Billericay - 30mph speed restriction on straight track

[JBuchananGB]

It is more than a year now since the pedestrian level crossing near Billericay station was replaced by a footbridge, but the 30mph speed restriction is still in force, and religiously complied with by drivers slowing down on approach, and not seeding up on departure to/from the station.
How long does it take Network Rail to catch up with such a change to the infrastructure and update the speed restrictions? I notice that London bound is 80mph beyond the 30, and Southend bound is 70mph.

 

[najaB]

....the 30mph speed restriction is still in force, and religiously complied with by drivers...

I know you probably didn't intend it, but that reads as if you think the drivers shouldn't be complying with it.

 

[JBuchananGB]

Of course the drivers are doing the right thing, but pointlessly, until the powers-that-be get their act together. I was just wondering how long that might take.

 

[XDM]

When the A road level crossing east of Lewes on the Eastbourne main line
was replaced by a £10 million bridge Network Rail did not raise the 40 mph over the former crossing to 90 or 75 mph line speed until 15 months after the crossing was closed.
When the Sanderstead to Selsdon,Elmers end line closed in the 1980's & the junction was plain lined north of Sanderstead,BR & then Network Rail left the ground signal,two red lights in place. The tram was built much further north on part of the route,yet the ground signal has been burning to this day,pointing north to no one & nowhere. Maybe NR even send someone to hack their through the brambles & change the bulbs every few years. I reckon it uses £600 of electricity every year. That's £18,000 & rising so far. The truth is Network rail does not care. It's other people's money. Same mentality at Billericay. Same mentality everywhere. I often wonder if the guiding minds running NR actually hate railways from their actions.

 

[321446]

We've asked. And asked. And asked. Now we'll just keep complying blindly until one day there'll be a line in the WON and a lack of signage. Then three days later they'll slap on an ESR because of track condition or something & we'll be back to usual for however long that takes (Gidea cross-overs anyone?)!

It won't make THAT much difference except to the laundry when it gets taken away the first time and we all try to get our eye in to braking for Billericay without the 30 buffer on the Down.

Prob is due to come out soon, now that we've got the 50 at Mountnessing. Can't have us keeping to time twixt Billericay & Shenfield now, can we?

I presume Billericay - Ramsden Bellhouse is 70 both ways is because of curvature of the line, that and to make us easier targets for the paintballers in Norsey Woods.

 

[carriageline]

When the A road level crossing east of Lewes on the Eastbourne main line

was replaced by a £10 million bridge Network Rail did not raise the 40 mph over the former crossing to 90 or 75 mph line speed until 15 months after the crossing was closed.

When the Sanderstead to Selsdon,Elmers end line closed in the 1980's & the junction was plain lined north of Sanderstead,BR & then Network Rail left the ground signal,two red lights in place. The tram was built much further north on part of the route,yet the ground signal has been burning to this day,pointing north to no one & nowhere. Maybe NR even send someone to hack their through the brambles & change the bulbs every few years. I reckon it uses £600 of electricity every year. That's £18,000 & rising so far. The truth is Network rail does not care. It's other people's money. Same mentality at Billericay. Same mentality everywhere. I often wonder if the guiding minds running NR actually hate railways from their actions.

With your second example, sometimes it can cost a lot more to remove it. I've heard of locations were a branch line is removed at a junction, but the signal coming off what was the branch is still in situ, as it's cheaper to leave it there than it is for all the interlocking adjustments and bits and pieces to go with it. Not saying that's what has happened here, but it certainly does


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bald Rick]

One of my old favourites.

Notwithstanding the footbridge being open; is the crossing actually, formally, closed? Until it is, the restriction will stay on.

 

[LAX54]

With your second example, sometimes it can cost a lot more to remove it. I've heard of locations were a branch line is removed at a junction, but the signal coming off what was the branch is still in situ, as it's cheaper to leave it there than it is for all the interlocking adjustments and bits and pieces to go with it. Not saying that's what has happened here, but it certainly does


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On the GEML at Bentley on the Down 1294 points, which were traps beyond the crossing (and I think at one time were also the points to Hadleigh) still has the interlocking and indicated on the panel, even though plain lined.
2 GPL's Ipswich side of the Tunnel both in Down Direction, removed some years ago, but still within the signalling route locking, not sure why they ever took them out !

 

[dk1]

On the GEML at Bentley on the Down 1294 points, which were traps beyond the crossing (and I think at one time were also the points to Hadleigh) still has the interlocking and indicated on the panel, even though plain lined.
2 GPL's Ipswich side of the Tunnel both in Down Direction, removed some years ago, but still within the signalling route locking, not sure why they ever took them out !

I think they where deemed a risk for some reason Swills but can't remember why. It was back when Albert was usually the ferry friver at Ipswich. Overnight we suddenly had to go right through the tunnel to perform a shunt.

 

[TheEdge]

Is there still the GPL at, I think Romford, that is still working, maintained and illuminated even though the points and track work it relates to is long gone?

 

[super_sprinter]

Could there be any other reason for the restriction still being in place? I'm just curious – I know the bridge well!

Or is it simply a case of it not being reverted now the bridge is in place?

 

[JBuchananGB]

Referring to the Billericay crossing, I don't know the definition of "formally closed". It is certainly completely removed and replaced with a footbridge, and Essex County Council have officially diverted Public Footpath No. 7 so that it uses the footbridge.

Is there some other complicated process within the railway legislation which has to be completed to achieve "formal closure"?

 

[Railperf]

Anyone know why there is a 30mph speed restriction to the west of Billericay - on straight track. Either side are 70/80mph sections. This restriction is for a short distance too. As far as I can see there are no coal mines in the area.

 

[bluenoxid]

Anyone know why there is a 30mph speed restriction to the west of Billericay - on straight track. Either side are 70/80mph sections. This restriction is for a short distance too. As far as I can see there are no coal mines in the area.

I did a quick dig on Google and picked up this but I do not know the area.

Billericay - 30mph speed restriction on straight track

It is more than a year now since the pedestrian level crossing near Billericay station was replaced by a footbridge, but the 30mph speed restriction is still in force, and religiously complied with by drivers slowing down on approach, and not seeding up on departure to/from the station. How...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Elecman]

With your second example, sometimes it can cost a lot more to remove it. I've heard of locations were a branch line is removed at a junction, but the signal coming off what was the branch is still in situ, as it's cheaper to leave it there than it is for all the interlocking adjustments and bits and pieces to go with it. Not saying that's what has happened here, but it certainly does


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Madeley in Staffordshire still has the full lit signal on the long disconnected Branch to Silverdale

 

[306024]

Referring to the Billericay crossing, I don't know the definition of "formally closed". It is certainly completely removed and replaced with a footbridge, and Essex County Council have officially diverted Public Footpath No. 7 so that it uses the footbridge.

Is there some other complicated process within the railway legislation which has to be completed to achieve "formal closure"?

This has been raised at every level, from GA MD to Billericay Rotary Club. It has frustrated many for a long time now, some are even doubting they will live long enough to see it removed.

 

[JBuchananGB]

Lovely to see my old thread get a new lease of life after all these years. At least @Railperf has found his answer.

 

[Railperf]

Lovely to see my old thread get a new lease of life after all these years. At least @Railperf has found his answer.

Thanks. Yes but frustrated 2 years later this is still unresolved!!

 

[Noddy]

Thanks. Yes but frustrated 2 years later this is still unresolved!!

Judging by the date and statement in the opening post this looks like it’s been an issue for about 5 years now. Completely crazy.

 

[markymark2000]

I'm interested to know, how much work would be involved in changing the speed limit? Are costs stopping NR doing it? Is the message not getting high enough to the right people? If we can't sort what should be a simple task, what hope do we have for NR in their bigger projects.

 

[JBuchananGB]

It is reminiscent of highway projects I have known. A large capital project takes place, part of which involves erecting some signs such as "new crossing ahead" or "signal priorities changed". These signs are left in situ when the job is finished. Five, ten years later the faded signs, covered in moss still proclaim their message. When I was in Billericay, and able to affect such things, I once managed to get Essex Highways to remove 15 such signs of various types, even then I missed a few. In some cases the post on which the sign was mounted is still there, which will lead someone, one day to wonder - why is that post there?
Clearly Network Rail had a large capital project to install new footbridge in Billericay, and no-one thought to include the relevant paperwork and administration, and maybe even budget, to change the line speed restriction associated with the foot crossing, which had after all been there for for over 100 years. (The crossing, I mean, I don't know about the speed restriction.)

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Does it matter, how many seconds does it cost?

 

[InOban]

Plus the additional brake wear and energy cost. If NR were billed for these it might concentrate minds.

 

[Bald Rick]

Given that no-one on here actually knows why the restriction is still on, I suggest everyone holds off making assumptions.

I can confirm that the project very much did include the necessary ‘paperwork’ etc, but (as ever) it’s not that easy.

 

[greaterangrier]

Following this FOI request made to Network Rail, it has been revealed that line speed in the area will be raised to 70mph in both directions.

NR also discloses that:

• this restriction has been around since at least 1999, such that the signalling was designed around the 30mph restriction so signals will have to be repositioned to facilitate the increase
• at least 3 recorded attempts made to increase the speed limit (at closure, through Network Change at an unknown date, and now the 9th May 2024)
• on the 20th July, an increase to the line speed will be commissioned

So, we will live long enough to see the speed raised... unless I've just jinxed it

 

[Railsigns]

The restriction was there in 1993 when the line was last resignalled, but it doesn't seem to have influenced the signal positions. As far as I can tell, abolishing the restriction would only affect the signalling to the extent of removing the permissible speed warning indicators and their AWS, and some TPWS alterations.

 

[louis97]

The restriction was there in 1993 when the line was last resignalled, but it doesn't seem to have influenced the signal positions. As far as I can tell, abolishing the restriction would only affect the signalling to the extent of removing the permissible speed warning indicators and their AWS, and some TPWS alterations.

The higher the line speed the further away the signals need to be visible from. So if the signals are not visible from far enough away for the higher line speed in current position, they will need to be moved before the line speed can be increased.

 

[Railsigns]

The higher the line speed the further away the signals need to be visible from. So if the signals are not visible from far enough away for the higher line speed in current position, they will need to be moved before the line speed can be increased.

There are no signals within the 30 mph restriction, which is very short in length. The signals are consistently spaced on either side of the restriction, as though it doesn't exist.

 

[dk1]

Similar issue with the Ely-Norwich route where speed restrictions for signal sighting are still in place even though they haven’t been there since 2012. Resignalling then did not include any alterations to any speeds. Absolutely farsical it’s gone on so long and still no resolution in sight.

 

[Railperf]

Similar issue with the Ely-Norwich route where speed restrictions for signal sighting are still in place even though they haven’t been there since 2012. Resignalling then did not include any alterations to any speeds. Absolutely farsical it’s gone on so long and still no resolution in sight.

Which signals in particular? Yes Norwich to Ely seems to be straight enough to be mainly 90mph all the way. I don't suppose they imagined 100mph capable Stadlers running along that route when they planned the resignalling. What's more the Stadlers (4-engined variants) can get to 100mph quite quickly too!