If there is no way to stop the utter clowns, the only logical solution, if the aim is to avoid collisions, is to remove the level crossing and replace with a bridge. This may involve a reroute of either the road or the railway. If the true cause of the problem cannot be eliminated, mitigation is the next step.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
More Level Crossing Lunacy ! Manningtree and Colchester
- Thread starter LAX54
- Start date
- Status
If there is no way to stop the utter clowns, the only logical solution, if the aim is to avoid collisions, is to remove the level crossing and replace with a bridge. This may involve a reroute of either the road or the railway. If the true cause of the problem cannot be eliminated, mitigation is the next step.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
No vehicles below a specified tonnage? It ought to be possible to choose a figure that is well above personal motor vehicles you want to stop and goods vehicles you want to permit.
There is no sign, that I can find to fit Manningtree, I assume Highways think that signs saying LOW BRIDGE and a Bright Yellow colour is enough! best I can come up with is cose the bridge, widen the crossing and do away with both those Junctions at the bottom of the hill, but as has already been said that creates another issue !
Manningtree and Ely are fixable with a sign saying "No vehicles" (plain white sign with a red ring on outside) and a plate underneath saying "except vehicles over (named height, which should be at 2" below bridge clearance). Cameras to enforce.
Chris M
Member
Would widening the bridge (or building a second one) make the route more attractive to cars? Heading north you have to give way when using the bridge but, when the crossing is open, its a straight run through over the crossing.
This wouldn't be cheap in absolute terms, but it's going to be cheaper than a flyover or tunnel. Ideally the layout would be something like the diagram below but the opposite layout (one crossing, two bridges) would also work.
This wouldn't be cheap in absolute terms, but it's going to be cheaper than a flyover or tunnel. Ideally the layout would be something like the diagram below but the opposite layout (one crossing, two bridges) would also work.
eastdyke
Established Member
The level crossing north of Ely station is 'fixed'. It closed 1/11/18 following the opening of Ely Southern By-Pass, a project that received a contribution of £5million from Network Rail.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Have you looked at the immediate area involved?
https://binged.it/2mXf72g
Your suggestion means 2 tunnels under the line, that would mean having to tunnel under the junction, which I suspect would mean the closure of a very busy rail line, and the demolition of 4 houses. Plus there is something in my mind that there is now a lowest height limit for any new bridge built.
If you are suggesting 2 over-bridges then the slope on the town side would be far too steep for modern convention to get it onto the roundabout, and that cannot be extended due to the housing opposite.
And I have been asked (externally) how I know the area? We regularly visit the area as we have friends who have just moved from Brantham to Bradfield, and we have regularly used the crossing.
It's a really difficult area to do anything in - it's in an AONB, plus flood risk means they're extremely limited in what they can do.
Part of the problem was the recent roadworks on the A137 while the new cycle path was installed alongside it - caused even more tailbacks than usual.
Essex Highways are evaluating whether traffic lights under the bridge might help, but even this is tied up in administrative delays.
They decided to run a pilot programme for a few months (funded as part of the S106 agreement for one of the many new housing estates nearby), but that's still not happened because Network Rail won't let them attach cables to the bridge until they've completed a structural survey!
(Bradfield resident who has to travel under that bridge regularly to get to Ipswich and Felixstowe).
Part of the problem was the recent roadworks on the A137 while the new cycle path was installed alongside it - caused even more tailbacks than usual.
Essex Highways are evaluating whether traffic lights under the bridge might help, but even this is tied up in administrative delays.
They decided to run a pilot programme for a few months (funded as part of the S106 agreement for one of the many new housing estates nearby), but that's still not happened because Network Rail won't let them attach cables to the bridge until they've completed a structural survey!
(Bradfield resident who has to travel under that bridge regularly to get to Ipswich and Felixstowe).
Widening the under-bridge would help, it is currently one lane with southbound priority if I recall, allowing continuous flow northbound should reduce the number of northbound cars wanting to go over the crossing.
With the current layout you have to give priority to traffic northbound over the crossing as it is very difficult to see traffic approaching from the underbridge in your mirrors due to the gradient in the road. So if you could extend the merge of northbound traffic northwards by road widening you might be able to improve the northbound flow under the bridge.
I was brought up in Manningtree and have spent many years idling wondering how to improve the layout of this crossing.
With the current layout you have to give priority to traffic northbound over the crossing as it is very difficult to see traffic approaching from the underbridge in your mirrors due to the gradient in the road. So if you could extend the merge of northbound traffic northwards by road widening you might be able to improve the northbound flow under the bridge.
I was brought up in Manningtree and have spent many years idling wondering how to improve the layout of this crossing.
steve_brown
Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 17
Any solution would have to avoid impacting the AONB, so that probably precludes any sort of bridge, as this would be visible from Flatford. I believe this is the same reason a larger multi-story car park cannot be provided nor can the land to the north of the station be developed.
In my view, the most viable solution would be to temporarily shut the whole thing, fill in the bridge and then tunnel under the whole lot. Flooding risk would presumably be manageable with a tunnel configuration, it seems to work OK at Dartford!
The underbridge itself is in a poor state and something is going to have to be done at some stage, before it becomes structurally unsafe. Traffic is only really a problem around school times but the layout is incredibly risky for pedestrians as it stands.
They're currently enlarging the car park - extending the upper multi-storey level across the existing car park.
If you can work out where they'd get about £10m from, I'm sure they'd happily put in a flood resistant tunnel
Traffic can be bad any weekday, even during school holidays.
It'll get far worse if/when the 300 houses are built at Brantham, the 400+ at Mistley and 500+ in Lawford are completed. The application for once confirmed that, at peak times, they estimate that traffic queues down the hill toward the bridge could increase in length by over 100 cars (basically the entire length of Cox's Hill).
steve_brown
Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 17
Presumably that's permitted because the top deck is actually at about railway ground level, and the lower deck is sunk and so the whole thing is invisible from a distance.
If you can work out where they'd get about £10m from, I'm sure they'd happily put in a flood resistant tunnel
I expect £10 million might be on the low side, but if I were the Sponsor I'd be looking a building a case based on reducing safety risk at the level crossing, combined with unlocking extra network capacity between Ipswich and Colchester. And if the bridge expires then the cost becomes academic.
Agreed, but as I live in a new build in the area I can't really complain about that!
- Status