Network Rail seems to have a presumption against underpasses by using the quote:Interesting video. Is there another similar timelapse of one of the many smaller Dutch pedestrian/cycle underpasses being built (without vehicular carriageway). Subways routinely get dismissed in UK as too difficult or costly, or somehow more risky and unpleasant for usets yet in NL they are far more popular despite the flat landscape, or maybe the flat terrain makes huge footbridge over electrification clearances with long accessible ramps more visible hence less acceptable. Only having to drop 3m down to get under rather than rising 6m or 7m to get over a track significantly reduces the length of ramp required.
As seen here:While cost estimates of a bridleway underpass have not been developed, it is a general rule that in terms of cost, subsurface construction of the type proposed in this report can typically be considered to be at least double that of an equivalent overbridge solution.
Only having to drop 3m down to get under rather than rising 6m or 7m to get over a track significantly reduces the length of ramp required.
In summary, it is more onerous to put a road under a railway, rather than over it. So the quote from Network Rail is broadly correct.
The Felixstowe example for the outline design (not costed) Bridleway alternative used a design minimum headroom of 3.7m.I was thinking of 3m headroom clearance for pedestrian and cycle routes specifically. Bridleways a bit larger but maybe not as much as general road traffic?
Minimum headroom of 3.7m (to allow equestrian use without dismounting) in accordance with TD 36/93
For a bridleway or footpath that would be reasonable. Roads are different though - as noted before.I was thinking of 3m headroom clearance for pedestrian and cycle routes specifically. Bridleways a bit larger but maybe not as much as general road traffic?