A
The Melbourne crossing was 2 tracks crossing two tracks, I have a picture somewhere. It may well be 600V, my mistake.
Agreed it would be difficult for high speed, hence I think conductor bar would be the answer. (And the ECML is 100mph across the flat crossing, not that it makes much difference!)
Edit: the Melbourne one I was thinking of is Burke Road, Gardiner. However there is another one still in use at Glen Huntly. You can see it on google street view.
https://goo.gl/maps/7TgZCPGSWyb3STJE9
From Google maps in the centre of Helsinki on the tram network - a nice example of OHL crossing at 90 degrees. Funny I never thought about the logistics of it until I saw this thread.
lets not even get started on trolleybus 'points'!What's even more fun is where you get trams and trolleybus wires crossing one another (given they do different things, both electrically and mechanically); I nearly missed a train in Linz once, stopping on the way to the station to look at a junction like that and figure out what was going on with the network of wires above my head, and how it worked...
But it would be more reliable - 'Do it once, do it right'!It definitely would not be easier and cheaper to build a flyover!
But it would be more reliable - 'Do it once, do it right'!
A little bit of reliability? It'd remove the conflict between the two lines thus increasing the paths available on the busy ECML. It'd also (if the second line were to be wired) remove the design difficulties associated with designing and installing the wiring which would, no doubt, need a permanent speed restriction over the crossing.A £200m difference for a little bit of reliability is a huge price to pay.
Start thinking about it now and it may be ready when needed!The flat crossing was only renewed the other week....Give it 20 years before thinking about alternatives.
A little bit of reliability? It'd remove the conflict between the two lines thus increasing the paths available on the busy ECML. It'd also (if the second line were to be wired) remove the design difficulties associated with designing and installing the wiring which would, no doubt, need a permanent speed restriction over the crossing.
Sorry, I meant across!How many extra paths would be created on the ECML to London through provision of a flyover? (Clue: if it’s more than none, think again).
Sorry, I meant across!
There’s spare paths available across now. At least one an hour in each direction, and often two.
But apparently the East Midlands franchise isn't allowed to have a second Lincoln to Nottingham path each way per hour.
The Flat Crossing does seem to hardwire the timetable though.
Fairly sure that it is Newark that’s the issue - the franchise spec not only specifies no more than 1tph each way, but also that the Up and Down trains are timed to cross there to minimise the number of movements across the flat crossing. There’s other paths though - two freights across in some hours, IIRC. Whether £200m is justified by the improvements for Lincolnshire is a whole new discussion, or whether it’d be more cost effective to divert some freight via another route to free up more paths.1) possibly, but I doubt it’s Newark that is th3 issue
2) undoubtedly.
The A46 there is always clogged up. In a sane world they would build 1 structure, for a 2nd road carriageway, the Newark castle railway and while they are at it a flyover over the A46 where the great north road (The one that comes in past the sugar works) crosses. The current roundabout always get clogged up by the level crossing.Fairly sure that it is Newark that’s the issue - the franchise spec not only specifies no more than 1tph each way, but also that the Up and Down trains are timed to cross there to minimise the number of movements across the flat crossing. There’s other paths though - two freights across in some hours, IIRC. Whether £200m is justified by the improvements for Lincolnshire is a whole new discussion, or whether it’d be more cost effective to divert some freight via another route to free up more paths.