"Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by jnty »

Bryn666 wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 10:49
RichardA35 wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 07:02
Micro The Maniac wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 06:52 I'm more than concerned that there is an expectation that a particular stretch of road needs to be closed often enough to make these systems worthwhile.
Hindhead tunnel which has regular closures. During 2019 there were 14 vehicle incursions into the works area. Now if we could absolutely trust motorists not to go through the cones...
A very good question might be why does a relatively new tunnel require regular closures? Older tunnels which have regular maintenance regimes, for example the Mersey Kingsway, manage without going OTT on the techbro solutions, and still managed to score a rare "good" EuroRAP rating when the tunnel surveys were carried out in the 2010s.
Ignoring that it's probably a bit easier to manage traffic and safety in a 40mph tunnel than a 70mph one, is part of the problem perhaps that given the long diversion required, regular closures aren't actually feasible for Hindhead so lane closures are required instead, whereas presumably closing the Kingsway tunnel completely overnight isn't as problematic?
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by Bryn666 »

jnty wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 11:26
Bryn666 wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 10:49
RichardA35 wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 07:02 Hindhead tunnel which has regular closures. During 2019 there were 14 vehicle incursions into the works area. Now if we could absolutely trust motorists not to go through the cones...
A very good question might be why does a relatively new tunnel require regular closures? Older tunnels which have regular maintenance regimes, for example the Mersey Kingsway, manage without going OTT on the techbro solutions, and still managed to score a rare "good" EuroRAP rating when the tunnel surveys were carried out in the 2010s.
Ignoring that it's probably a bit easier to manage traffic and safety in a 40mph tunnel than a 70mph one, is part of the problem perhaps that given the long diversion required, regular closures aren't actually feasible for Hindhead so lane closures are required instead, whereas presumably closing the Kingsway tunnel completely overnight isn't as problematic?
The Kingsway regularly runs single line working contraflows by only closing one tunnel. The speed limit remains at 40 - all that happens is you're pushed across the central reservation and lane control signals tell you that one lane is open and the other is oncoming traffic. It works without incident.

I really don't understand National England Agency for Highway's fetish for overcomplicating basic tasks. The more they treat drivers like dribbling morons the more drivers will behave like dribbling morons.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by jnty »

Bryn666 wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 11:58
jnty wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 11:26
Bryn666 wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 10:49

A very good question might be why does a relatively new tunnel require regular closures? Older tunnels which have regular maintenance regimes, for example the Mersey Kingsway, manage without going OTT on the techbro solutions, and still managed to score a rare "good" EuroRAP rating when the tunnel surveys were carried out in the 2010s.
Ignoring that it's probably a bit easier to manage traffic and safety in a 40mph tunnel than a 70mph one, is part of the problem perhaps that given the long diversion required, regular closures aren't actually feasible for Hindhead so lane closures are required instead, whereas presumably closing the Kingsway tunnel completely overnight isn't as problematic?
The Kingsway regularly runs single line working contraflows by only closing one tunnel. The speed limit remains at 40 - all that happens is you're pushed across the central reservation and lane control signals tell you that one lane is open and the other is oncoming traffic. It works without incident.

I really don't understand National England Agency for Highway's fetish for overcomplicating basic tasks. The more they treat drivers like dribbling morons the more drivers will behave like dribbling morons.
Are these barriers really treating drivers like morons? I don't think there's any suggestion that this will have any particular effect on drivers at all, except perhaps reducing disruption while the cones are laid out. If anything they're trusting that drivers will instinctively understand a lane closure managed by something other than cones. The benefits of this seem to be reductions in the time and resources taken to set up closures (which can probably make ad-hoc closures easier and safer too) and, crucially, an increase the general safety of maintenance workers tasked with setting up closures. There is presumably a reasonably big difference in the safety issues around setting up lane closures on an urban 40mph dual carriageway vs. a 70mph rural dual carriageway. Of course, given that this is a trial, there's nothing to say that the Kingsway tunnel operators aren't watching it eagerly and will be next in line should the barriers prove a success!
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by Bryn666 »

jnty wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:19
Bryn666 wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 11:58
jnty wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 11:26

Ignoring that it's probably a bit easier to manage traffic and safety in a 40mph tunnel than a 70mph one, is part of the problem perhaps that given the long diversion required, regular closures aren't actually feasible for Hindhead so lane closures are required instead, whereas presumably closing the Kingsway tunnel completely overnight isn't as problematic?
The Kingsway regularly runs single line working contraflows by only closing one tunnel. The speed limit remains at 40 - all that happens is you're pushed across the central reservation and lane control signals tell you that one lane is open and the other is oncoming traffic. It works without incident.

I really don't understand National England Agency for Highway's fetish for overcomplicating basic tasks. The more they treat drivers like dribbling morons the more drivers will behave like dribbling morons.
Are these barriers really treating drivers like morons? I don't think there's any suggestion that this will have any particular effect on drivers at all, except perhaps reducing disruption while the cones are laid out. If anything they're trusting that drivers will instinctively understand a lane closure managed by something other than cones. The benefits of this seem to be reductions in the time and resources taken to set up closures (which can probably make ad-hoc closures easier and safer too) and, crucially, an increase the general safety of maintenance workers tasked with setting up closures. There is presumably a reasonably big difference in the safety issues around setting up lane closures on an urban 40mph dual carriageway vs. a 70mph rural dual carriageway. Of course, given that this is a trial, there's nothing to say that the Kingsway tunnel operators aren't watching it eagerly and will be next in line should the barriers prove a success!
It's the wider symptom - as others have said these barriers themselves will still need routine maintenance anyway because one swinging out into live traffic because a hinge has failed will be a fast track to a corporate manslaughter charge so that involves someone laying out cones whilst they are checked.

We have already tried fixed taper points with digital signs and by all accounts they're a failure - the ones on in what used to be Area 10 are now never used and instead we are relying on single banked yellow signs on a four lane carriageway for often total closures.

The simple fact is managing motorways is a risk intensive process but it is unavoidable, you will always have the need to put someone out there and risk being hit as a result. One of the entire reasons we had hard shoulders was to help motorway maintenance crews function without the need to lay out complex traffic management but smart motorways has sacrificed that as well on the altar of making journeys 12 seconds faster.

Technology needs to stop being the catch-all buzzword to all of life's problems - things need to be more process driven; if bad driving means laying out TM is a risk, then sort out the bad drivers - just swapping the method of closing lanes does not address the underlying problem. This is what I mean by not treating drivers as dribbling morons.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by jnty »

Bryn666 wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:34
jnty wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:19
Bryn666 wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 11:58

The Kingsway regularly runs single line working contraflows by only closing one tunnel. The speed limit remains at 40 - all that happens is you're pushed across the central reservation and lane control signals tell you that one lane is open and the other is oncoming traffic. It works without incident.

I really don't understand National England Agency for Highway's fetish for overcomplicating basic tasks. The more they treat drivers like dribbling morons the more drivers will behave like dribbling morons.
Are these barriers really treating drivers like morons? I don't think there's any suggestion that this will have any particular effect on drivers at all, except perhaps reducing disruption while the cones are laid out. If anything they're trusting that drivers will instinctively understand a lane closure managed by something other than cones. The benefits of this seem to be reductions in the time and resources taken to set up closures (which can probably make ad-hoc closures easier and safer too) and, crucially, an increase the general safety of maintenance workers tasked with setting up closures. There is presumably a reasonably big difference in the safety issues around setting up lane closures on an urban 40mph dual carriageway vs. a 70mph rural dual carriageway. Of course, given that this is a trial, there's nothing to say that the Kingsway tunnel operators aren't watching it eagerly and will be next in line should the barriers prove a success!
It's the wider symptom - as others have said these barriers themselves will still need routine maintenance anyway because one swinging out into live traffic because a hinge has failed will be a fast track to a corporate manslaughter charge so that involves someone laying out cones whilst they are checked.

We have already tried fixed taper points with digital signs and by all accounts they're a failure - the ones on in what used to be Area 10 are now never used and instead we are relying on single banked yellow signs on a four lane carriageway for often total closures.

The simple fact is managing motorways is a risk intensive process but it is unavoidable, you will always have the need to put someone out there and risk being hit as a result. One of the entire reasons we had hard shoulders was to help motorway maintenance crews function without the need to lay out complex traffic management but smart motorways has sacrificed that as well on the altar of making journeys 12 seconds faster.

Technology needs to stop being the catch-all buzzword to all of life's problems - things need to be more process driven; if bad driving means laying out TM is a risk, then sort out the bad drivers - just swapping the method of closing lanes does not address the underlying problem. This is what I mean by not treating drivers as dribbling morons.
All good points - but what's the solution to preventing bad driving on approach to the tunnel? Either you're (correctly, IMO) proposing a radical decades-long shift in training, norms and enforcement around driving - in which case it's unfair to criticise organisations who are unable to meaningfully influence that trying to work with what they've got - or more of the dreaded T word, either in cars or in the from of VMS and average speed cameras on the approach to the tunnel.
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3754
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by Conekicker »

jnty wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 10:40
WHBM wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 10:33
jnty wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 10:24 What's the chances of a maintenance worker getting killed or injured when laying cones?
Well those figures must be known. What such incidents have there been ?
I've no idea - and it's probably not worth finding a figure because we don't have numbers for the barrier to compare - but the point is that the safety critical mechanical barrier system is going to be at least an order of magnitude more reliable, safety-wise, than any system which involves sending humans on to a live 70mph dual carriageway.
Except HE/NH has recently spent a small fortune developing a cone-laying machine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7QaUunpqoA
Note that Highway Care is involved in that as well. Are they saying the cone-laying machine (and the cash spent developing it) was wasted?
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
Bomag
Member
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by Bomag »

Conekicker wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 22:39 Externally illuminated signs? Really? Clearly micro-prismatics on their own aren't good enough. Perhaps someone should tell sign manufacturers. Also what are the ball things sticking out in front of the signs, cameras? Presumably to confirm the sign has deployed correctly. What if it hasn't though.

As for the barriers, I trust someone has bothered to get them authorised by DfT. And laid in a stock of replacements for when they get whacked. We'll quickly gloss over the inevitable numerous problems of mechanical moving parts placed in the central reserve or verge of a motorway metres few away from all the muck that passing traffic will throw at said moving parts, shall we?

What happens when one or more of the barriers fails to retract when the taper is removed? Or decides to deploy on it's own due to mechanical failure. What happens if you want to close more than one lane?

The point RichardA35 raises about the working width of the barrier and what appears to be a substantial lump of concrete is very relevant and should be raising alarm bells if it hasn't been taken into consideration. But we mustn't stand in the way of innovation now, must we children?

Still, doubtless a very considerable 6 figure pile of cash will be thrown at the proposers of this kit, earning them a tidy profit, so it's all to the good eh?
I was rather surprised by the video, a good work of fiction though. For something like a tunnel, where there are regular closures / contraflows etc, this could be useful. For those that mentioned the amount of closures; a couple of overnight/weekend a month saves a shed load of £ on capital costs. Tunnels are expensive as it us. Just line the Hindehead specific warning line its horses for courses.
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by jnty »

Conekicker wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 13:19
jnty wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 10:40
WHBM wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 10:33
Well those figures must be known. What such incidents have there been ?
I've no idea - and it's probably not worth finding a figure because we don't have numbers for the barrier to compare - but the point is that the safety critical mechanical barrier system is going to be at least an order of magnitude more reliable, safety-wise, than any system which involves sending humans on to a live 70mph dual carriageway.
Except HE/NH has recently spent a small fortune developing a cone-laying machine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7QaUunpqoA
Note that Highway Care is involved in that as well. Are they saying the cone-laying machine (and the cash spent developing it) was wasted?
No idea - I'm not a representative of any of those organisations. But I do know that "come up with one vaguely appropriate solution and then stop" is not how R&D generally works. Presumably both these projects have been operating in parallel and so it's entirely possible they're totally duplicative. Conversely, the barrier system might turn out to be more reliable/quicker/cheaper/better for 'fixed' locations. It might end up being slightly less good but actually still better because it means you don't regularly tie up a cone machine which could be used elsewhere. The barrier system might turn out to be unexpectedly useful for ad-hoc closures when no cone machine, or laying team, would be available otherwise. It could turn out that it fails too often and ends up putting workers in more danger than before. One system might end up being a complete failure and the other might be a roaring success.

It's very hard to predict the future on paper. If you take the attitude that money spent trialling anything which isn't 100% successful is wasted, you make very little progress indeed.
Bomag
Member
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by Bomag »

WHBM wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 10:33
jnty wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 10:24 What's the chances of a maintenance worker getting killed or injured when laying cones?
Well those figures must be known. What such incidents have there been ?
I don't have the exact figures for injuries, or near misses, involving public interaction but if you exclude lack of maintenance, poor training and poor supervision I think the last fatality on a high speed road was on A1 a few years ago where a Colas IPV was hit during single vehicle working. On the LHA there have been a couple of cases with drunk driving. While there is a steady stream of manual handling injuries the introduction of CIS53 did the most to reduce risk (if worked to properly) plus the use of two vehicle (IPV) working was a big help. The bad/variable implementation of the sign removal options (now in Chapter 8) has led to a significant increase in incursions but injuries have balanced out.
User avatar
Vierwielen
Member
Posts: 5674
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
Location: Hampshire

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by Vierwielen »

Bryn666 wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 10:49 A very good question might be why does a relatively new tunnel require regular closures?
One good reason for a closure of a new tunnel is a major incident occuring within the tunnel. Also, fan bearings need maintenance, electric bulbs need replacing etc.
darkcape
Member
Posts: 2094
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 14:54

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by darkcape »

The current track record of tech on highways is mostly poor as others have highlighted, smart motorway kit, ROTTMS etc. It's interesting that as we've moved to effectively zero equipment in central reserves elsewhere, now we're looking at installing other stuff.

I've witnessed multiple incursion including one resulting in injury, so support HE in trying to find a solution - but I don't think this'll be it.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by Bryn666 »

darkcape wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 23:43 The current track record of tech on highways is mostly poor as others have highlighted, smart motorway kit, ROTTMS etc. It's interesting that as we've moved to effectively zero equipment in central reserves elsewhere, now we're looking at installing other stuff.

I've witnessed multiple incursion including one resulting in injury, so support HE in trying to find a solution - but I don't think this'll be it.
The only realistic solution is to have a dedicated national motorway police force to go out with site crews installing TM whatever form it takes - give them statutory powers to fine motorists who ignore red Xs on the spot - but good luck finding a politician with the cajones to implement this rule.

The other thing is public information films and regular re-testing of drivers to weed out the incompetents and unsafe ones.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16909
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by Chris5156 »

Good to finally see an explanation of what these things are. I use the Hindhead Tunnel quite regularly and these odd contraptions appeared a few months ago.

The first of them has a "keep left" roundel mounted on it. Each one is then progressively longer, but none appear to be long enough to cover the whole width of lane 2, once you take into account the distance between the support post and the edge of the lane. They are, as others have observed, installed on great big square blocks of concrete, which is why I'd assumed they were temporary until now.

It'll be interesting to see if they work. I'm not holding my breath for a nationwide rollout just yet, though... assuming they are remotely operated and motorised, I don't hold out huge hope given the technology at the Hindhead Tunnel is ten years old and already failing: at least one of the rotating prism signs is routinely stuck in the wrong position (usually one of the 40 roundels is left showing northbound when the limit is NSL), and there's been no lighting at the north portal for the best part of a year. Those are simple, well tested, mass produced technologies that NH can't seem to keep working on a road with ample closures for maintenance, so I don't know how well prototype motorised plastic ladders on poles will last.
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3754
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by Conekicker »

Bomag wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 14:03I was rather surprised by the video, a good work of fiction though. For something like a tunnel, where there are regular closures / contraflows etc, this could be useful. For those that mentioned the amount of closures; a couple of overnight/weekend a month saves a shed load of £ on capital costs. Tunnels are expensive as it us. Just line the Hindehead specific warning line its horses for courses.
Yes, it could be useful.

With the rider that it seems to have considerably less physical presence than a cone taper, innovative or relaxed. There seem to be only 6 pieces that swing out, including the one with the 610 at the start, thus only 6 flashing lights where a coned taper would have 15 or so. With only 6 lights, it won't be long before one of them fails, reducing the visibility of the taper. What happens if there's a power cut, does the system have a battery backup?

The "7105s" don't look very big and I see they are tubular, so 7105s they most certainly are not and will need authorising. What the white rectangles with a little sticky-out bit on the end of the boom are supposed to be is anyone's guess, perhaps they are meant to carry a single chevron from a 7104 - suitably authorised by DfT naturally, (noting that the DfT traffic authorisations webpage hasn't had any new ones uploaded since the middle of March last year).

All of the assemblies seem to be at a height that could be out of the beam of dipped headlights, which might make life interesting for some drivers.

The end of the taper has a manually placed 610/7105, which given the distance from the last swingy-out thing to the 610/7105, will require some pretty sharp manoeuvres from the IPV to get into position to deploy said 610/7105.

At least the video seems to be proposing both nearside and offside signs, so drivers should be better informed of the presence of the taper ahead than tends to be the case with overnight relaxation tapers on most of the network these days. Having said that, all this kit will be very expensive, especially if this is a genuine trial and not a "we've installed it at great expense and if there are no incidents or KSI we'll call it a success because we haven't set aside the cash to remove it if it's a failure" trial.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16909
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by Chris5156 »

Conekicker wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 09:19All of the assemblies seem to be at a height that could be out of the beam of dipped headlights, which might make life interesting for some drivers.
They are weirdly high up compared to most TTM. That's because they have to swing out over the top of the central reserve crash barrier, so the height is inevitable, but I do keep looking at them as I go past and thinking that a low-slung sports car would quite happily just pass underneath them. I'm not yet convinced that an ordinary car wouldn't make it underneath too.
User avatar
Alderpoint
Member
Posts: 1682
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 14:25
Location: Leamington Spa

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by Alderpoint »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 23:00 What is genuinely useful and seen in mainland Europe are lifting arm barriers before tunnels so you're not relying on a red light to tell people not to drive into the blazing inferno ahead. Not sure why we don't bother with these.
Hindhead would appear to already have those.
Let it snow.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by KeithW »

Alderpoint wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 11:32 Hindhead would appear to already have those.
As does the Tyne Tunnel
https://www.google.com/maps/@54.9781643 ... 384!8i8192
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9707
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by WHBM »

jnty wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:19 Of course, given that this is a trial, there's nothing to say that the Kingsway tunnel operators aren't watching it eagerly and will be next in line should the barriers prove a success!
No need to wait, because this has been done before, a while ago, at the Blackwall Tunnel, and the failures were exactly of the types predicted by various members above. Hey ho, who said "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" ? *

This was all put in during the 1980s, swinging arms etc, plus some substantial matrix-type lane control signage. It was used after a fashion for several years in the latter days of the Blackwall am peak reverse flow 3+1 using the newer tunnel as two way. It was a right mechanical nightmare, and it got regularly mentioned on radio reports as "due to a failure of the tunnel control equipment" **. It was all interlocked, in the style of railway signals, that all the closure equipment had to be active and proved before the reverse flow items opened up. This is where it used to go wrong, one barrier or one sign not proved positive, and the contraflow had to be aborted for the morning, hence the radio report. I presume the Hindhead is quite prepared to give up their night's work if one of these barriers doesn't swing fully. The same approach was taken for overnight works in the old tunnel, which had a substantial refurbishment in this time. They had many a late start on that for the same issue.

Of course, it had worked tolerably well when first installed, but like other roadside mechanical equipment it deteriorated faster than anticipated, despite a progressively enhanced maintenance regime (which of course needed conventional coning off while they worked on it). As often as not, the failure was at the end of the contraflow rather than the start, when the equipment wouldn't close back properly, and then you got the continuing problem through the morning, and thousands (literally) of delay hours over on the north bank while it was sorted out. Of course, quite regularly one of the barrier arms would be broken off. Then there was no morning contraflow for as long as it took to manufacture a new arm, plus any bent machinery, and fit it. Eventually they held spares for each type in the stores.

Finally, mid-1990s (probably not long after the previous installation was out of warranty), substantial funds were obtained to replace it all, new equipment everywhere, tested, and then Health & Safety struck and said contraflows were unsafe, and the new stuff was never got going. The new investment was completely wasted. There are still periodic demands from those south of the river who remember the morning contraflow to reinstate it.

Not far away on the A13 there was an old S2 flyover at East Ham which similarly went through generations of abortive morning peak contraflows, which was another complete failure, and was actually controlled from the same Blackwall Tunnel control room; we have discussed this one before.

* : https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Sa ... 20mistakes.
** : Anyone else remember this on Capital Radio/LBC from those times ?
Bomag
Member
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by Bomag »

Conekicker wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 09:19
Bomag wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 14:03I was rather surprised by the video, a good work of fiction though. For something like a tunnel, where there are regular closures / contraflows etc, this could be useful. For those that mentioned the amount of closures; a couple of overnight/weekend a month saves a shed load of £ on capital costs. Tunnels are expensive as it us. Just line the Hindehead specific warning line its horses for courses.
At least the video seems to be proposing both nearside and offside signs, so drivers should be better informed of the presence of the taper ahead than tends to be the case with overnight relaxation tapers on most of the network these days. Having said that, all this kit will be very expensive, especially if this is a genuine trial and not a "we've installed it at great expense and if there are no incidents or KSI we'll call it a success because we haven't set aside the cash to remove it if it's a failure" trial.
The number of times I have had to remind practitioners that if there is sufficient risk to justify a speed limit, it not a relaxation scheme.
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3754
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: "Swift Gates" to be trialled replacing cone tapers

Post by Conekicker »

Bomag wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 15:16
Conekicker wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 09:19
Bomag wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 14:03I was rather surprised by the video, a good work of fiction though. For something like a tunnel, where there are regular closures / contraflows etc, this could be useful. For those that mentioned the amount of closures; a couple of overnight/weekend a month saves a shed load of £ on capital costs. Tunnels are expensive as it us. Just line the Hindehead specific warning line its horses for courses.
At least the video seems to be proposing both nearside and offside signs, so drivers should be better informed of the presence of the taper ahead than tends to be the case with overnight relaxation tapers on most of the network these days. Having said that, all this kit will be very expensive, especially if this is a genuine trial and not a "we've installed it at great expense and if there are no incidents or KSI we'll call it a success because we haven't set aside the cash to remove it if it's a failure" trial.
The number of times I have had to remind practitioners that if there is sufficient risk to justify a speed limit, it not a relaxation scheme.
Then it must be very risky indeed at that tunnel if they are showing a 40 (but not starting where Chapter 8 says it should). If it's that risky, why are they using untried kit. And, yes, I know it's been tried overseas but the signs on the barriers they use there are vastly different to the ones used over here.

Someone needs to remind the bozos up in 14 about imposing a 50 for overnight closures then leaving the signs up during daylight with an otherwise unobstructed carriageway. The bozos.

Edit - The barrier has been crash tested, although looking at the video, not with the same kit as installed at the tunnel, which makes the test a bit on the questionable side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY_gExNJn_E

This apparently is what they look like in Canada, totally different and far more visible than the UK iteration:
http://www.versilis.com/fr/realisations ... 1-ontario/
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
Post Reply