Egham level crossing - increased road delays?

[rob.rjt]

What I don't get is why the council don't build a bridge at the Prune Hill crossing adjacent to Royal Holloway UoL or apply for funding for one? There's plenty of land, and it would lessen the queues at the other 2 level crossings.

Prune Hill is probably the least useful to bridge - it was low enough risk that it was still an AHB until last year. When I worked in the area, I only used Prune Hill if I had was working at Royal Holloway.

It also doesn't get you to the most useful of places. The main problem crossings are Pooley Green and Thorpe Road with people from Egham Hythe making for Egham and Staines town centres. Egham station is less of a problem. I used it a few times at the same time I'd have been hitting Pooley Green and the queues were less.

I suspect that the crossings cannot be fixed from the road side, and the only one that could be fixed from the rail side is Thorpe Road, but that would be ruinously expensive (I am guessing it would require raising the railway from Staines Bridge getting back to ground level near Pooley Green.

 

[snowball]

They did that down the Reading road when Waterloo crossing AHB closed.(I think that's the reason)
Must have cost a bomb.

For the benefit of those of us not familiar with the area (but who spend a lot of time looking at maps), could you please clarify what location you are referring to here?

 

[swt_passenger]

For the benefit of those of us not familiar with the area (but who spend a lot of time looking at maps), could you please clarify what location you are referring to here?

It’s near Wokingham, the new road bridge is about 2 miles towards Waterloo. If you look at a Google aerial view it’s a bit out of date - you can see the new bridge in progress but the AHBC on Waterloo Road just to the west of it is still shown as open.

I think the bridge was built as a prerequisite for development south of the tracks.

 

[snowball]

Thank you, found it. You can "drive" along William Heelas Way on Google Streetview.

 

[stuving]

I think the bridge was built as a prerequisite for development south of the tracks.

The new bridge was built by the developers as part of the Eastern Gateway, as agreed for planning. This area is within the the South Wokingham "Strategic Development Location" but north of the railway. The rest is of the SDL still being talked about. The road should become part of Wokingham's ring road on the cheap, made out of a string of access roads, though for now you have to go a long way out of town to get to the south end of the bridge.

In the context of this thread, it will be more interesting to see what happens to "my" level crossing, by the station, when it gets its new controls next year. Work is still underway, e.g. today cutting a new trench across the road for a second cable route (there's no space for a second UTX between the road and the platforms).

In the past, this crossing shared the honours with Egham for blocking Airtrack due to its lack of spare capacity. However, after that it was greatly improved by having junction traffic lights installed, linked (via relays) with the crossing. That trick works best if the traffic is impeded by badly designed junctions right by the crossing; I don't think that's true of Egham.

 

[OscarH]

I'm sure this isn't a problem at places like Angmering in the Littlehampton direction where the doors of the rear carriage don't open

There's no issue in the Littlehampton direction, as the 377s lock out the back doors on short platforms (ie it's the back carriages that overhang), and the level crossing is ahead of the train. It does cause issues in the Worthing direction, as the same applies and the back carriages overhang the crossing holding up the traffic while the train is stopped

 

[TSG]

What I don't get is why the council don't build a bridge at the Prune Hill crossing adjacent to Royal Holloway UoL or apply for funding for one? There's plenty of land, and it would lessen the queues at the other 2 level crossings.

I'd suggest that's because that route is unsuitable for the volume of traffic using the local level crossings to divert to. There's quite a lot of places two HGVs would struggle to pass. It would need to be a bridge and upgrades to/bypass of approach roads, probably from the A30 to the other side of the M25. Not cheap.

However, if it is steadily worsening, then the whinges may have merit. I do wonder whether the full risk implications are accounted for regarding road users and the railway when planning signalling changes that worsen road delays - i.e encouraging road users to take risks and cause delays through crossing abuse.

No they are not taken into account. I remember an interview with someone from the Railway Inspectorate (or whatever they were called at the time) and when this was raised the response was on the lines "What road users do is not our problem - they should just behave themselves".

Either this was a statement for public consumption or this was a long time ago. The risk absolutely is taken into account. However, automated crossings with shorter down times do not seem to correlate with better user behaviour in many situations. It is also a fact that the consequences of user misbehaviour (both to the foolhardy/inattentive road user and the rail traveller) are better controlled by a MCB crossing than, say, an AHB. One could argue that the crossing users are inconvenienced on account of a handful of morons, but since these persons present a risk to both themselves and rail users, they cannot be discounted.

However, it does appear to have have worsened with the switch of control.

Schemes typically review whether they are operating as intended, so I'd imagine this will be looked at.

 

[BrianW]

I don't seem to see on this thread any suggestion that the 'whingers' might leave home for their GP appointments earlier?
I have seen, IIRC, suggestions that safety margins could/ should be reduced.
I have no wish to consider that 'the authorities' haven't the public interest at heart in decision-making.
'The developers' that paid for a new bridge (#35?) will have put the cost onto the development.
Can the councillor quoted not be thought to be doing his/her job to represent the interest of whinging electors?

 

[Taunton]

Schemes typically review whether they are operating as intended, so I'd imagine this will be looked at.

Well, each of the two resignallings further in, at North Sheen/Mortlake, since the days of manual gate boxes, which as I described above each extended closure times, will doubtless have been found to be "operating as intended" ...

 

[AlastairFraser]

They did that down the Reading road when Waterloo crossing AHB closed.(I think that's the reason)
Must have cost a bomb.

It will be, but it's the only way to solve the issue indefinitely

I think that would involve a CPO on an oligarch’s garden, and they have lots of lawyers.
I wonder whether they would worry about it becoming a rat run to Staines avoiding the M25 junction.

Ah, that explains somewhat lol.
As for your second point, you're still going to hit the LC at Thorpe Rd using this route, unless you fight your way across to Chertsey Lane somehow.

.

I suspect that the crossings cannot be fixed from the road side, and the only one that could be fixed from the rail side is Thorpe Road, but that would be ruinously expensive (I am guessing it would require raising the railway from Staines Bridge getting back to ground level near Pooley Green.

Precisely this part is why you would consider Prune Hill crossing over the others (save for the potential CPO issue mentioned by Meerkat).
Pooley Green crossing is going to be near-impossible to fix because of the M25 crossing and the property development in the area, Thorpe Green is going to need about 600m of viaduct as you've acknowledged.
Bridging Prune Hill crossing if you could acquire the land for a reasonable amount seems the best option, unless you could sort Egham station with a Melbourne-style elevated station and bridge (you're looking at 62 million plus though!).

 

[66701GBRF]

If you want to see the outcome of putting the gates across just to suit the railway's procedures, regardless of why people are wanting to cross the line, look up the Elsenham crossing accident.

The girls were killed after going through an unlocked pedestrian gate, what does "putting the gates across just to suit the railway's procedures, regardless of why people are wanting to cross the line" mean and what has that got to do with anything?

 

[Taunton]

Bridging Prune Hill crossing if you could acquire the land for a reasonable amount seems the best option,

Also, if you get round to buying it. The crossing at North Sheen looks like it is surrounded by houses on all sides, but the NE side, where the footpath to the station squeezes in, was redeveloped for a new apartment block right up to the railway boundary fence in relatively recent times. It would have been a notable help to take the land there at just the land value, but it was an opportunity missed. Likewise for the new supermarket hard up against the other side.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Also, if you get round to buying it. The crossing at North Sheen looks like it is surrounded by houses on all sides, but the NE side, where the footpath to the station squeezes in, was redeveloped for a new apartment block right up to the railway boundary fence in relatively recent times. It would have been a notable help to take the land there at just the land value, but it was an opportunity missed. Likewise for the new supermarket hard up against the other side.

That's up to NR or Runnymede Borough Council, isn't it though - if them sitting on their hands means they miss the opportunity, the railway can't be blamed.

 

[Juniper Driver]

Thank you, found it. You can "drive" along William Heelas Way on Google Streetview.

Yeah, sorry about that.Didn't realise someone would want more info.