New (or amended) mobile TTM

[Conekicker]

Apologies if you aren't on Linkedin, you might not be able to see this link. It seems to be a single TM vehicle displaying a red X and a "CONVOY VEHICLE NO OVERTAKING" sign (TSM8, Part 2, Fig 11.1 refers). Although based on the image in the link below, I doubt the red X is as large as that shown in the TSM, presumably it's been specifically authorised. The vehicle in the link below is only Transit-class, so won't be fitted with a crash cushion. Whether that will prove to be a good idea or not remains to be seen I suspect. This might be a game changer for the TTM industry, depending upon exactly what it is.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/ur ... 458917888/

Text cut from the post if you can't see it:

Last week we ran a poll on social media asking contractors and TM providers what their biggest headache or concern was when they are doing works on or adjacent to motorways or carriageways.

Admittedly, it wasn’t the most scientific poll, but respondents highlighted the following issues:

- Not being able to access locations without using a rolling roadblock

- Missing start times because the traffic count is above 1200 per hour (60 vehicles in 3 minutes)

- Taking risks when maintaining roadworks, such as retrieving debris from live lanes

- Doing works at night

- Being in a traffic management crew and only being to get food from a service station

The good news is that Chevron TM has developed a new way of working to take these headaches away.

Our Enhanced Mobile Carriageway Closure (EMCC), which National Highways have accepted as a normal technique for lane closures, is a new way of providing traffic management for carriageway works which remove the requirement for rolling roadblock support, provides certainty around start times and longer working windows, enables night works to change to daytime works and minimises the need for diversions.

Our EMCC uses vehicles which display an authorised sign to take control of traffic and are supported by HRS Intellicone® Incursion Prevention & Warning System (IIPAWS®) and CCTV cameras.

For more information, email trafficmanagement@ChevronTM.com or call by our stand at Highways UK.

[Bomag]

Apologies if you aren't on Linkedin, you might not be able to see this link. It seems to be a single TM vehicle displaying a red X and a "CONVOY VEHICLE NO OVERTAKING" sign (TSM8, Part 2, Fig 11.1 refers). Although based on the image in the link below, I doubt the red X is as large as that shown in the TSM, presumably it's been specifically authorised. The vehicle in the link below is only Transit-class, so won't be fitted with a crash cushion. Whether that will prove to be a good idea or not remains to be seen I suspect. This might be a game changer for the TTM industry, depending upon exactly what it is.



Our Enhanced Mobile Carriageway Closure (EMCC), which National Highways have accepted as a normal technique for lane closures, is a new way of providing traffic management for carriageway works which remove the requirement for rolling roadblock support, provides certainty around start times and longer working windows, enables night works to change to daytime works and minimises the need for diversions.

Our EMCC uses vehicles which display an authorised sign to take control of traffic and are supported by HRS Intellicone® Incursion Prevention & Warning System (IIPAWS®) and CCTV cameras.

For more information, email trafficmanagement@ChevronTM.com or call by our stand at Highways UK.

On the naughty step for 'normal', its an option for a sub set of situations where you don't need IPVs etc shown in Chapter 8. As long as it's planned properly then its going to have less problems than a TOS RRB. The signs is readable from about 4 times that of a TOV message bar.

[Conekicker]

Apologies if you aren't on Linkedin, you might not be able to see this link. It seems to be a single TM vehicle displaying a red X and a "CONVOY VEHICLE NO OVERTAKING" sign (TSM8, Part 2, Fig 11.1 refers). Although based on the image in the link below, I doubt the red X is as large as that shown in the TSM, presumably it's been specifically authorised. The vehicle in the link below is only Transit-class, so won't be fitted with a crash cushion. Whether that will prove to be a good idea or not remains to be seen I suspect. This might be a game changer for the TTM industry, depending upon exactly what it is.



Our Enhanced Mobile Carriageway Closure (EMCC), which National Highways have accepted as a normal technique for lane closures, is a new way of providing traffic management for carriageway works which remove the requirement for rolling roadblock support, provides certainty around start times and longer working windows, enables night works to change to daytime works and minimises the need for diversions.

Our EMCC uses vehicles which display an authorised sign to take control of traffic and are supported by HRS Intellicone® Incursion Prevention & Warning System (IIPAWS®) and CCTV cameras.

For more information, email trafficmanagement@ChevronTM.com or call by our stand at Highways UK.

On the naughty step for 'normal', its an option for a sub set of situations where you don't need IPVs etc shown in Chapter 8. As long as it's planned properly then its going to have less problems than a TOS RRB. The signs is readable from about 4 times that of a TOV message bar.

Must admit, I'm struggling to see how a single MCC vehicle controlling up to 3 lanes of traffic, as shown on an earlier Chevron Linkedin post could be considered "enhanced", when a TSM8 MCC shows one vehicle per lane (plus one on the hardshoulder if present). But certainly better than a TOV doing it, plus you're not reliant on a TO actually turning up to do the deed.

Maybe "enhanced" as contractors should have one vehicle they could spare for EMCC, whereas none of them have up to 4 vehicles to spare for a MCC. So it would result in an "enhanced number of occurrences"? Up from the current "almost no occurrences"?

Will someone be producing guidance on this at some point? A TMCA advice note perhaps?

[Bristol]

There's a non-linkedin version of such an image here: https://www.chevrontm.com/traffic-manag ... y-closures

A single vehicle to cover one carriageway of a D3M seems, to me, to be a bit optimistic regarding the behaviour of the typical British driver. One of the scenes in a TV programme a few years ago (was it "secrets of the motorways" or something like that?) had lorries cutting across hatched areas at an exit to push past an IPV closing the carriageway, and I wondered at the time why one couldn't stick a CCTV camera on the IPV can then take points and a fine off everyone who pushed past.

[tom66]

CCTV on roadworks is one thing - but are Highways England using the CCTV on smart motorways to enforce red X's yet? I see plenty of people running red X's whenever I get stuck in a typical M25 accident on those unfortunate days I need to visit London, can't imagine they are giving out too many fines if it is so rampant.

[BeenEverywhere]

It could do with a pair of arms on the sides like a crop sprayer to cover the other lanes.

[Conekicker]

There's a non-linkedin version of such an image here: https://www.chevrontm.com/traffic-manag ... y-closures

A single vehicle to cover one carriageway of a D3M seems, to me, to be a bit optimistic regarding the behaviour of the typical British driver. One of the scenes in a TV programme a few years ago (was it "secrets of the motorways" or something like that?) had lorries cutting across hatched areas at an exit to push past an IPV closing the carriageway, and I wondered at the time why one couldn't stick a CCTV camera on the IPV can then take points and a fine off everyone who pushed past.

I read this as being a non-police/traffic officer rolling block, carried out by a single works vehicle. Potential use would be to effect a traffic switch or to install/remove the initial taper or to place a full carriageway closure at an exit slip.

All "protected" by Intellicone, which would flash and hoot to warn workers at the switch/taper/closure point ahead if the block vehicle is passed. Which would mean they'd have to stop work until the breaching vehicle(s) have passed them. If one vehicle breaches the closure, there's a very good (bad) chance others will follow like sheep, so the block would rapidly become ineffective/non-existent.

Optimistic indeed and would it be done on a D4M or Smart section? I can see it possibly working reasonably well on roads where HGVs can go in any lane, they could block errant cars. However, on roads where HGVs can't travel in all lanes, impatient car drivers could easily breach the block. Particularly on roads with no permanent VMS to support the block.

Overall, in light traffic with well-behaved drivers, it should work. Outside of those conditions, it could easily become "very interesting".

[jnty]

I guess the key thing is

Passing an operational EMCC vehicle is an offence for which an offender can receive 6 penalty points and a fine of up to £1,000. To support enforcement, our vehicles are equipped with CCTV cameras which captures footage of an incursion from 2 minutes before to 2 minutes after the incident.

Whether this would actually lead to prosecutions is another thing but in principle it's no different to bus lane enforcement from buses as used in London - except that bus lane enforcement is decriminalised. Of course, cars still drive in bus lanes...

[traffic-light-man]

Is it not the passing of the displayed sign that's the offence, rather than the vehicle itself or the TM operatives themselves? I presume they must also have to prove that the sign was displayed correctly etc to avoid loopholes.

Presumably the difference with NHTOs is that they themselves hold the relevant powers rather than it being solely through a displayed sign.

[Bomag]

Is it not the passing of the displayed sign that's the offence, rather than the vehicle itself or the TM operatives themselves? I presume they must also have to prove that the sign was displayed correctly etc to avoid loopholes.

Presumably the difference with NHTOs is that they themselves hold the relevant powers rather than it being solely through a displayed sign.

The offence is passing the sign while the convoy control aspect is displayed (linked to Diagram 7029 and then Section 36 RTA 1988).

In respect of the points about the number of vehicles used, this will need to be defined in the risk assessment as not all D3Ms etc would be the same. The process from 2006 require a wall of vehicles to physically stop somebody passing as there was no consistently reliable system to warn operatives. In many cases there is now the required connectivity (and no it's not intelicone, but can use a product from the same manufacture).

I know its a bit radical to think that industry has the ability to understand where this subsystem will work and how to safely implement it. So far its worked; so cross all extremities and provide industry a decent guide to design and operation plan requirements.

[Conekicker]

More here:

https://www.highwaysindustry.com/chevro ... -this-way/

I'm more content now I know who is behind this, although I still have concerns that sooner or later such a closure will be breached with undesirable consequences.

[CableTracer]

As the article eludes to, this has been historically successfully used on dual carriageway and has more recently been further developed to use two units alongside one another on 4 lane ALR motorway (with slips) - with success and has been approved for such use.

TO's have the power of stoppage, but typically require two or more units for a RRB near slips, where one police officer would be sufficient to gain control of the traffic independent of traffic counts (blue lights).

EMCC is a further step back, in that it is a RRB and can't stop traffic, but will in the majority of cases be sufficient for normal TM install as layouts and start points can be amended to suit the method. Hence freeing up TO's to attend incidents more rapidly.

[Conekicker]

Earlier today I stumbled across the authorisation for this type of sign.

https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-4929.pdf

[Bomag]

Earlier today I stumbled across the authorisation for this type of sign.

https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-4929.pdf

Than looks familiar. For those with access the presentation at Highways UK is apparently available. Pity the operator on the day broke it.