Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 08:35 29 Mar 2024
- Bus plunges off South Africa bridge, killing 45
- Easter getaway begins with flood alerts in place
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
29th Mar (1913)
Foundation of National Union or Railwaymen (*)

Train RunningCancelled
07:20 Reading to Gatwick Airport
08:13 Newbury to Bedwyn
08:46 Bedwyn to Newbury
09:00 Gatwick Airport to Reading
09:54 Bedwyn to Newbury
10:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:29 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:57 Bedwyn to Newbury
12:52 Bedwyn to Newbury
Short Run
04:54 Plymouth to London Paddington
05:33 Plymouth to London Paddington
05:55 Plymouth to London Paddington
06:37 Plymouth to London Paddington
07:03 London Paddington to Paignton
07:24 Exmouth to Paignton
08:35 Plymouth to London Paddington
08:41 Westbury to Bristol Temple Meads
09:45 Bristol Temple Meads to Salisbury
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
Delayed
05:03 Penzance to London Paddington
06:05 Penzance to London Paddington
07:10 Penzance to London Paddington
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
08:15 Penzance to London Paddington
09:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
11:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 29, 2024, 08:41:32 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[77] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[72] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[70] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
[63] Return of the BRUTE?
[56] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[44] 2024 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Two views of a discussion  (Read 4776 times)
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5190


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2020, 12:51:43 »

As regards the Midland line from Bristol to Yate, there are two important points to consider. Firstly, as one of the first long distance cycle routes in the UK (United Kingdom), Sustrans get very protective about it whenever someone suggests that it is used again for the purpose it was originally built. On the other hand (and this is where the "two views of a discussion" comes into the equation) the line was originally built as a double track broad gauge railway. There is in theory plenty of room over the majority of its length to be widened back to those dimensions by simply removing half a century's worth of vegetation, accumulated spoil and the landslip that originally closed it a week before it's time, and have enough room for both a railway and the Bristol to Bath Railway Path.

Maybe in theory, but absolutely not in practice! Cycle traffic is sufficiently heavy south of Fishponds that 4m of the formation really needs to be set aside as a segregated cycle lane. If you allow another 3m for pedestrians and 3m for landscaping (it is, after all, a park), then that's your 10m right-of-way gone.

For a reasoned explanation of the issues, see here: https://bristolcycling.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BCyC-Response-to-Sustrans-BBRP-Proposals-06012020.pdf


Well I've read it all and whilst I agree that it is reasoned, it is reasoned from solely a cycling perspective. That of course would be expected, but wider issues also need to be addressed.

They speak much, for example, of separating the different types of path users. However in recent years there has been a move towards removal of separation between types of road user (look at the area on the site of the former Bristol Goods as an example) which has the effect of slowing traffic down. This concept was originally tried out about 30 years ago in the Netherlands, and they do know a thing or two about cycling!

They say that "speeding cyclists" is a subjective matter (as indeed it is) and also that only a very small minority of cyclists are guilty (with which I also agree). However, implementing user separation is more likely to excerbate this problem than solve it, because it could give the lycra-clad a false sense of security.

The thrust of the argument summarised as: "it is busy in the peak so it needs to be widened" is not one that Highway Engineers have recognised for a generation or two! Whilst the railway path is not a highway in the legal sense, its usage by a number of different groups with different means of transport (ie feet, cycles, mobility scooters, maintenance vehicles etc) means in my view that any moves to solve any problem should appreciate this, and not favour one group over another.

So in summary I am not convinced by their overall position. Widening the path would only lead to a potential increase in differential speeds between the slowest and fastest users. Introding the odd obstruction or chicane, carefully designed of  course, would not inconvenience any but the small minority of "speeders." After reading it all I still remain convinced that there is plentiful room to widen the route to its original dimesions and provide both a good quality railway path and a railway line.

And the lycra-clad would either have to accept it or find a race track more suitable for their needs.

The fact that this was once a main line, and should never have been closed, is not relevant here. It is now an important linear park and active travel corridor, and will without doubt remain so.

The 'shared space' concept you refer to is not without its critics! In particular people with visual and hearing disabilities don't like them at all. 'Shared space' only works in places with low levels of vehicular traffic, and for our purposes here we should probably consider bicycles to be vehicles. This is the busiest cycling route into Bristol.

I can't see how putting up a fence between bicycle users and others would give 'the lycra-clad' a false sense of security. From whom? It would certainly give parents walking their young children to school a real sense of security. I'm not sure that BCycC are after favours; they recognise that the path holds dangers for all classes of users and think Sustrans' plans could make things worse.

I'd be interested to know which alternative 'race track' you would recommend for the bicycle commuters who use this route?

Logged

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
Robin Summerhill
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1145


View Profile Email
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2020, 14:19:24 »


The 'shared space' concept you refer to is not without its critics! In particular people with visual and hearing disabilities don't like them at all.

As someone who is visually impaired himself I think I should respond to this! (Blind in one eye through glaucoma and a severe cataract in the other that the NHS won't be dealing with any time soon).

Life is never exactly the same for people with visual or audible disabilities as it is for everybody else. Luckily my hearing is very good and I rely more on sound to warn me of danger. That doesn't stop me walking into silent things like benches but at least I can hear a cyclist coming, and from some distance away. I have used this path very frequently since it opened, for walking and cycling, and I have never been over-concerned about my personal safety down there. Personally my current biggest issue is with electric cars, which one can't always hear coming.

I can't comment for the hearing impaired and you must ask then for their take on the issue.

I can't see how putting up a fence between bicycle users and others would give 'the lycra-clad' a false sense of security. From whom? It would certainly give parents walking their young children to school a real sense of security. I'm not sure that BCycC are after favours; they recognise that the path holds dangers for all classes of users and think Sustrans' plans could make things worse.

I feel you are not looking at the whole picture here. Separation in itself, when cyclists know that this bit of the path is for them and them alone, would give to some of them the encoragement to go a bit faster. And that would be fine, and nothing would happen, right up until somebody unexpectedly joins the path and crosses the cycle lane to the pedestrian lane. Or right up until the time that a toddler who doesn't understand these things suddenly decides to cross the cycle lane to look at something.

I found it rather telling that they sought at every opportunity to emphasise the "fakeness" of the zebra ccrossing, whilst at the same time berating the Council and the Police for not enforcing their byelaw about dogs on leads(not that the police haven't got better things to do, of course)

Incidentally, exactly this happened to me a few years ago when my eyesight was still good enough to cycle. I was riding the coastal/ prom route from Sandbanks to Southbourne. Up at the Southbourne end there are some beach huts and a boy of about two years of age came flying out of one of them aiming for the beach. I was a few yards away at the time so that didn't cause me a problem. What did cause a problem was he suddenly changed his mind and ran back into my path. I went flying whilst missing him but I was only doing about 10mph (I rarely cycled any faster). It might be interesting to see what happened if a boy racer had been tanking it down from Fishponds and that happened on the "fake" zebra crossing. Perhaps we should have kids on leads as well as dogs?

I'd be interested to know which alternative 'race track' you would recommend for the bicycle commuters who use this route?

Horses for courses. If you are commuting on a bike you should be riding in a way that doesn't inconvenience other users,not treat it as a time trial.

My no.3 son was a member of Chippenham cycling club in his teens and 20s, and often went time trialling with them. They used quiet country lanes in North Wiltshire. I accept that there are more quiet country lanes around here than there are around Greenbank and Easton, but they'll find quite a few to amuse themselves on beyond Pucklechurch. And, being time triallers, it shouldn't take 'em long to get there Wink
« Last Edit: May 05, 2020, 14:25:46 by Robin Summerhill » Logged
rower40
Transport Scholar
Sr. Member
******
Posts: 292

Turning signalling into a video game since 1988.


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2020, 14:39:51 »

Other examples where the railway/cyclepath controversy rages:

Buxton to Bakewell to Rowsley - the Monsal trail on the ex-Midland main line from St Pancras to Manchester.  Which Peak Rail would love to extend their track over, but the presence of the cyclepath makes that tricky.

Boscarne Jn to Wadebridge (to Padstow?) - the Camel trail. Where the Bodmin & Wenford Railway would love to extend, but as the track was single originally, the likelihood of there being enough width for train and bike is slim.

I have to declare conflicting interests.  As a volunteer signalman at Bodmin General, I have, on occasion, cycled from Padstow in order to start my shift.  The roads that the Camel Trail bypasses are not cycle-friendly in the least.

If it weren't for today's risk-aversion, I'd favour a "share the road" solution with tram-style concrete track that one could cycle on, cyclists advised that trains could appear in either direction at any time, and a TOWS(Train Operated Warning System)-style set of lights and sirens to advise the cyclists to find a refuge when a train approaches.

Discuss...

Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2020, 17:29:21 »

Horses for courses. If you are commuting on a bike you should be riding in a way that doesn't inconvenience other users,not treat it as a time trial.
True, obviously, as it is for any mode.
Logged

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
Richard Fairhurst
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1204


View Profile Email
« Reply #19 on: May 05, 2020, 23:50:49 »

They speak much, for example, of separating the different types of path users. However in recent years there has been a move towards removal of separation between types of road user (look at the area on the site of the former Bristol Goods as an example) which has the effect of slowing traffic down. This concept was originally tried out about 30 years ago in the Netherlands, and they do know a thing or two about cycling!

I think, if anything, the movement has been more in the opposite direction. Look at London, and the new(ish) Cycle Superhighways which are entirely segregated from car (and pedestrian) traffic. Look at the same type of segregated infrastructure being installed in Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leicester, Cambridge. Look at new highway design guidance such as Oxfordshire's. The Netherlands has more kilometres of segregated cycle route than anywhere else in the world - and as you say, they do know a thing or two about cycling. Smiley
Logged
Robin Summerhill
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1145


View Profile Email
« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2020, 00:21:33 »

In order to give a reasoned reply to this, Richard, can you provide some evidential links to the schemes at the locations you quote please?
Logged
CyclingSid
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1918


Hockley viaduct


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2020, 07:10:10 »

My personal feeling on shared walking/cycling routes is that nobody should be going much faster than jogging speed. Especially the case with re-purposed pavements and narrow paths. If you want to train for the Tour de France be considerate and grown-up and use the road.
Logged
Richard Fairhurst
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1204


View Profile Email
« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2020, 09:40:06 »

In order to give a reasoned reply to this, Richard, can you provide some evidential links to the schemes at the locations you quote please?


and plenty more (but I'd be here all day if I were to list them all...).
Logged
Robin Summerhill
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1145


View Profile Email
« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2020, 12:11:11 »


Thanks Richard. It appears we might be talking at crossed purposes.

Virtually all of the examples you linked to are predominantly on road cycle routes, and there is of course nothing unusual about that. The road - cycle lane - pavement layout is seen all over the country, and indeed there is an example a couple of hundred yards from where I'm sitting now. I also know of plenty of examples (virtually all on-road examples) where white paint indicates a pedestrian lane and a cycle lane. I'm not sure they are ever enforced though, if indeed they are enforceable - we don't have "jaywalking" laws in the UK (United Kingdom) and the number of public places where pedestrians are specifically forbidden to go are few and far between - only really on motorways and some dual carriageways and signs will be seen specifically saying "No pedestrians."

There are no such signs on any cycle route I have ever encountered, and I have encountered quite a few in years gone by. That's not to say that they don't exist of course, just that I have never encountered any, and my cycling has taken me from Padstow to the far east of the Kent coast, and from beyond the south coast (Isle of Wight ex-railway routes) to Manchester and Warrington.

Whether any cycle/pedestrian segregation is actually enforced anywhere in the country I personally would doubt (Only opinion of course and not fact). They generally rely on self-policing. One segregated route that I have come across that probably does have a high level of self policing is the Middleton Way between Rose Hill Marple and Macclesfield - you will see why from the photograph below!


But there  are very big differences in my view between the normal provision of shared footpath/ cycle tracks and those needed in the case of the Bristol and Bath one, and they are the gradient and the lack of the usual impediments such as give way signs, roundabouts etc. This can result in unusually high disparity between average speeds of the users. The only other shared ex-railway path I can think of with anywhere near that sort of gradient is between Boscarne Junction and Wadebridge, but that doesn’t go through a built up area where people are regularly joining and leaving the path at many intermediate points. Similarly the banks on the Cromford & High Peak, but in my view you’d be an absolute nutcase to try to cycle down those in the first place (that Catch Pit at Cromford was put there for a reason!!).

On Fishponds bank we have two miles of uninterrupted downhill except at Clay Bottom and the “fake” zebra crossing. To do anything that would even remotely lead to the possibility of an increase in differential speeds down there would be potentially lethal, and that is why I hold the (quite strong now I’ve thought even more about it) view that the path should not be widened, cyclists and pedestrians should not both be given a false sense of security by introducing segregation that would not be enforced and indeed would be unworkable given the number of access points on the bank, and that anything that is done down there should be aimed at reducing differential speeds rather than potentially increasing them.

Just my take on the subject of course, and other takes may differ. But the heading on this thread is “Two views of a discussion.”
Logged
CyclingSid
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1918


Hockley viaduct


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 06, 2020, 12:39:07 »

They have similar segregation signs on the Hayling Billy Trail. Interestingly most of the "manure" is on the non-horse side. They must have anatomically odd horses!
Logged
Richard Fairhurst
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1204


View Profile Email
« Reply #25 on: May 06, 2020, 12:59:20 »

Thanks Richard. It appears we might be talking at crossed purposes.

Virtually all of the examples you linked to are predominantly on road cycle routes, and there is of course nothing unusual about that. The road - cycle lane - pavement layout is seen all over the country, and indeed there is an example a couple of hundred yards from where I'm sitting now.

Perhaps!

The movement in recent years has strongly been towards urban, commuter routes being segregated tracks for cyclists. Just putting some paint on a road, to mark out a cycle lane, is now generally accepted as substandard design. (Though of course that doesn't stop councils doing it...)

Rural, recreational routes away from roads remain predominantly shared-use.

Where conflict seems to occur most is when you have a route which serves both purposes (recreational and commuter) and has high levels of cycle usage. In particular, the Bristol & Bath railway path, the western section of the Kennet & Avon towpath, and the Regent's Canal towpath in London.

Ultimately the only answer here, I think, is to alleviate the pressure by providing more commuter capacity elsewhere - i.e. more safe, direct segregated cycle tracks by roads. As I've written in the pages of Waterways World, London commuter cyclists don't choose the Regent's Canal because they like looking at ducks, they choose it because they don't want to get squashed by a tipper truck.
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: May 06, 2020, 13:43:50 »


Similarly the banks on the Cromford & High Peak, but in my view you’d be an absolute nutcase to try to cycle down those in the first place (that Catch Pit at Cromford was put there for a reason!!).
I found it hard to envisage any gradient a railway could get up that might be too steep to cycle down, so I had to look this up. So it isn't or wasn't a conventional railway: hauled by static steam engines using cables. But the steepest gradient was 1 in 7, according to Wikipedia. That's about 14% – steep for a train but not excessively steep for a road. There are residential streets in Bristol which reach 40%! So you'd hardly be a nutcase to cycle down Bunsall Lower Incline (the steepest section according to Wikipedia).
Logged

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
CyclingSid
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1918


Hockley viaduct


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2020, 15:12:32 »

My other half seems to be able to detect, and complain about, anything much steeper than about 1 in 100 when cycling
Logged
Robin Summerhill
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1145


View Profile Email
« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2020, 15:16:21 »


Similarly the banks on the Cromford & High Peak, but in my view you’d be an absolute nutcase to try to cycle down those in the first place (that Catch Pit at Cromford was put there for a reason!!).
I found it hard to envisage any gradient a railway could get up that might be too steep to cycle down, so I had to look this up. So it isn't or wasn't a conventional railway: hauled by static steam engines using cables. But the steepest gradient was 1 in 7, according to Wikipedia. That's about 14% – steep for a train but not excessively steep for a road. There are residential streets in Bristol which reach 40%! So you'd hardly be a nutcase to cycle down Bunsall Lower Incline (the steepest section according to Wikipedia).

Apologies for making you work! I didn't think an explanation of the Comford & High Peak would be necessary, but perhaps I didn't appreciate that it closed in 1967, it is 150 miles away from GWR (Great Western Railway) territory, and not everybody reading this would be as fascinated by the line as I have been all my life!

In brief, it was one of the UK (United Kingdom)'s earliest railways with construction starting in 1825, and ran from Cromford, between Derby and Matlock, to Whaley Bridge, linking the quarries in the Debrbyshire Peak District to the Cromford Canal in the south and the Peak Forest Canal in the north. The intention had been to build a canal, but when this new fangled idea of railways came along they built one of those instead. The problem was they used canal principles, and most of the line is almost flat. Where changes of gradient were required it was done in one go, substituting a lock flight if you like with a stationary engine winding vehicles up and down. Needless to say, the line never became part of the normal UK rail network as it developed, and was stuck with this odd method of operation until the final section closed in 1967. When the LNWR (London North Western Railway) built their Asbourne to Buxton line in the 1890s the northern section beyond Parsley Hay was abandoned.

There are three major inclines on the section of line between Cromford and Parsley Hay and that is the section I have ridden - Sheep Pasture (1 in 8 and 1 in 9), Middleton (1 in 8 ) and Hopton (1 in 12) The latter was actually worked by adhesion and here id a [hot of a sign at the top of it:




All three inclines have signs at the top of them saying "cyclists advised to walk" Perhaps to that end, all three are not as well surfaced as the rest of the High Peak Trail, and it was that fact more than anything else that engendered my "nutcase" remark, I've ridden down 1 in 4 hills on roads, such as Summer Hill in Totterdown, but riding down a poorly surfaced 1 in 8 that goes on for a mile or so is another matter!

It's hard to convey a 3D matter on a 2D photograph but here is my attempt at doing that on Hopton incline. The railway is to the right on the picture.

]


Finally, what it looks like at the top and bottom of Sheep Pasture. The bottom shot shows the remains of the catch pit:








Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4256


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: May 06, 2020, 15:19:13 »


Similarly the banks on the Cromford & High Peak, but in my view you’d be an absolute nutcase to try to cycle down those in the first place (that Catch Pit at Cromford was put there for a reason!!).
I found it hard to envisage any gradient a railway could get up that might be too steep to cycle down, so I had to look this up. So it isn't or wasn't a conventional railway: hauled by static steam engines using cables. But the steepest gradient was 1 in 7, according to Wikipedia. That's about 14% – steep for a train but not excessively steep for a road. There are residential streets in Bristol which reach 40%! So you'd hardly be a nutcase to cycle down Bunsall Lower Incline (the steepest section according to Wikipedia).
Apologies for making you work!
It was a welcome distraction from the work I'm supposed to be doing! As are the photos, even more so.
Logged

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page