Lines for Level Crossing Closures

[bluenoxid]

Take it roughly parallel to the Eastburn Beck then to a grade segregated junction on the A629, and include a link to the back of the hospital too.

Yes, all this makes sense. I assume that any continuation towards Colne is along the line of the Crosshills/Glusburn bypass last discussed in the nineties

Regarding Cononley, is the logical route for any replacement up and over the cricket pitch and station. I appreciate the height differences in the land and huge outrage.

 

[Meerkat]

Not on-line, but zoom out a bit and an effective solution becomes plausible:
View attachment 179312
A road is diverted south of Tallington and Maxey to join the A15 1 roundabout further south (this bit of the A15 may need dualling to help but I suspect not). This replaces Tallington Crossing. A roundabout south of Lolham allows local access. Then we add a link to Bainton from the new Tallington Bypass, and that allows closure of the 2 level crossings on the Peterborugh-Leicester line and the 2nd (just south of Lolham) crossing on the ECML. Helpston crossing (lowest, at the Junction) could also be closed at the same time but may also require slightly more rejigging of the local road network.

Haven’t NR published plans for closing those LCs?

 

[Altnabreac]

By far the most pressing is the ECML south of Northallerton, and the GWML west of Didcot. That there are any level crossings on busy 125mph stretches of line is, in my personal opinion, an anachronism.

I seem to remember a Stanley Hall article in either Rail or MR about 15 years ago proposing exactly that as a simple safety proposal.

A pot of money each year to ensure all crossings on 100mph lines would close in first 5 years and then moving down speed bands every few years.

With a legislative requirement to implement closure it would avoid the need for excessive local enquiries on the necessity for change.

 

[HSTEd]

I seem to remember a Stanley Hall article in either Rail or MR about 15 years ago proposing exactly that as a simple safety proposal.

A pot of money each year to ensure all crossings on 100mph lines would close in first 5 years and then moving down speed bands every few years.

With a legislative requirement to implement closure it would avoid the need for excessive local enquiries on the necessity for change.

If there is a leigslative requirement to implement closure, wouldn't the programme just end up closing all the level crossings without replacement?

Such a power, or requirement, could easily lead to highly suboptimal outcomes.