The French would have one pole with three signals - the normal "primary" head, one on a mast-arm above, and the eye-level repeater for the first in the queue.Al__S wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:31One in each direction should be ample.jervi wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 22:07 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.22511 ... 312!8i6656
Went over this today and I feel like it has too many signal heads. Especially since this is a listed structure.
Botched Traffic Signals
Moderator: Site Management Team
- Chris Bertram
- Member
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
- Location: Birmingham, England
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.
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!
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!
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Interesting, never seen these used other than to prevent drivers being confused by a signal that isn't for them: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.41102 ... 384!8i8192traffic-light-man wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:50 Elsewhere, I've (virtually) stumbled across two single-aspect filter arrows in one hit, that I don't think have been mentioned on SABRE before. The first is this left filter in Bournemouth and the second is this strange one in Leeds that I assume is an ahead filter. Bonus points for the latter as well, given there are no dedicated lanes for the filter.
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
I don't think the French would bother with a mast arm there. Just a pole with one full-size signal head and an eye level repeater would, almost certainly, be the order of the day. Mast arms are generally only used if there's two or more lanes on the approach.Chris Bertram wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 13:03The French would have one pole with three signals - the normal "primary" head, one on a mast-arm above, and the eye-level repeater for the first in the queue.Al__S wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:31One in each direction should be ample.jervi wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 22:07 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.22511 ... 312!8i6656
Went over this today and I feel like it has too many signal heads. Especially since this is a listed structure.
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
I like the Dutch system too. It's very like the US federal standard, but with the signals put before the intersection rather than beyond.traffic-light-man wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 11:21I'm generally a fan of Dutch signal design, though I really, really don't like the idea that the main movement on a given approach might only have signals overhead, or indeed only one signal in the first place. There is also a huge reliance on mast-arm signals in the Netherlands - I'm not against mast-arms at all, I just don't like the idea that they have to become commonplace in the urban environment in order to make the designs work.Al__S wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:41 I just stare in horror at the british creations and then go and look at the much cleaner Dutch approach
Five lanes(!), no splitter islands, each lane has a clear signal that applies to it and only the right & left lanes get secondary heads. Even a pedestrian crossing and parallel two way cycle crossing.
Our rules create these monsters.
Having said that, this type of design combats that sufficiently. It still poses the problem with single-head safety critical movements, but in my opinion looks much neater and clearer than a mast arm full of individual heads.
I don't get the UK's sniffyness over mast arms. They're surely no more obtrusive than lampposts, which are ten a penny in urban areas. It wouldn't be such a big deal if the UK didn't feel that street furniture had to be ugly as a necessity. Many parts of Europe and North America have quite elegant mast arms.
Traditionally, I liked our system of signals being both before and after the intersection. It was kind of the best of both worlds between the North American approach and the Franco-German approach. But it's gone awry in the last 20 years or so. Other countries may do things differently, from France to Japan, but what you generally find is a broad consistency. Here, there's so many variations now. There may only be a couple of signal heads or there may be half a dozen at similar sites. It's increasingly common to have no farside secondaries even when there appears to be no reason why there can't be. Then we have things like box signs being wrongly used to show movement of individual lanes and arrows & box signs either being under the green or either side. And let's not get started on the pedestrian signals being either on the opposite side, like in virtually every other country, or low down on the pole nearside.
Growing up in the 80s & 90s, things seemed to be a lot more consistent, with no great set up differences between newly installed mellors and the tin lanterns that were still hanging on from the 60s & early 70s. If you look at other places whose signal setups mostly resemblance our own: Scandinavia, Hong Kong, Australia & New Zealand, you'll see much more consistency than here.
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
What date and time was this picture taken? That's Bridgefoot isn't it?traffic-light-man wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:36 I'd forgotten I'd taken this image until I noticed it when looking through my photos. One of the curious double-buttons in Warrington - they both appeared to be operational, too.
I'm nobody special, just somebody who enjoys looking at and talking about infrastructure. Eager to learn as much as I can about the roads of the UK - please help me with this.
- traffic-light-man
- Member
- Posts: 4735
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
The Spanish, Portuguese, Belgians, Germans, Greeks and perhaps even Italians and Dutch probably would use a mast-arm there, though.
Indeed, as I think we discussed in the Secondaries thread not too long ago, I think the Dutch apply a basis of 1 signal head per lane, per movement. This is esentially what the MUTCD now mandates, which is why it's becoming common to see previously two-signal head approaches in the US gaining an extra few heads, because they now need a signal per lane. I still find it strange seeing NYC guy-wire mast arms with additional signals mounted mid-way along the mast using Astro-Brac brackets.
The old type that TfL used to use were great in this respect, essentially looking like a slightly chunkier lamp column. Current designs are definitely far too bulky for the urban environment in my opinion.Gareth wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 20:19 I don't get the UK's sniffyness over mast arms. They're surely no more obtrusive than lampposts, which are ten a penny in urban areas. It wouldn't be such a big deal if the UK didn't feel that street furniture had to be ugly as a necessity. Many parts of Europe and North America have quite elegant mast arms.
I'm not sure if deregulation and limited options had anything to do with it. Until the 2000s, I believe individual site approval was required for every site, the TSRGD was fairly stringent and the only real design available was the Mellor (on a whole). I'm speculating quite heavily here, but I think another factor is that these days there seems to be a lot of different consultancies bashing designs out for different projects within the same area, all with their own techniques and policies, whereas previously this would perhaps often be dealt with directly by in-house folks at the local authority.Gareth wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 20:19 Growing up in the 80s & 90s, things seemed to be a lot more consistent, with no great set up differences between newly installed mellors and the tin lanterns that were still hanging on from the 60s & early 70s. If you look at other places whose signal setups mostly resemblance our own: Scandinavia, Hong Kong, Australia & New Zealand, you'll see much more consistency than here.
I agree wholly, though, that in this particular case, the older designs are generally more superior and consistent.
It is indeed Bridgefoot, they've been there for years along with some others at Westbrook. I'm not sure why the date and time is particularly relevant, but it was 8th October at 14:10, according to the file.Britain wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 03:29What date and time was this picture taken? That's Bridgefoot isn't it?traffic-light-man wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 12:36 I'd forgotten I'd taken this image until I noticed it when looking through my photos. One of the curious double-buttons in Warrington - they both appeared to be operational, too.
Simon
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
https://www.google.com/maps/@50.624486, ... 312!8i6656
Unusual to have no left/right turn arrows on these as they are both phased. Also note the two secondary signals side by side.
edit. looking back at older GSV images the earlier mellors have arrows https://www.google.com/maps/@50.6244867 ... 312!8i6656
Unusual to have no left/right turn arrows on these as they are both phased. Also note the two secondary signals side by side.
edit. looking back at older GSV images the earlier mellors have arrows https://www.google.com/maps/@50.6244867 ... 312!8i6656
- traffic-light-man
- Member
- Posts: 4735
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Are you sure they're full greens? The Telent 4G uses Swarco LED modules in which the masks for the arrows sit behind the lens. They might appear as full greens from the outside, but when they're lit they'll show an arrow.Rambo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 22:03 https://www.google.com/maps/@50.624486, ... 312!8i6656
Unusual to have no left/right turn arrows on these as they are both phased. Also note the two secondary signals side by side.
edit. looking back at older GSV images the earlier mellors have arrows https://www.google.com/maps/@50.6244867 ... 312!8i6656
Simon
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
From playing about with different views it seems that one in Leeds is indeed a straight ahead filter,traffic-light-man wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:50 Elsewhere, I've (virtually) stumbled across two single-aspect filter arrows in one hit, that I don't think have been mentioned on SABRE before. The first is this left filter in Bournemouth and the second is this strange one in Leeds that I assume is an ahead filter. Bonus points for the latter as well, given there are no dedicated lanes for the filter.
EDIT: Having moved down to Victoria Road you can just about see that it's lit up in conjunction with a Humberside right. Woodhouse Street has a green man during this time - it seems this phase only kicks in if there is a pedestrian demand.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.81503 ... 384!8i8192
This is a Waterloo & City line train to Bank, please stand clear of the doors...
- traffic-light-man
- Member
- Posts: 4735
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Indeed, that would seem to be the case:TRC666 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 05, 2020 01:14From playing about with different views it seems that one in Leeds is indeed a straight ahead filter,traffic-light-man wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:50 Elsewhere, I've (virtually) stumbled across two single-aspect filter arrows in one hit, that I don't think have been mentioned on SABRE before. The first is this left filter in Bournemouth and the second is this strange one in Leeds that I assume is an ahead filter. Bonus points for the latter as well, given there are no dedicated lanes for the filter.but can't find a view where it's actually lit up.
EDIT: Having moved down to Victoria Road you can just about see that it's lit up in conjunction with a Humberside right. Woodhouse Street has a green man during this time - it seems this phase only kicks in if there is a pedestrian demand.
Link
traffic-light-man wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:50 Edit: It seems the latter Leeds example has some quite clever staging using filters to allow walk-with-traffic pedestrian crossings. Firstly, the A660 city-bound runs an ahead and right filter, allowing the ped crossing on Woodhouse Street (left) to run. Then it would appear Woodhouse Street runs a 'Humberside right' (though not back-to-back), allowing the ped crossing on the A660 and Hyde Park Road to run concurrently.
Simon
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
I’ve driven through that one in Bournemouth quite a few times in recent years, and it’s one of those odd occasions that something makes sense. I can’t actually describe it, but it works when you use it!traffic-light-man wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:50Except that TSRGD requires two. On the westbound approach, I'd suggest the duplicate primary serves a purpose. As does the opposing one, however I imagine it'd be less justified with some management of the foliage.Al__S wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:31One in each direction should be ample.jervi wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 22:07 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.22511 ... 312!8i6656
Went over this today and I feel like it has too many signal heads. Especially since this is a listed structure.
Elsewhere, I've (virtually) stumbled across two single-aspect filter arrows in one hit, that I don't think have been mentioned on SABRE before. The first is this left filter in Bournemouth and the second is this strange one in Leeds that I assume is an ahead filter. Bonus points for the latter as well, given there are no dedicated lanes for the filter.
Edit: It seems the latter Leeds example has some quite clever staging using filters to allow walk-with-traffic pedestrian crossings. Firstly, the A660 city-bound runs an ahead and right filter, allowing the ped crossing on Woodhouse Street (left) to run. Then it would appear Woodhouse Street runs a 'Humberside right' (though not back-to-back), allowing the ped crossing on the A660 and Hyde Park Road to run concurrently.
Derek Marshall, Leicester
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
There's a rather unique traffic light controlled roundabout on the A217, unique in that it's quite small of a roundabout to have traffic lights.
Anyway, I only just realised how potentially misleading these signals are from this approach:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4105663 ... 384!8i8192
The 2 lanes have straight ahead arrows however lane 1 is meant to go straight over whereas lane 2 is meant for going around the roundabout. With a straight on filter light, the intention is understandable, to allow lane 1 to move over the roundabout, continuing along the A217, however, both lanes show straight ahead arrow markings, which could potentially cause people in lane 2 to proceed. Not to mention the straight on filter and use of a straight arrow for lane 1 is confusing as there is a side road on the left.
Anyway, I only just realised how potentially misleading these signals are from this approach:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4105663 ... 384!8i8192
The 2 lanes have straight ahead arrows however lane 1 is meant to go straight over whereas lane 2 is meant for going around the roundabout. With a straight on filter light, the intention is understandable, to allow lane 1 to move over the roundabout, continuing along the A217, however, both lanes show straight ahead arrow markings, which could potentially cause people in lane 2 to proceed. Not to mention the straight on filter and use of a straight arrow for lane 1 is confusing as there is a side road on the left.
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
It’s an absolute nightmare of a junction. If it worked you could forgive the very weird signalisation and the strange layout, but it doesn’t work at all and causes queues in all directions for most of every day.Skipsy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 18:24 There's a rather unique traffic light controlled roundabout on the A217, unique in that it's quite small of a roundabout to have traffic lights.
Anyway, I only just realised how potentially misleading these signals are from this approach:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4105663 ... 384!8i8192
It is fundamentally much too small a roundabout to ever be signalised, and the signals don’t do very much more than just let one approach enter the junction at a time. The extra things the signals do permit are, as you’ve noted, at best liable to be misunderstood and at worst downright dangerous.
It is candidate number one for signalised roundabouts that would have been better as plain signalised junctions. The roundabout should never have been retained.
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
- traffic-light-man
- Member
- Posts: 4735
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
- Location: Liverpool, UK
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
I think the second stop line might actually save the bacon here in preventing actual conflicts - assuming the second set are adhered to if a road user does pass the first.
Talking of confusing setups, this new(ish) set of signals operates in an unusual fashion at certain times, although GSV tries to make a fool of that statement!
More often than not, the first set of signals go to green as the second set turn red. There are then two cycles of the first set while the second set are red, which just forces two approaches worth of traffic to try and squish in to a tiny storage area. The process continues in the other half of the cycle, so for that time a situation arises where the second set are green while the first are red, which brings me on to my next point...
Just to top it off, the second set with nine (9) signal heads has none of the aspects louvred and includes an additional high-level signal, so when stopped at the first stop line, the second set have much, much more impact to approaching traffic and traffic waiting at the stop line.
Simon
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Yeah I saw a video where someone was stuck for half an hour travelling southbound along the edge of Figges MarshChris5156 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:03It’s an absolute nightmare of a junction. If it worked you could forgive the very weird signalisation and the strange layout, but it doesn’t work at all and causes queues in all directions for most of every day.Skipsy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 18:24 There's a rather unique traffic light controlled roundabout on the A217, unique in that it's quite small of a roundabout to have traffic lights.
Anyway, I only just realised how potentially misleading these signals are from this approach:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4105663 ... 384!8i8192
It is fundamentally much too small a roundabout to ever be signalised, and the signals don’t do very much more than just let one approach enter the junction at a time. The extra things the signals do permit are, as you’ve noted, at best liable to be misunderstood and at worst downright dangerous.
It is candidate number one for signalised roundabouts that would have been better as plain signalised junctions. The roundabout should never have been retained.
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Roundabouts shouldn't be signalised period, in my opinion. If the roundabout can't do it on its own, then remove the roundabout.Chris5156 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:03It is candidate number one for signalised roundabouts that would have been better as plain signalised junctions. The roundabout should never have been retained.Skipsy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 18:24 There's a rather unique traffic light controlled roundabout on the A217, unique in that it's quite small of a roundabout to have traffic lights.
Anyway, I only just realised how potentially misleading these signals are from this approach:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4105663 ... 384!8i8192
Obviously, I'm not including the many motorway junctions which have this set up but they're more rotaries than true roundabouts, in my book.
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
To stop the jam, you'd need to have both that flow and Hunter St to be on red whenever the second stop line has red. But this would affect the efficiency of the junction and cause tailbacks which would interfere with the operation of other junctions. In a way, it's a sort of mini-Switch Island and the whole thing could do with starting again from scratch. The demolition of the flyovers may provide an opportunity for this, but I'm not holding my breath.traffic-light-man wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 13:47I think the second stop line might actually save the bacon here in preventing actual conflicts - assuming the second set are adhered to if a road user does pass the first.
Talking of confusing setups, this new(ish) set of signals operates in an unusual fashion at certain times, although GSV tries to make a fool of that statement!
More often than not, the first set of signals go to green as the second set turn red. There are then two cycles of the first set while the second set are red, which just forces two approaches worth of traffic to try and squish in to a tiny storage area. The process continues in the other half of the cycle, so for that time a situation arises where the second set are green while the first are red, which brings me on to my next point...
Just to top it off, the second set with nine (9) signal heads has none of the aspects louvred and includes an additional high-level signal, so when stopped at the first stop line, the second set have much, much more impact to approaching traffic and traffic waiting at the stop line.
As for the signal arrangements themselves, I agree, not great. I'm not sure what's happened to Liverpool's signalling department in recent years. They used to be pretty textbook. The mellors that were there were a far neater setup. We seem to have a random signal head generator dictating things. Additionally, this is another site that could do with mast arms, considering the width of the carriageways but they're a big no-no for Liverpool. I also hate those poles which have a wide base but then narrow again at the very last minute to fit the standard size NAL socket. Ugly things.
- ReissOmari
- Member
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 21:51
- Location: Birmingham
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
Anybody got any clue as to why these traffic signal hoods look like this? https://goo.gl/maps/rjmntPQJnqqUVrND9
ReissOmari..
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
I don’t know for sure, but as they are rotated to the side I’d guess it’s so that approaching trains can’t see the lights and mistake them for railway signals.ReissOmari wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 13:50 Anybody got any clue as to why these traffic signal hoods look like this? https://goo.gl/maps/rjmntPQJnqqUVrND9
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
- Chris Bertram
- Member
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
- Location: Birmingham, England
Re: Botched Traffic Signals
That seems like a bit of a stretch - railway signals would be at a much lower level, but I suppose we can't rule out someone being over-cautious.Chris5156 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 16:21I don’t know for sure, but as they are rotated to the side I’d guess it’s so that approaching trains can’t see the lights and mistake them for railway signals.ReissOmari wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 13:50 Anybody got any clue as to why these traffic signal hoods look like this? https://goo.gl/maps/rjmntPQJnqqUVrND9
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.
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!
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!