Low bridge adjacent to level crossing

[jfuller595@gma]

Stonea Railway Crossing on the Sixteen Foot Bank, Stonea (Cambs)
The bridge here holds the dubious title of the 'Most Struck Bridge in Britain' with 33 strikes last year (although the real figure is much higher)

The other concern is the road layout. Vehicles too tall to go under the 6'6" bridge have to leave the main carriageway and go over the crossing itself.
Vehicles frequently go over the crossing, neglect to stop and look before merging back onto the carriageway resulting in smashes. There was sadly a death here some months ago.

To make matters more complicated, the crossing gate is manually controlled.

Despite the frequent bridge strikes and accidents around the bridge, Network Rail and Cambridgeshire Council have stated that they cannot close the underpass until the crossing itself is upgraded to automatic barriers. Network Rail and the Council have said that this location is not deemed dangerous enough to warrant further investment and that upgrades to the barriers will cost millions

Network Rail claim that it is too dangerous to close the underpass while there are manual gates due to the volume of traffic going over the crossing.

Other ideas, such as a reduction in speed limit around this location have been refused. It is currently a 50mph limit despite the underpass not being wide enough to accommodate two cars.

The residents are at a loss as to what to do. They claim the bridge is struck on average twice a week and the road layout makes it unsafe coming on and off of their driveways.

Is anyone aware of other locations like this one? I'm not aware of one myself.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Just build a barrier in front of the bridge so the bridge doesn't get struck, cheap simple alternative.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Think I've seen a similar arrangement on the Harwich branch in Essex (?) but the "upper level" has lifting barriers

 

[Purple Train]

It depends what you mean by "a location like this one". For example, Caldicot station has a level crossing (user-worked I think) and a low underpass, but the underpass is (according to the sign) 5'9" tall, which makes it not altogether helpful, and there is nowhere near the volume of traffic, and consequently no/very few bashes. In terms of all the factors put together, I would call Stonea unique, but Caldicot has the layout, numerous other bridges have bashing issues, and numerous other places are accident blackspots.

 

[Merle Haggard]

My memory might be wrong, but isn't there a similar arrangement in Coventry on the Nuneaton line? Radford Road possibly. And Ely used to be the same, haven't been there by road for a very long time, though.

 

[jfuller595@gma]

Just build a barrier in front of the bridge so the bridge doesn't get struck, cheap simple alternative.

Another option that's been put forward and rejected.

 

[mr_moo]

My memory might be wrong, but isn't there a similar arrangement in Coventry on the Nuneaton line? Radford Road possibly.

You are correct - Counden road. Here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/MYJ3RgCgqN5b7K7w8

 

[jfuller595@gma]

Ideally seeking out a similar arrangement to see how other locations have mitigated risk. I'll have a look at your suggestions.

My memory might be wrong, but isn't there a similar arrangement in Coventry on the Nuneaton line? Radford Road possibly. And Ely used to be the same, haven't been there by road for a very long time, though.

Ely now has a bypass to avoid the bridge.

It depends what you mean by "a location like this one". For example, Caldicot station has a level crossing (user-worked I think) and a low underpass, but the underpass is (according to the sign) 5'9" tall, which makes it not altogether helpful, and there is nowhere near the volume of traffic, and consequently no/very few bashes. In terms of all the factors put together, I would call Stonea unique, but Caldicot has the layout, numerous other bridges have bashing issues, and numerous other places are accident blackspots.

I'll have a look at Caldicot. Thanks

 

[AndyNLondon]

The other concern is the road layout. Vehicles too tall to go under the 6'6" bridge have to leave the main carriageway and go over the crossing itself.
Vehicles frequently go over the crossing, neglect to stop and look before merging back onto the carriageway resulting in smashes. There was sadly a death here some months ago.

An observation about the road layout: although the road markings show the underpass as the main carriageway and the crossing as leaving & re-joining it, the physical layout is that the crossing is the straight-line route which the road through the underpass leaves and re-joins. So you've got a conflict there between the "shape of the tarmac" layout and the "painted lines" layout. I presume the reason for the painted layout is to say to drivers "the underpass is the default, use it unless your vehicle won't fit", which makes sense from the persepctive of managing the level crossing (safer and less delays) but makes those merges less than ideal - especially as a driver who's been getting impatient waiting at the crossing might then be reluctant to wait again at the give-way line.

 

[66701GBRF]

Given the clear hazard it is somewhat surprising the speed is 50mph.

 

[jfuller595@gma]

An observation about the road layout: although the road markings show the underpass as the main carriageway and the crossing as leaving & re-joining it, the physical layout is that the crossing is the straight-line route which the road through the underpass leaves and re-joins. So you've got a conflict there between the "shape of the tarmac" layout and the "painted lines" layout. I presume the reason for the painted layout is to say to drivers "the underpass is the default, use it unless your vehicle won't fit", which makes sense from the persepctive of managing the level crossing (safer and less delays) but makes those merges less than ideal - especially as a driver who's been getting impatient waiting at the crossing might then be reluctant to wait again at the give-way line.

That's precisely it. The road is straight and very quick - resulting in this

 

[David Burrows]

Think I've seen a similar arrangement on the Harwich branch in Essex (?) but the "upper level" has lifting barriers

Yes, adjacent to Manningtree station, which is actually in Lawford.

 

[jfuller595@gma]

Given the clear hazard it is somewhat surprising the speed is 50mph.

The Council claim reducing the speed limit make it more dangerous as it'll be more difficult to judge speed due to the lack of enforcement.
I.e some will follow speed limit, others won't

Our frustration is that both Network Rail and the Council seemingly have no idea of the issues here.
The bridge has been hit 3 times since Friday - but Network Rail have no record.
The smashes, unless serious enough to warrant the emergency services aren't recorded.
A couple times a week a crash will happen but, fortunately it's their not overly serious. Sadly there's been some nasty smashes this year, air ambulance in attendance twice.

 

[ac6000cw]

Given the clear hazard it is somewhat surprising the speed is 50mph.

I agree.

You could turn the road junctions on each side into mini-roundabouts (so the underpass users would have to 'give way' as well as the crossing users), but I suspect those need to be in a lower speed area than 50mph

The Council claim reducing the speed limit make it more dangerous as it'll be more difficult to judge speed due to the lack of enforcement.
I.e some will follow speed limit, others won't

Provide some automated enforcement as well then - speed cameras etc. Even some speed-measuring illuminated/flashing warning signs might help.

 

[Spartacus]

I think Caldicot station crossing's been padlocked for a while now.

Another option that's been put forward and rejected.

The bridge (118) has a protection beam but inevitably when these are struck you still have to check in case there's been further damage been done or not. You also can't put them far from the bridge otherwise it becomes a highways issue, potentially limiting access to local homes and businesses as well as if the council wants to do something like resurface the road. Usually, as in this case, they're mounted to the bridge parapets.

 

[jfuller595@gma]

A couple weeks ago a motorhome towing a car stopped just short of the bridge.
Driver got out, detached his car and reversed it up the road, back to the junction.
He then went back for the motorhome, reversed it back up the road and over the crossing. He then left the motorhome on the junction the other side, walked under the bridge to collect his car, drove the car back to the motorhome and reattached it ON the crossing. Couldn't make it up ‍♂️‍♂️‍♂️

I agree.

You could turn the road junctions on each side into mini-roundabouts (so the underpass users would have to 'give way' as well as the crossing users), but I suspect those need to be in a lower speed area than 50mph


Provide some automated enforcement as well then - speed cameras etc. Even some speed-measuring illuminated/flashing warning signs might help.

I agree entirely. They say reducing the speed limit at all goes against Department of Transport advice and that because the location is officially 'low risk' it isn't worth installing cameras or any further infrastructure.

 

[Falcon1200]

Our frustration is that both Network Rail and the Council seemingly have no idea of the issues here.
The bridge has been hit 3 times since Friday - but Network Rail have no record.

Network Rail (NR) record every single bridge strike and take the appropriate action depending on the bridge classification; And if the Police are advised of a bridge strike they should, and in my experience invariably do, advise NR immediately. How can it be known that 3 strikes have occurred since Friday, if NR do not know?

 

[jfuller595@gma]

Network Rail (NR) record every single bridge strike and take the appropriate action depending on the bridge classification; And if the Police are advised of a bridge strike they should, and in my experience invariably do, advise NR immediately. How can it be known that 3 strikes have occurred since Friday, if NR do not know?

This is where I'm a bit clueless. Depending on what's hit the bridge, whether it's something like roof ladders/boxes etc quite often the signalman doesn't realise (at least I assume this is the case as the signalman normally comes out to take photographs if there's a strike)
But there's been cases of Luton vans hitting it and quickly driving off if the damage to the van isn't too bad.
Sometimes I do grab the signalman when he's going out to open/close the gate and tell him about a strike but often he's got no idea.

 

[Brewer66]

Close the underpass to motor vehicles. That removes the conflicts between routes merging on either side. Place a number of concrete bollards across and it can still be used by pedestrians / cyclists.

 

[jfuller595@gma]

Close the underpass to motor vehicles. That removes the conflicts between routes merging on either side. Place a number of concrete bollards across and it can still be used by pedestrians / cyclists.

That's what everybody says. I agree entirely with you. The residents are actively campaigning to make this a reality.

 

[Magdalia]

The other concern is the road layout. Vehicles too tall to go under the 6'6" bridge have to leave the main carriageway and go over the crossing itself.

Is anyone aware of other locations like this one? I'm not aware of one myself.

This was fairly common on lines constructed by the Great Eastern Railway, which was not a rich company and tried to avoid the costs of expensive earthworks. Obviously the bridge height varies a bit between locations.

Ely and Manningtree have already been mentioned.

Littleport was similar, but the bridge going under the railway is now for pedestrians only, all vehicle traffic has to use the level crossing.

Great Chesterford has something similar at Ickleton Road, just north of the station, but with full lifting barriers. This is on a bus route where the buses have to use the level crossing.

A very long time ago a notorious example was Milton Road in Cambridge on the St Ives branch. Like Littleport, this was on the main A10 trunk road before bypasses were constructed.

 

[jfuller595@gma]

This was fairly common on lines constructed by the Great Eastern Railway, which was not a rich company and tried to avoid the costs of expensive earthworks. Obviously the bridge height varies a bit between locations.

Ely and Manningtree have already been mentioned.

Littleport was similar, but the bridge going under the railway is now for pedestrians only, all vehicle traffic has to use the level crossing.

Great Chesterford has something similar at Ickleton Road, just north of the station, but with full lifting barriers. This is on a bus route where the buses have to use the level crossing.

A very long time ago a notorious example was Milton Road in Cambridge on the St Ives branch. Like Littleport, this was on the main A10 trunk road before bypasses were constructed.

That's very helpful. Thank you. Word is, Stonea might be able to get barriers as part of the Ely Capacity Enhancement but there's unlikely to be any funding until at least 2029.

 

[TheBigD]

Just build a barrier in front of the bridge so the bridge doesn't get struck, cheap simple alternative.

It already has one on the downside. Was installed after the bridge was hit and badly damaged in October 2019 and closed the road for the best part of 18 months.

On the up side there is a second bridge before the railway bridge. This provides access to the signalbox.

 

[Revilo]

I think Bishton crossing on the south wales mainline near Newport is still like this one. It has a manually gated crossing (with signal box) and a separate low height (5’6”) underpass for vehicles. Not sure about bridge strikes though.

 

[bpmsmith]

You can report each strike to Network Rail using the information on the identification plate on the bridge. See page 4 of this document.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a790997ed915d04220674c5/bridgestrikesoperation.pdf

The identification plates appear to be on the northern adit to the bridge, below the hazard warning strip.

Page 2 also notes that the Road Traffic Act requires any road traffic collision that causes damage to a 3rd party to be reported. Each bridge strike will cause damage to a bridge, and must therefore be reported.

You might also like to note the vehicle registration plate of each offending vehicle.

I also suggest that the height advisory triangle in the first photo needs to be raised above weed height (and a similar sign placed on the southern approach?).

 

[jfuller595@gma]

It already has one on the downside. Was installed after the bridge was hit and badly damaged in October 2019 and closed the road for the best part of 18 months.

On the up side there is a second bridge before the railway bridge. This provides access to the signalbox.

Yes I forgot about this. On the day it reopened it was struck

You can report each strike to Network Rail using the information on the identification plate on the bridge. See page 4 of this document.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a790997ed915d04220674c5/bridgestrikesoperation.pdf

The identification plates appear to be on the northern adit to the bridge, below the hazard warning strip.

Page 2 also notes that the Road Traffic Act requires any road traffic collision that causes damage to a 3rd party to be reported. Each bridge strike will cause damage to a bridge, and must therefore be reported.

You might also like to note the vehicle registration plate of each offending vehicle.

I do report them when I see them. But plenty just do a quick getaway. Very common

 

[Merle Haggard]

Just wonder why some bridge height signs are advisory (triangle) and some circular (set out the law). A long time ago I was given to understand that an (over) bridge strike is an absolute offence (i.e. no defence) but does the sign being advisory alter that?
Presumably, if you drive a (say) 13' 4" vehicle under a bridge with 13' 3" in a circle, an offence is committed even if the vehicle does not make contacts with the bridge (because of the tolerance in the sign for e.g. resurfacing)

 

[zwk500]

Just wonder why some bridge height signs are advisory (triangle) and some circular (set out the law). A long time ago I was given to understand that an (over) bridge strike is an absolute offence (i.e. no defence) but does the sign being advisory alter that?
Presumably, if you drive a (say) 13' 4" vehicle under a bridge with 13' 3" in a circle, an offence is committed even if the vehicle does not make contacts with the bridge (because of the tolerance in the sign for e.g. resurfacing)

In this example, the Triangle advises you of the upcoming hazard/restriction before you get to the actual prohibition (the sign on the bridge is circular).

I've seen it mentioned on here before - so may not be totally accurate - that flat deck bridges are prohibitions because the signed height is continuous across the road but arch bridges should be advisory because the signed height is taken at a particular section and specific vehicles taller than the signed height may be able to pass safely under the bridge. I'm sure there will be counter examples of both.

Regarding the OP's question - I take it from the photographs there is a watercourse behind the road that prevents a widening of the angle of the road junction? In this case I would explore the installation of priority chicane gates. Relatively cheap to install and self-enforcing. Widely used to good effect in many villages that suffer from being a sharp bend on a fast road. Closure of the underpass to motor traffic will increase the risk on the crossing itself which NR won't sanction paying for the upgrades as you've pointed out, while modification to the road junctions is unfeasible given the apparent constraints of the site and if the council refuse to sanction direct enforcement then an "engineering enforcement" would appear to be the only reasonable option left. Something like this: https://rosehillhighways.com/traffic-calming-chicanes/ (other manufacturers are available)

 

[Magdalia]

I take it from the photographs there is a watercourse behind the road that prevents a widening of the angle of the road junction?

The road is called Sixteen Foot Bank because it on the embankment that forms one of the banks of the Sixteen Foot Drain.

 

[Merle Haggard]

In this example, the Triangle advises you of the upcoming hazard/restriction before you get to the actual prohibition (the sign on the bridge is circular).

I've seen it mentioned on here before - so may not be totally accurate - that flat deck bridges are prohibitions because the signed height is continuous across the road but arch bridges should be advisory because the signed height is taken at a particular section and specific vehicles taller than the signed height may be able to pass safely under the bridge. I'm sure there will be counter examples of both.

Thanks, that does make perfect sense. I was thinking of the sign on the bridge, but the early warning sign at the roadside would, if circular, legally mean that you couldn't pass it ti get to property before the bridge. There's quite a few of the arched type where the clearance in the middle is considerably greater than at the kerb, as you suggest - often marked with the maximum clearance for a vehicle of normal legal max. width.