• 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!

Level Crossing replacement in the Netherlands

Status
Not open for further replies.

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,773
I know this is "International" but I thought this section would like to see this video of a level crossing being replaced with a road underpass
Note the cycleways (both sides) don't go as far down as they only need 3m headroom
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,265
Location
Torbay
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.
 

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
East Midlands
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.
Network Rail seems to have a presumption against underpasses by using the quote:
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.
As seen here:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/anglia/felixstowe-branch-line/
 

Ploughman

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Messages
2,892
Location
Near where the 3 ridings meet
In the length of the film I did not see any traffic on the railway line.
Was it shut for the duration of the works?
Or is it a closed line or what?
Or did I miss something?
 
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
411
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.

Typical headroom for road over rail bridge (top of rail to underside of bridge) - 5m
Typical headroom for rail over road bridge (carriageway to underside of bridge) - 5m
Typical headroom for rail over road bridge (carriageway to underside of bridge) - 6m (high load route

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.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,265
Location
Torbay
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.

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?
 

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
East Midlands
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?
The Felixstowe example for the outline design (not costed) Bridleway alternative used a design minimum headroom of 3.7m.
https://16cbgt3sbwr8204sf92da3xxc5m.../uploads/2017/03/Underpass-Technical-Note.pdf
Minimum headroom of 3.7m (to allow equestrian use without dismounting) in accordance with TD 36/93
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,773
Underpasses for pedestrians and cyclists have a bad reputation in this country as we built so many bad ones in the 60s and 70s. Dutch ones are typically much wider, with good sight lines in and out, rather than narrow with right angle turns at the end. Under roads, they typically raise the road up as much/as often as they lower the foot and cycle route
 
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
411
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?
For a bridleway or footpath that would be reasonable. Roads are different though - as noted before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top