from the group standard for the Uckfield High Street Crossing where a new bridge in the urban area would be both expensive and destructive and nothing would cross faster than 10mph because all trains stop of Uckfield station immediately adjacent to the crossing.

Similarly I would have thought that full barrier CCTV crossings for the minor roads at places like Isfield would get a derogation based on any reasonable risk assessment

I would have thought a derogation with a PSR of 20mph over the crossing would be quite reasonable in this case. There seems to be a lack of this can-do practicality in recent reports on proposed line openings, not least the one that claimed the cost of reopening the missing 20 miles of the Southern route to Plymouth would cost the thick end of £1 billion.

That's a myth. Crossings were considered. But on a whole life cost basis, bridges were cheaper. If you included crossings, the capital cost was lower (although not that much), but the business case was (even) worse.

In any event the ORR made it abundantly clear that it would not support LX on the reopened route.

 

[Busaholic]

The foot crossing at the Mexico Inn, Long Rock has been closed off for the last year or so after the second fatality in its 160 year existence despite a petition signed by the majority of the local villagers demanding its reinstatement. It had been on single track since 1974 and as trains were less than two miles from their terminus at Penzance line speeds were only about 40 m.p.h. The Cornwall Coroner apparently wrongly reported to Cornwall Council that the RAIB had recommended it be closed and the councillors duly did the sheep- like thing, even though one of the councillors apparently had to ask where Marazion, the nearest town, was on the map because he hadn't heard of it!
Now a proportion of the average 400 crossings per day are made along a stretch of road with unrestricted speed limit, no lighting and no footpaths or road markings onto Marazion road bridge, where drivers can and do hurtle round a corner without being able to see if any pedestrians are in the offing. Sheer madness!

Thankfully there is still a chance that the decision can be reversed after a Public Enquiry in October.

 

[mrmartin]

It's not just about safety. Look at the crossing at Sawbridgeworth. There are queues of 100+ cars every time a train goes past, which is very frequently. It must be an absolute nightmare to live there.

 

[HSTEd]

Ideally we would not have level crossings - its an argument for ensuring railways are always on embankments or in cuttings if nothing else.

 

[21C101]

It's not just about safety. Look at the crossing at Sawbridgeworth. There are queues of 100+ cars every time a train goes past, which is very frequently. It must be an absolute nightmare to live there.

fine, the council can pay for a bridge if they don't like it, why should the railway pay?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ideally we would not have level crossings - its an argument for ensuring railways are always on embankments or in cuttings if nothing else.

not very practical in east anglia.....

 

[Joseph_Locke]

... where a 40 tonne truck is given a few seconds notice to get clear of the track from a flashing light, is accepted.

And this is a symptom of the problem: AHB crossings give 22 seconds warning as an absolute minimum (27 seconds is the design target) - the observation that anything has "a few seconds" means that the users in question are ignoring the warnings they are given (e.g. Hixon)

To apply Occam's razor, what we should do is confiscate the vehicles of drivers who do this, on a first offence, also the iPods of jaywalking pedestrians using earphones on footpath crossings; these people are not taking care of their own safety so I have little sympathy, I'm afraid.

 

[21C101]

That's a myth. Crossings were considered. But on a whole life cost basis, bridges were cheaper. If you included crossings, the capital cost was lower (although not that much), but the business case was (even) worse.

In any event the ORR made it abundantly clear that it would not support LX on the reopened route.

Of course ORR said no. Like all bureaucratic organisations goal one is take no risks and cover your backside at all costs. You need to make a reasonable case for a derogation and then make very public noises get local MPs to lobby etc if they don't play ball. Uckfield High St where trains would cross at 5mph and a bridge would ruin the high St is a classic example. Rother valley railway are going to put a new LC on a 60mph stretch of the A21 Roberts bridge bypass so it can be done.

As to a bridge improving the business case. Only if someone else pays and you don't have to pay back loan and interest for it out of revenue.

It really annoys me that these reports price for a new railway as if its a greenfield site with everything built ideally and don't include an option to do it as cheaply as possible with say 40mph speed limit, single track with basic one train in section signalling and derogations against group standards that demand wider trackbeds etc than the old line was built to. Get it open first then worry about upgrading.

Even so, 150 million for 8 mile Uckfield Hamsey when 6 mile Bare Alston is 18 million - something's gone wrong

 

[HSTEd]

Level Crossings have operating costs far in excess of a bridge.

All this hardware is not cheap.

 

[Justin Smith]

If that (reducing apparently unnecessary waiting time) happens, there would probably be an increase in the number of collisions and/or near misses as those who take the risks now will continue to do so. Also, where there is congestion or there are road vehicle breakdowns on the crossing, there will be more blockages when it is too late to stop the train.

I don`t fully agree with you. I think some people will try to jump the lights whatever, but if all drivers had more confidence that they`d not be there waiting for ages with no train (like I have been a few times at Rossington) I feel fewer would try to run the crossings.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Its frankly the result of the stupid blame culture this country has. I guarantee if the level crossings used traffic lights with cameras mounted on top of them actively giving people tickets, cars wouldn't cross until its ''clear''. As for pedestrians if they jump the barriers its their stupid fault no one else - same with trespassers and the industry should be clearly saying this. The silly amount of fencing we have compared to Germany and The Netherlands must cost a fortune as well.

Of course I agree about unsafe level/foot crossings being either made safer or closed but the majority are perfectly safe if used correctly. As for breakdowns on a level crossings the barriers should be down with enough time for the stock on that route to emergency brake, so even if the car is hit, its at a very low speed. The signalers should be watching.

I agree with this, it`s a good idea. Why don`t they do it ? Even if they can`t afford to have cameras at all crossings why can`t they have mobile ones (hidden) which can be rotated round all crossings so drivers never know if they`ll get a ticket ? I actually think they should do exactly the same for all traffic lights on the roads, that`d help stamp out those arrogant gits who routinely drive through red lights on purpose.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The barriers (at Rossington) are usually lowered far enough out for the approaching train to be able to see Green aspects. This lets the trains run at line speed. But two and a half minutes can seem a very long time...

I admit I didn`t time it but I`m sure it was more than two and a half minutes !

 

[Mikey C]

Watching the James May programme on Cars of the People last Sunday (bear with me here!) I was surprised to see him having to wait a level crossing in central Tokyo. Checking the Wikipedia page, I had no idea that Japan (a country famous for its effective and modern transport system) had so many!

As of 2011, there are totally about 34,000 level crossings in Japan. Many rail lines in urban areas have been changed to viaduct or underground tracks, and the number of level crossings has decreased. Unlike many other countries, cars have to stop when passing level crossing in Japan because of the regulation in Road Traffic Act.

In some busy rail lines in Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya, there is a problem that so many trains pass that level crossing is always closed. In some crossings, more than 50 trains pass in an hour and the crossing opens only two minutes in an hour, and causes serious traffic congestion and inconvenience

 

[MarkyT]

Its an odd and rather contrived scenario that according to headline ORR policy if a level crossing is already there, say in a tightly constrained historic town centre location just like Uckfield where a new modern road overpass would never be acceptable, then essentially the crossing could continue to exist for ever, but if the crossing has been closed it can never be reinstated, even if the majority of the traffic over the crossing has since been diverted to a new fast bypass road where a bridge would be provided as a matter of course.

If you add turn signal indicators and side skirts over the wheels of a vehicle you can drive something the size of a three car pacer down the high street on rails so there must be some practical wiggle room for new level crossings near stations where all trains stop or traverse at low speed!

 

[21C101]

I admit I didn't time it but I'm sure it was more than two and a half minutes !

Two and a half minutes is at line speed. If there was a TSR or the train was just going slowly it would take much longer!

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Maybe we should consider installing some of these like in Russia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4YkzeSW6v8

 

[Bald Rick]

Watching the James May programme on Cars of the People last Sunday (bear with me here!) I was surprised to see him having to wait a level crossing in central Tokyo. Checking the Wikipedia page, I had no idea that Japan (a country famous for its effective and modern transport system) had so many!

I think the one at Yokohama is the best. Open for 2 mins an hour. Apparently it has armed guards!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course ORR said no. Like all bureaucratic organisations goal one is take no risks and cover your backside at all costs. You need to make a reasonable case for a derogation and then make very public noises get local MPs to lobby etc if they don't play ball. Uckfield High St where trains would cross at 5mph and a bridge would ruin the high St is a classic example. Rother valley railway are going to put a new LC on a 60mph stretch of the A21 Roberts bridge bypass so it can be done.

As to a bridge improving the business case. Only if someone else pays and you don't have to pay back loan and interest for it out of revenue.

It really annoys me that these reports price for a new railway as if its a greenfield site with everything built ideally and don't include an option to do it as cheaply as possible with say 40mph speed limit, single track with basic one train in section signalling and derogations against group standards that demand wider trackbeds etc than the old line was built to. Get it open first then worry about upgrading.

Even so, 150 million for 8 mile Uckfield Hamsey when 6 mile Bare Alston is 18 million - something's gone wrong

Yes, the Tavistock lot have got their sums very wrong.

The maths is quite simple. To build a bridge to replace an existing level crossing, you have to go through an extensive planning process, including a public inquiry, which costs time and money. But when reopening a line, you have to do that anyway. So the cost of the bridge is literally the design and build. Which isn't that much more than the design and build of a full barrier crossing from new, especially when the LX would need additional signalling. And the bridge avoids the ongoing operation and maintenance costs (which can easily be over £100k pa) plus 2 renewals in the 60 year appraisal period (at over £1m each albeit heavily discounted in future years).

Re Uckfield High St, stopping trains could be doing 30-40mph across it and any diversions not stopping at least 60. In any case linespeed is irrelevant, the busy-ness of the road demands full barriers. Which demands additional signalling than was required if it's not there. The bridge was off line so as not to spoil the high street, and the local MP (who was involved throughout) was very clear his constituents didn't want the high street backed up at least twice an hour.

I know it's annoying when facts spoil an argument.

 

[MarkyT]

Re Uckfield High St, stopping trains could be doing 30-40mph across it and any diversions not stopping at least 60. In any case linespeed is irrelevant, the busy-ness of the road demands full barriers. Which demands additional signalling than was required if it's not there. The bridge was off line so as not to spoil the high street, and the local MP (who was involved throughout) was very clear his constituents didn't want the high street backed up at least twice an hour.

Agree entirely that full barriers would be required with full signal interlocking. Out of interest whereabouts in Uckfield town centre was the new bridge route to run? Did it require additional land take and/or demolition itself and would that and any other related traffic changes also be likely to raise any strong local opposition. Although I'm sure there's plenty of local traffic surely the fairly modern bypass has removed much of the through traffic volume from the centre.

 

[Bald Rick]

Agree entirely that full barriers would be required with full signal interlocking. Out of interest whereabouts in Uckfield town centre was the new bridge route to run? Did it require additional land take and/or demolition itself and would that and any other related traffic changes also be likely to raise any strong local opposition. Although I'm sure there's plenty of local traffic surely the fairly modern bypass has removed much of the through traffic volume from the centre.

About 200m west of the old crossing. Avoided much property demolition. Uckfield is pretty congested in the peak, particularly in the station area near the supermarket. The last thing needed was the barriers down for 3 mins four times an hour at those times.

 

[NSEFAN]

Staggering the platforms as with stations such as Mitcham Eastfields would surely help the situation, given you'd be rebuilding Uckfield station either way.

 

[edwin_m]

If you add turn signal indicators and side skirts over the wheels of a vehicle you can drive something the size of a three car pacer down the high street on rails so there must be some practical wiggle room for new level crossings near stations where all trains stop or traverse at low speed!

You need 25%g emergency brakes too.

 

[21C101]

Yes, the Tavistock lot have got their sums very wrong.

We will see. The council have already bought half of the trackbed and are negotiating for the rest. Thats the real difference, Devon council are very supportive.

The maths is quite simple. To build a bridge to replace an existing level crossing, you have to go through an extensive planning process, including a public inquiry, which costs time and money. But when reopening a line, you have to do that anyway. So the cost of the bridge is literally the design and build. Which isn't that much more than the design and build of a full barrier crossing from new, especially when the LX would need additional signalling. And the bridge avoids the ongoing operation and maintenance costs (which can easily be over £100k pa) plus 2 renewals in the 60 year appraisal period (at over £1m each albeit heavily discounted in future years).

I'm not convinced that a new bridge could be done that cheaply. Certainly not an urban one that requires a new approach road on each side and extensive land and property demolition and when the crossing design and build costs would be part of the same project as the other signalling works not a stand alone scheme, and given the recent progress with lower cost modular signalling.

The Beddingham bridge on the A27 to replace the AHB there was costed at £20 million in 2005, so at least £25 million now.

From what I can make out a stand alone conversion of a gate level crossing on a working railway to CCTV full barrier might not leave much change from £5 million but would be a bit lower if done as part of a general signalling scheme.

Assume LC costs £5 million as against a bridge and approach roads, land purchase etc. £25 million.

If you take the compound interest saved on not having to borrow the extra £20 million - because you put in a level crossing not a bridge - at an interest rate of 5% you have £66 million interest saved over that 30 years.

Rather more than enough to pay for maintenance over the 30 years and renew it 30 years later.

Re Uckfield High St, stopping trains could be doing 30-40mph across it and any diversions not stopping at least 60.

Not if there is a 20mph PSR over it.

In any case linespeed is irrelevant, the busy-ness of the road demands full barriers. Which demands additional signalling than was required if it's not there.

I don't think anything else has ever been suggested other than a full barrier crossing.

The bridge was off line so as not to spoil the high street, and the local MP (who was involved throughout) was very clear his constituents didn't want the high street backed up at least twice an hour

It was indeed off line, to the south/west of the High Street, but it would still have made a mess of the town centre and meant pedesrians had a long diversion if they didnt want to use a footbridge or subway. But then it seems only cars matter and pedestrians dont. It would have cut the high street in two and been awful

I presume the MP had carried out extensive surveys not just listened to the local Mr Toads.

If a staggered station was provided with the platforms set a little back from the road, then the signals could remain at red and barriers up until the train had virtually arrived and stopped at the station, then barriers down and signal cleared as train ready to depart. This would make the barriers down time very short, certainly nothing like 3-4 minutes. This was the normal procedure (for Croydon bound trains) at the old Beddington Lane full barrier crossing and the platform was moved further back under Victoria Resignalling when the gate cossing was replaced by CCTV full barrier to allow this, ie give sufficient overlap between the protecting signal and the level crossing.

 

[ComUtoR]

Maybe we should consider installing some of these like in Russia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4YkzeSW6v8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI8mXzEJFfE (UK Level Crossings)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBhHBKJ6-3I (Rising barriers in Russia)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Cw0QJU8ro (Rising barriers UK)

My PERSONAL view is that removing them all feels like the right option and I would fully support their removal.

My FORUM view was changed recently and I do see a need for them and that circumstances will often dictate their necessity. Whilst cost should never be the deciding factor (my opinion) I will acquiesce to more informed posters in that it is more than just a blanket decision to remove them.

My EBIL side feels that we should remove all compensation and place the blame solely on the individual. If you don't wanna read the signs, use the crossing correctly, risk your live, jump the lights, race the train, etc. then frankly, the Darwin Awards are calling you.

I don't believe anything that NR does will eliminate incidents on Level Crossings. No matter how safe they are made and no matter how many lights/barriers/pop up bollards are introduced. Someone will ALWAYS do the stupid thing.

As to the OP. I think that when a level crossing has been removed and all the intricacies have been addressed I would certainly say that its a "Good Thing" I will concede that the need for crossings will remain. Each crossing that can be eliminated is a step in the right direction. After all isn't the goal of the railway to eliminate incidents and to provide a safe network for Trains and their Drivers, the passenger, and the public.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Beddingham bridge on the A27 to replace the AHB there was costed at £20 million in 2005, so at least £25 million now.

A 1km, 3 lane trunk road crossing the railway at a large skew, and a sizeable river, on a floodplain. Not quite the same.

An all new full barrier LX is about £2m, plus basic new signalling specifically to protect it another £1-2m. Operating / maintenance cost £100k pa. Renewal £1.5m every 30 years. Bridge c£8m (in this example). Maintenance negligible. Over the appraisal period it is broadly level in pure financial terms.

Interest charges are irrelevant, that is accounted for by discounting in the CBA.

But, then you must allow for the safety benefit, and also the value of disbenefit that a new Level Crossing in an urban environment causes in terms of increased traffic congestion, which is rather counter to the principle of public transport schemes.

This helps to demonstrate why it is quite difficult to justify bridges to replace existing level crossings. Renewing an existing crossing is generally cheaper than a completely new one. Conversely a new bridge as a stand alone project has to bear the full cost (and time! ) of the planning process. In general, only the very busiest road crossings, with significant road user de-congestion benefits, and relatively straightforward construction solutions, will make the case.

 

[MarkyT]

This helps to demonstrate why it is quite difficult to justify bridges to replace existing level crossings. Renewing an existing crossing is generally cheaper than a completely new one. Conversely a new bridge as a stand alone project has to bear the full cost (and time! ) of the planning process. In general, only the very busiest road crossings, with significant road user de-congestion benefits, and relatively straightforward construction solutions, will make the case.

This is the difficulty with rail reopenings then if the default position is no new crossings at any cost. If you could not justify a difficult crossing to bridge conversion if the line had remained open, then it is also likely it couldn't be justified for a reopening. So if you can't have the crossing, you can't have the railway.

 

[HSTEd]

But over the appraisal period the cost of the bridge is similar to the level crossing.
The BCR doesn't get better if you just shunt the cost further down the line since it still has to be paid for.

 

[21C101]

A 1km, 3 lane trunk road crossing the railway at a large skew, and a sizeable river, on a floodplain. Not quite the same.

An all new full barrier LX is about £2m, plus basic new signalling specifically to protect it another £1-2m. Operating / maintenance cost £100k pa. Renewal £1.5m every 30 years. Bridge c£8m (in this example). Maintenance negligible. Over the appraisal period it is broadly level in pure financial terms.

Interest charges are irrelevant, that is accounted for by discounting in the CBA.

But, then you must allow for the safety benefit, and also the value of disbenefit that a new Level Crossing in an urban environment causes in terms of increased traffic congestion, which is rather counter to the principle of public transport schemes.

This helps to demonstrate why it is quite difficult to justify bridges to replace existing level crossings. Renewing an existing crossing is generally cheaper than a completely new one. Conversely a new bridge as a stand alone project has to bear the full cost (and time! ) of the planning process. In general, only the very busiest road crossings, with significant road user de-congestion benefits, and relatively straightforward construction solutions, will make the case.

I would agree with your methodology for say Isfield (although I dont think a bridge there would be acceptable on environmental grounds), however the bridge at Uckfield needs extensive approach roads , wide urban pavements so effectively three lanes wide, urban property purchase and demolition and at the very least a footbridge with lifts at the high street level crossing site, so I think the A27 bridge is far nearer the mark in costings.

The main problem the Uckfield reopening has is a vociferous anti rail minority, combined with nimbies along the route and a lukewarm county council that would have to exercise its commitment to pay for a bridge on the Uckfield bypass if it reopens (commitment made at time of building Uckfield bypass).

The other problem is that the rail industry has completely lost the art of cheap incremental improvements since BR went and now has "grandes projectes", combined with a governmrent/regulatory attitude that things like Group Standards are tablets of stone, not guidelines to be disregarded in a controlled way (through derogations) when appropriate, although it does happen. There is also a view in some quarters that a vast amount of expensive paperwork makes things safe, although Network Rail have to their credit started to tackle this Railtrack legacy and the days of fifty page method statements are over with concise task specific instructions now used.

As a result Chris Greens £23 million quote to reopen it 25 years ago is now £150 million over 600% higher. (It would have been £50 million if costs had risen with inflation)

It can be done, even with modern safety rules, as some experienced retired senior BR engineers showed when they rebuilt the Bluebell from Kingscote to East Grinstead for £4 million. This included track, colour light signalling, a new station, track interface to network rail and the wholly unprecedented clearing of a 1/4 mile long 50 foot deep landfill tip (so unprecedented that the government bods were down with clipboards learning future best practice), not to mention the monstrous amounts of approval paperwork.

It was as low as £4 million because of volutnteer labour but much of the track and signal materials were new, paid for commercially, the commercial contractors who cleared the tip were paid, as were the freight operators who took it away by rail and the landfill operators who took the moved rubbish.

If the Bluebell volunteers had been paid I suspect it would have cost about £15 million. If it had been done by the main rail industry then it would have cost about £100 million I fear. Just the consultants reports on what to do would have cost more than £4 million.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But over the appraisal period the cost of the bridge is similar to the level crossing.
The BCR doesn't get better if you just shunt the cost further down the line since it still has to be paid for.

In simplistic terms if you have £25 million and you build a £5 million level crossing instead of a £25 million bridge you still have 20 million in the bank.

That £20 million earns interest which you would have lost if you had paid for the bridge. With compound interest at 5% at the end of 30 years you have £66 million interest which you would not have had if you built the bridge.£6 million of it is used to maintain the level crossing over the 30 years and £10 million to renew it after 30 years.

So after 30 years if you build a level crossing you have £70 million in the bank, your £20 million plus £50 million interest not spent on the crossing. If you built the bridge you have nothing.

In reality you dont have any money and have to borrow it so you the situation is reversed and you have a much larger debt after 30 years paying interest if you build the bridge.

Essentially, current accounting methods artificially make the bridge look cheaper in the long term.

 

[Bald Rick]

In reality you dont have any money and have to borrow it so you the situation is reversed and you have a much larger debt after 30 years paying interest if you build the bridge.

Precisely. So compound interest is irrelevant. The appraisal is based on a discount factor of 3.5%, which is way higher than current government (and Network Rail) borrowing rates. So if you can borrow now to avoid greater ongoing costs later, you do it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is the difficulty with rail reopenings then if the default position is no new crossings at any cost. If you could not justify a difficult crossing to bridge conversion if the line had remained open, then it is also likely it couldn't be justified for a reopening. So if you can't have the crossing, you can't have the railway.

It comes down to our old friend 'reasonable practicability'. If a bridge is reasonably practical, and I suggest that a capital cost of 2-3 times higher than a level crossing and a whole life cost broadly similar is very definitely reasonably practical, then a bridge it is if it demonstrably improves safety.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As a result Chris Greens £23 million quote to reopen it 25 years ago is now £150 million over 600% higher. (It would have been £50 million if costs had risen with inflation)

Of course 25 years ago, the line had been shut for 20 years and most of the structures / embankments were still in reasonable condition. Now they are approaching 50 years since they have seen a civil engineer and need somewhat more work. My old chum CEWG also had the benefit of all feasibility, design, departmental trains and even some installation costs being accounted as 'BR overhead' and not in the project estimate.

 

[HSTEd]

In simplistic terms if you have £25 million and you build a £5 million level crossing instead of a £25 million bridge you still have 20 million in the bank.

That £20 million earns interest which you would have lost if you had paid for the bridge. With compound interest at 5% at the end of 30 years you have £66 million interest which you would not have had if you built the bridge.£6 million of it is used to maintain the level crossing over the 30 years and £10 million to renew it after 30 years.

Government debt over 30 years is 3.1% at the current time - and if you use index linked gilts as you would (because every other costs rises with inflation and you are assuming this in your estimates) then the interest rate is actually negative in real terms.
According to the FT its inflation -0.35%.

So after 30 years you only have £18.07 million of today's pounds.
£6m in today's money goes on the first bridge renewal - giving you £12.07m left.
After the second 30 year period that takes you to £10.9m pounds left - leaving you £4.9m saving after the second renewal.

But you have paid £6m in operating costs in the mean time.

EDIT:
Let's put it another way.
At inflation-0.35% interest, 30 years and £20m capital, the repayment to completely clear the debt at that time is only ~£600k.
When you consider you will be paying at least £12m for renewals in today's money (and since the interest rate is negative you will pay more than this if you are considering up front capital) the debt is actually only £8m at most.

That leaves you with a payment to clear it after 30 years of only £240k.
This makes it highly likely that you will end up with a net benefit with the £100k/a costs over the 60+ year appraisal period.