Level crossings that would bring the greatest benefits if closed

[brad465]

There have been old discussions about specific crossings/areas here, but thought I'd ask this from a wider picture: what level crossing closures would bring the greatest improvements in service reliability (including line capacity), public safety and other benefits?

I'd say any level crossing that still exists on a line with 100+mph line speed, especially the ECML ones north of Hitchin and Steventon on the GWML, as closing the latter and subsequent OHLE adjustments would allow a linespeed increase back to 125mph from 110mph.

Red Cow level crossing at Exeter St Davids must be a constraint on services, evidenced by the fact it's manned to assist pedestrians crossing, although getting the land space for both a road bridge and accessible footbridge together could be a challenge.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

First thing that came to my mind was the crossings on the line north of Altrincham, I think it's Navigation Road and one other I've forgotten. But whatever the future of Metrolink or the Mid-Cheshire route, the single track section for both lines will always be a constraint and so removing the crossings would surely allow the maximum use of the bottleneck.

A more normal answer to this question is Lincoln, or the trio of crossings at Ely north junction.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Red Cow level crossing at Exeter St Davids must be a constraint on services, evidenced by the fact it's manned to assist pedestrians crossing, although getting the land space for both a road bridge and accessible footbridge together could be a challenge.

I think a road bridge would have to be further upstream of the Exe, launching somewhere off the higher level New North Rd. to Exwick. A foot / cycle only bridge could be accommodated at the Red Cow site. Housing developers have been eyeing up land on the Exwick side for years, but it has consistently been refused because of the poor access via the level-crossing. Maybe they would like to pay for a road bridge?

 

[Oxfordblues]

Steventon on the GWR main line, especially with additional Oxford-Bristol trains. Upgrading of the existing bridleway from the the B4017 to Stocks Lane would allow for their elimination, but not cheap of course!

 

[The Planner]

There have been old discussions about specific crossings/areas here, but thought I'd ask this from a wider picture: what level crossing closures would bring the greatest improvements in service reliability (including line capacity), public safety and other benefits?

I'd say any level crossing that still exists on a line with 100+mph line speed, especially the ECML ones north of Hitchin and Steventon on the GWML, as closing the latter and subsequent OHLE adjustments would allow a linespeed increase back to 125mph from 110mph.

Red Cow level crossing at Exeter St Davids must be a constraint on services, evidenced by the fact it's manned to assist pedestrians crossing, although getting the land space for both a road bridge and accessible footbridge together could be a challenge.

Im not convinced any level crossing is causing capacity constraints. Steventon is neither here nor there in the overall railway aspect of it apart from safety, which applies to any crossing.

 

[Krokodil]

Im not convinced any level crossing is causing capacity constraints.

Haven't the occupation crossings on the Mid Cheshire Line been cited as a reason that frequencies can't be improved? Then there are the foot crossings on the North Wales Coast which are having bridges installed to allow a more frequent service to safely run.

 

[jfollows]

First thing that came to my mind was the crossings on the line north of Altrincham, I think it's Navigation Road and one other I've forgotten. But whatever the future of Metrolink or the Mid-Cheshire route, the single track section for both lines will always be a constraint and so removing the crossings would surely allow the maximum use of the bottleneck.

A more normal answer to this question is Lincoln, or the trio of crossings at Ely north junction.

Deansgate Junction is the other one.

I’ve been held waiting at Navigation Road for a long time, trams and freight trains.

Deansgate Junction Level Crossing - The ABC Railway Guide

Deansgate Junction Level Crossing at the ABC Railway Guide.

abcrailwayguide.uk

Navigation Road Level Crossing - The ABC Railway Guide

Navigation Road Level Crossing at the ABC Railway Guide.

abcrailwayguide.uk

both indicate “high risk” although the information may not be current.

 

[The exile]

Two Bristol area candidates:

The crossing over the Avonmouth Dock access road
The one at Ashton Gate.

Neither is an issue at current levels of traffic (particularly Ashton Gate!!) - but do stand in the way of service level improvements.

 

[ac6000cw]

First thing that came to my mind was the crossings on the line north of Altrincham, I think it's Navigation Road and one other I've forgotten. But whatever the future of Metrolink or the Mid-Cheshire route, the single track section for both lines will always be a constraint and so removing the crossings would surely allow the maximum use of the bottleneck.

A more normal answer to this question is Lincoln, or the trio of crossings at Ely north junction.

There's actually four crossings in the vicinity of Ely North Junction - three on the B1392 at Queen Adelaide plus Kiln Lane just south of the junction (which is the busiest for train movements). All of them are an issue (safety/barrier down time) in terms of increasing capacity north of Ely.

 

[76020]

There have been old discussions about specific crossings/areas here, but thought I'd ask this from a wider picture: what level crossing closures would bring the greatest improvements in service reliability (including line capacity), public safety and other benefits?

I'd say any level crossing that still exists on a line with 100+mph line speed, especially the ECML ones north of Hitchin and Steventon on the GWML, as closing the latter and subsequent OHLE adjustments would allow a linespeed increase back to 125mph from 110mph.

Red Cow level crossing at Exeter St Davids must be a constraint on services, evidenced by the fact it's manned to assist pedestrians crossing, although getting the land space for both a road bridge and accessible footbridge together could be a challenge.

The 110 speed restriction is in force at Steventon because of the road bridge, not the level crossing.

 

[LittleRedTrain]

The crossings on the Waterloo-Staines-Reading route were often cited as an argument against the 'AirTrack' scheme for Waterloo-Staines-Heathrow and Heathrow-Woking-Guildford.
Getting rid of these could open up opportunities for services to Heathrow and other improvements on the 'Windsor lines.'

 

[Omnidekkalover]

David Lane and St Albans/Carey Road crossings would be the two near me I'd want to see gone. The downside is that it would be a) very expensive and b) a logistical nightmare.

 

[Starmill]

The 110 speed restriction is in force at Steventon because of the road bridge, not the level crossing.

It is because of the level crossing. The gradient of the wire to go over the crossing and then under the bridge is the problem, not that the bridge is too low.

 

[geoffk]

When I lived in the area, Smithy Bridge level crossing was said to cause long delays to road traffic as a result of barrier malfunction, an event which evidently happened again last month. With the road on a gradient and a canal bridge right next to the railway crossing, there's no bridge or underpass solution, while closing the crossing would mean road traffic diverted through Littleborough and on to the already busy Hollingworth Road.

'Chaos' as level crossing gets stuck for more than five hours

'I wish Network Rail would take this seriously rather than continuing to hold the village to ransom'

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

A village where the level crossing keeps getting stuck was thrown into 'chaos' after the barriers broke down for more than FIVE hours. Motorists were unable to drive through Smithy Bridge in Rochdale for much of Saturday evening after the level crossing malfunctioned once again.

 

[cle]

The crossings on the Waterloo-Staines-Reading route were often cited as an argument against the 'AirTrack' scheme for Waterloo-Staines-Heathrow and Heathrow-Woking-Guildford.
Getting rid of these could open up opportunities for services to Heathrow and other improvements on the 'Windsor lines.'

These were my thoughts - Egham and Wokingham.

Mortlake too I would add.

Then again, super high frequency lines in Tokyo manage with crossings and mixed stopping patterns - thinking that Keio line between Shibuya and Kichijoji. No freight though and fairly self contained

 

[Failed Unit]

First thing that came to my mind was the crossings on the line north of Altrincham, I think it's Navigation Road and one other I've forgotten. But whatever the future of Metrolink or the Mid-Cheshire route, the single track section for both lines will always be a constraint and so removing the crossings would surely allow the maximum use of the bottleneck.

A more normal answer to this question is Lincoln, or the trio of crossings at Ely north junction.

Both the Lincoln ones don’t cause as much of an issue now. High street is effectively pedestrian only with a footbridge. Some motor vehicles need to use it for delivery. Likewise Brayford Wharf is one way only. Pedestrians have a bridge. Others can use the university bridge.

the tentacroft street link road really help eliminate the delays.

 

[The Planner]

Haven't the occupation crossings on the Mid Cheshire Line been cited as a reason that frequencies can't be improved? Then there are the foot crossings on the North Wales Coast which are having bridges installed to allow a more frequent service to safely run.

Maybe I should have been a bit more nuanced. I was thinking more of road crossings.

 

[Taunton]

Maybe I should have been a bit more nuanced. I was thinking more of road crossings.

The several crossings on the Windsor Lines (North Sheen, Egham, etc) are an absolute cap on capacity because although you could get a few more per hour on the rail side, the road congestion on extremely busy roads (including pedestrians), plus the current high frequency, leads to traffic being backed up all day long. Development long ago right up to the four corners of the crossing prevents any bridge/underpass solution. This is what did in the Heathrow Airtrack scheme, when it was realised how that would make all the crossings untenable local political campaigns reached right up into Parliament.

One issue, from me knowing at least North Sheen for a very long time, is each generation of resignalling has increased road closure times. Before Feltham power box opened (1970?) the local gate box staff were past masters at minimising any delay, there were significant complaints back then when that resignalling took place. The more recent change has again led to further increased closure time per train, it is as if the signalling designers just give this aspect insufficient consideration because it is not a "railway side" issue.

 

[Failed Unit]

Maybe I should have been a bit more nuanced. I was thinking more of road crossings.

If we were talking about Rail Crossings - wouldn’t Newark win hands down?

 

[Shimbleshanks]

That horrible acute-angle cross between Croydon Tramlink and Kent Gate Way where I came off my bike a few weeks ago and did my knees untold damage from which I'm only just recovering...

 

[76020]

It is because of the level crossing. The gradient of the wire to go over the crossing and then under the bridge is the problem, not that the bridge is too low.

I agree that the wire gradient is the issue, but Network Rail did want to replace this bridge at the time of the Great Western electrification. I am sure that most people remember all the objections by the locals and in the end they got their way because it was a grade 2 listed structure. If the bridge was rebuilt, then the 110mph restriction for electric traction would be lifted to 125mph.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

Deansgate Junction is the other one.

I’ve been held waiting at Navigation Road for a long time, trams and freight trains.

Deansgate Junction Level Crossing - The ABC Railway Guide

Deansgate Junction Level Crossing at the ABC Railway Guide.

abcrailwayguide.uk

Navigation Road Level Crossing - The ABC Railway Guide

Navigation Road Level Crossing at the ABC Railway Guide.

abcrailwayguide.uk

both indicate “high risk” although the information may not be current.

Is it possible that they could be closed one day? They both look like minor roads throughout the neighbourhood and the diversions don't look especially arduous for cars at least - it'd be good to get footbridges for at least Navigation Road

 

[Oxfordblues]

At Poole I'm amazed there aren't more issues at the level-crossing over the busy pedestrian shopping street. It's definitely sub-optimal in terms of safety.

 

[Starmill]

I agree that the wire gradient is the issue, but Network Rail did want to replace this bridge at the time of the Great Western electrification. I am sure that most people remember all the objections by the locals and in the end they got their way because it was a grade 2 listed structure. If the bridge was rebuilt, then the 110mph restriction for electric traction would be lifted to 125mph.

Same goes for the level crossing closure. Unfortunately neither is on the table.

 

[jfollows]

Is it possible that they could be closed one day? They both look like minor roads throughout the neighbourhood and the diversions don't look especially arduous for cars at least - it'd be good to get footbridges for at least Navigation Road

I doubt it, although I won’t personally make the mistake of using either of them in future.

 

[brad465]

I agree that the wire gradient is the issue, but Network Rail did want to replace this bridge at the time of the Great Western electrification. I am sure that most people remember all the objections by the locals and in the end they got their way because it was a grade 2 listed structure. If the bridge was rebuilt, then the 110mph restriction for electric traction would be lifted to 125mph.

I'd have thought if they were going to go the trouble of replacing a bridge, why not close the level crossing and build a bridge there? For a little extra cost, they'd have had the best of both worlds: the Grade II listed bridge stays put, while Network Rail don't have to lower the line speed and spend vast sums of money and time researching and testing safe speeds for pantographs to traverse an unusually steep wire gradient.

 

[izvor]

Reigate (A217) - usually cited as the major constraint on the North Downs Line increasing to 3tph. (plus GWR's shortage of units of course)

No easy solution for replacement.

 

[daodao]

Is it possible that they could be closed one day? They both look like minor roads throughout the neighbourhood and the diversions don't look especially arduous for cars at least - it'd be good to get footbridges for at least Navigation Road

The Navigation Road crossing is used by Timperley circular bus routes 285 and 286, so these would need to be diverted. In Hale, similar circular bus routes 283 and 284 have been diverted permanently in recent years away from the Hale station level crossing.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

The several crossings on the Windsor Lines (North Sheen, Egham, etc) are an absolute cap on capacity because although you could get a few more per hour on the rail side, the road congestion on extremely busy roads (including pedestrians), plus the current high frequency, leads to traffic being backed up all day long. Development long ago right up to the four corners of the crossing prevents any bridge/underpass solution

Agree entirely. My bold, when one looks at Google the only two that have potential space to allow bridge/dive under solutions are Vine Road (Barnes) and Prune Hill (London side of Virginia Water), the rest are hemmed in. Just the nature of history and suburban outer London.

 

[WideRanger]

Then again, super high frequency lines in Tokyo manage with crossings and mixed stopping patterns - thinking that Keio line between Shibuya and Kichijoji. No freight though and fairly self contained

I was thinking about the very different approach to level crossings in Tokyo. While there is a programme to try to get rid of them, it is normally by elevating the line or putting the line in a tunnel. It is very rare for them to be closed. What is striking is that there are thousands of them, and so feature much more in people's consciousness. They are generally automatic, but with pretty quick cycles. And on some lines, they are down most of the time during peak hours. However, because there are many, people wanting to get from one side of a line to another very rarely have to funnel through a choke point. To illustrate, take Keisei Yawata station, on the Keisei Main Line. Generally it has 3 stopping trains in each direction every 10 minutes, with additional non-stop trains at peak times, on a single island platform. There are level crossings immediately on both sides of the station. And they are down a lot. However, importantly, within the 800m stretch of that line, centred on the station, there are 5 level crossings for roads, 2 pedestrian and cycle only level crossings, and a footbridge over the station, served by lifts on both sides. So the actual inconvenience is limited, because the traffic is spread out.