RMweb Premium melmerby Posted May 10, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) Re: Glinton Road crossing ECML Can't give a streetview because that new fangled google map just doesn't work!It's well and truly broken so why replace the "classic" which wasn't? (Which would give a streetview at this Crossing) EDIT rest of post removed post removed: irrelevant! Edited May 10, 2015 by melmerby Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 10, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 10, 2015 Can't give a streetview because that new fangled google map just doesn't work! It's well and truly broken so why replace the "classic" which wasn't? (Which would give a streetview at this Crossing) Change to a different date in the Streetview box, top left. Here's the Streetview from August 2010: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.63618,-0.329667,3a,75y,254.54h,91.31t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1slZZnjDbcnxTX7ZDwTa5Smw!2e0!5s20100801T0000 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted May 10, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) Change to a different date in the Streetview box, top left. Here's the Streetview from August 2010: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.63618,-0.329667,3a,75y,254.54h,91.31t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1slZZnjDbcnxTX7ZDwTa5Smw!2e0!5s20100801T0000 Shows what a pile of poo the new google maps are! Why have a streetview which shows nothing? It's going to be replaced with a new overbridge and the crossing just south closed completely Some of the locals are bleating that they won't be able to ride their horses across and will have to go around! Keith Edited May 10, 2015 by melmerby Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 The problem is the cost. Somewhere you'll find the cost of replacing one level crossing, then multiply it out by the number of crossing in the UK. You'll end up with an alarming number (even if you get a discount from the builders). Besides, more people get killed in or by road vehicles, not at level crossings, so that money would be better spent elsewhere. I'm not sure cost is the biggest problem with level crossing replacement. On a suitable site a bridge would probably cost a couple of million, to which something must be added for approach ramps etc. However once built the structure itself requires virtually no maintenance for a 100+ year lifetime and the highway no more maintenance (and possibly less) than the previous one over the crossing. The crossing costs around a million to replace every 30 years or so, and requires a fair bit of maintenance, periodic risk assessment and general management attention in the meantime even if there are no accidents there. So if a bridge is easily possible, it probably makes sense to provide one on pure financial terms even before the safety benefit is considered. I think the problem is more that a bridge often isn't easily possible, due to the hemming in that someone mentioned, and/or local objections and other factors. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Budgie Posted May 10, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 10, 2015 Re: Glinton Road crossing ECML Can't give a streetview because that new fangled google map just doesn't work! Maybe they photographed it at night. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted May 10, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 10, 2015 Change to a different date in the Streetview box, top left. Here's the Streetview from August 2010: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.63618,-0.329667,3a,75y,254.54h,91.31t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1slZZnjDbcnxTX7ZDwTa5Smw!2e0!5s20100801T0000 And go back to March 2009 and see two cars crossing while the red lights are flashing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 10, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 10, 2015 Shows what a pile of poo the new google maps are! Why have a streetview which shows nothing? That's a bit harsh. Out of millions of images an occasional glitch isn't the end of the world. If you go to the 2010 view you can see that in one direction it is straight into the sun. The camera may shut down automatically when that happens to protect the sensor. Note that on the new Google maps, when positioning the streetview icon over the blue lines, you must wait until a bullet appears in the ring below it. This allows for more precise positioning when zoomed in. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted May 11, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 11, 2015 (edited) That's a bit harsh. Out of millions of images an occasional glitch isn't the end of the world. If you go to the 2010 view you can see that in one direction it is straight into the sun. The camera may shut down automatically when that happens to protect the sensor. Note that on the new Google maps, when positioning the streetview icon over the blue lines, you must wait until a bullet appears in the ring below it. This allows for more precise positioning when zoomed in. Martin. Sorry I don't agree. In the old maps the street view quite often switched dates as you travelled along a road. So why can't the new version do that when there isn't a suitable image. That "blank" section should never have been uploaded. This is the view dated September 2012 looking west toward the crossing from Main Road junction (note the sky, it is thick cloud): https://goo.gl/maps/yqpGK If you move one pace forward you get this and it is dated July 2011: https://goo.gl/maps/JLjLV You get the same if you travel east from west of the crossing. IMHO view that is unacceptable. I never saw this problem in the old maps. Also when dropping the little man, I find it much less easy than the old version, where even if you were just close he would "land" allowing some adjustment once you are on the ground (so to say) The new version has to be in maximum zoom and you have to very precise, else he returns to his "cage" Some places I can't get a streetview at all even though the road is blued in. Keith Edited May 11, 2015 by melmerby Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted May 11, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 11, 2015 I believe that there was also probably an issue with trains longer than the current std 8 coach length standing over crossings when in stations. Given SWT are now running 10 car trains on the affected routes I can't see this being a problem - especially as preparations for resignalling the area controlled by Feltham box are well advanced with passive provision made for 12 car trains (i.e. not siteing signals where they would cause 12 car trains to block junctions or stand over crossings). Yes 10 or 12 car trains will take a fraction longer to clear but that is nothing compared to the 5 minutes or so the barriers need to be down for an extra train. Platforms are a complete red herring - extending them is easy unless signal equipment gets in the way. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Platforms are a complete red herring - extending them is easy unless signal equipment gets in the way. Not so. Underbridges, Overbridges, Embankments, Cuttings, Retaining walls, boundary limitations, and also pointwork and track re-alignment if it is an island platform. There is an awful lot more to consider than just signals and it is rarely just a case of just easily sticking a few yards extra on one or other ends. Add OLE in to the mix and it is even worse! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted May 11, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 11, 2015 (edited) Not so. Underbridges, Overbridges, Embankments, Cuttings, Retaining walls, boundary limitations, and also pointwork and track re-alignment if it is an island platform. There is an awful lot more to consider than just signals and it is rarely just a case of just easily sticking a few yards extra on one or other ends. Add OLE in to the mix and it is even worse! SWT is all 3rd rail so no worries about OHLE. Embankments and cuttings can pose problems BUT the cost of civil works is a LOT less than stuff that requires alterations / moving signalling equipment. Under bridge structures can be a pain but in extremis you can still extend the platform out over the bridge via some extra bridge beams. Retaining walls are an issue if land ownership means they cannot rebuilt - but again I am not aware that the SWT suburban area has any problematical areas (like Woolwich on the SE or some of the stations on the North & East London lines). Ultimately there is also SDO which can be used if the platform isn't long enough, BUT that won't help if signal positioning means its only the front 8 that can open and the rear 4 are hanging back across the crossing. Move the signal by contrast and its the front 4 that hang off the platform (thus clearing the crossing) - except as any rail professional will tell you signalling (and power supply) alterations are by far the most expensive things to alter on the railway when it comes to infrastructure. Edited May 11, 2015 by phil-b259 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Platforms are a complete red herring - extending them is easy unless signal equipment gets in the way. Embankments and cuttings can pose problems Under bridge structures can be a pain Retaining walls are an issue It seems that you are now in fact agreeing with me in principle that there are in fact other issues besides signalling, but the tone of your post tries to suggest otherwise... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted May 11, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 11, 2015 It seems that you are now in fact agreeing with me in principle that there are in fact other issues besides signalling, but the tone of your post tries to suggest otherwise... Let's just stick to the point rather than trying to score them - we all understand that generally it's far easier to extend a platform than alter signalling obviously there will always be exceptions. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Let's just stick to the point rather than trying to score them - we all understand that generally it's far easier to extend a platform than alter signalling obviously there will always be exceptions. I have been directly involved with the design of a large number of platform extensions in my day job. Signalling is only one consideration of many. Platform extensions that only require signalling alterations tend to be the exception rather than the other way around. I think it is ill advised of you to presume what 'we all understand'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Richard E Posted May 11, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 11, 2015 (edited) Ah, now Helpston crossing - post #761 - that can be closed to road traffic for up to 40 minutes in the hour apparently. I'm not 100% certain of the actual figures but that figure is certainly quoted in the local press. One crossing to the south is to be closed, and two to the north with bridges at Helpston and Tallington. Maxey crossing (the next one to the north) WILL have a bridge but that will be a bridleway/farm traffic only and not available for general public use with motor vehicles. Lolham crossing (also known as Nine Bridges locally and is on King Street, a former Roman Road) is to close completely and that is causing a lot of fuss. There are two crossings there on King Street within 1/4 mile but that on the Leicester line will remain for access to the south side of the ECML. Edited May 11, 2015 by Richard E Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted May 11, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 11, 2015 (edited) It seems that you are now in fact agreeing with me in principle that there are in fact other issues besides signalling, but the tone of your post tries to suggest otherwise... My point is simply this - when extending a platform that does not involve signal alterations, all work is focused on a single site and the costs are relatively low. The techniques employed by civil engineers are well understood and can be applied across numerous industries with very little trouble, (particularly if modular structures can be employed). Thus while I don't wish to be rude to our civil engineering friends on here and elsewhere - finding someone who can build a platform structure - move lampoasts etc is relatively easy , and assuming no particularly difficult site constraints, relatively inexpensive in the overall scheme of things. Moving a signal by contrast has implications in places a long way from the site of work and requires numerous other considerations well away from the normal 'civils' ones. If the signalling equipment needs moving that requires specialist signal design and testing staff AS WELL AS all the usual civils staff. As there is a significant shortage nationally this is not a simple activity to organise - (in north Kent I believe several of the platform extensions had to be left unfinished for 6 months or more because if the need to arrange for signal equipment to be moved). Also even if you are only moving a single signal this will, in busy places like London affect other signals due to changes in braking distances, signal section lengths etc which in turn may require several signals to be modified. If pointwork is involved you step up a gear in complexity - as interlocking modifications will most likely result and possibly panel indications etc. Edited May 11, 2015 by phil-b259 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted May 11, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 11, 2015 Agreed. The simple platform extension is not rocket science. Nor is is a particularly "railway" issue. (Health & Safety rules notwithstanding) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 and assuming no particularly difficult site constraints, And this is the issue - there usually are site constraints. For example gas mains, water mains and all sorts of other things that criss cross under the railway and can affect the cost and many other things that you have not thought of. And these tend to be more common in populated areas, like near stations for example. Even what appears on the surface to be relatively easy often is not due to other constraints. On one particular straight forward looking station there was a gas main, water main and an ancient brick sewer all in close proximity to the extension. Construction made an error and we were very lucky not to have a sewer collapse, which could have had an interesting effect on the track alignment... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 96701 Posted May 12, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 12, 2015 From level crossings to platform extensions 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkC Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Thread drift - doncha just lurve it... Edited May 13, 2015 by MarkC 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted May 13, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 13, 2015 Thread drift - doncha just lurve it... All we need now is to get onto the subject of station platforms with a level crossing through them 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) All we need now is to get onto the subject of station platforms with a level crossing through them Halesworth? http://halesworthmuseum.org.uk/wpress/halesworths-unique-movable-platform/ Sorry... Edited May 13, 2015 by Pete 75C 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
talisman56 Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 All we need now is to get onto the subject of station platforms with a level crossing through them I'm sure there are (were) a few where the platforms were staggered with an LC between them... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I'm sure there are (were) a few where the platforms were staggered with an LC between them... Quite a common arrangement; Wylam is one that springs to mind. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RFS Posted May 13, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 13, 2015 I'm sure there are (were) a few where the platforms were staggered with an LC between them... My local station - Tutbury and Hatton - is another example still in use today. At least the LC gates are still worked manually by a signalman in his box overlooking it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now