Matrix board not displaying variable speed limit

[tom66]

Is passing a wicket an offence (like passing a red 'x') or does it just indicate a lane is closed ahead and that you need to prepare to move?

You often see wickets used to indicate future lane closures on roadworks signs, or even on permanent signage, e.g.:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.22880 ... ?entry=ttu

Combining wickets and 'move across' arrows, if this is the case, makes even less sense. I'm sure there's a reason but I don't get it.

Passing (under) a wicket is not an offence.

The permanent sign you linked to is no longer prescribed. It was last prescribed in the 1994 Regs (Diagram 872) but was revoked, along with many, many other obsolete diagrams, in TSRGD 2016, S19-1. It (they) should be replaced with an appropriately designed Diagram 872.1 (S11-2-15).
872_1BW.pdf

Interesting - so why is it still considered acceptable for roadworks? 872.1 is far clearer, and the MS4 mixing the two styles, which apparently mean effectively the same thing (lane closure ahead, prepare to move across), is just, well, odd!

[Conekicker]

Is passing a wicket an offence (like passing a red 'x') or does it just indicate a lane is closed ahead and that you need to prepare to move?

You often see wickets used to indicate future lane closures on roadworks signs, or even on permanent signage, e.g.:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.22880 ... ?entry=ttu

Combining wickets and 'move across' arrows, if this is the case, makes even less sense. I'm sure there's a reason but I don't get it.

Passing (under) a wicket is not an offence.

The permanent sign you linked to is no longer prescribed. It was last prescribed in the 1994 Regs (Diagram 872) but was revoked, along with many, many other obsolete diagrams, in TSRGD 2016, S19-1. It (they) should be replaced with an appropriately designed Diagram 872.1 (S11-2-15).
872_1BW.pdf

Interesting - so why is it still considered acceptable for roadworks? 872.1 is far clearer, and the MS4 mixing the two styles, which apparently mean effectively the same thing (lane closure ahead, prepare to move across), is just, well, odd!

For roadworks it's to do with the way the sign is used (S13-6-13, Diagram 7202.1). Usually these signs are made with 2, 3 or 4 "ahead" arrows on them and supplied with rectangular yellow and red blanking plates to cover the relevant bit of an arrow head and shaft to make a "T".
That wouldn't be possible if the 872.1 style design was used.

The alternative for a 7202.1, as shown on the Working Drawing, is to have a flap but very few people do it that way as the flaps tend to be quite fragile.

MS4, no idea, perhaps they've gone for a "allow everything and use it as appropriate" approach?

[Bomag]

Passing (under) a wicket is not an offence.

The permanent sign you linked to is no longer prescribed. It was last prescribed in the 1994 Regs (Diagram 872) but was revoked, along with many, many other obsolete diagrams, in TSRGD 2016, S19-1. It (they) should be replaced with an appropriately designed Diagram 872.1 (S11-2-15).
872_1BW.pdf

Interesting - so why is it still considered acceptable for roadworks? 872.1 is far clearer, and the MS4 mixing the two styles, which apparently mean effectively the same thing (lane closure ahead, prepare to move across), is just, well, odd!

For roadworks it's to do with the way the sign is used (S13-6-13, Diagram 7202.1). Usually these signs are made with 2, 3 or 4 "ahead" arrows on them and supplied with rectangular yellow and red blanking plates to cover the relevant bit of an arrow head and shaft to make a "T".
That wouldn't be possible if the 872.1 style design was used.

The alternative for a 7202.1, as shown on the Working Drawing, is to have a flap but very few people do it that way as the flaps tend to be quite fragile.

MS4, no idea, perhaps they've gone for a "allow everything and use it as appropriate" approach?

Carrying on from this 872.1 etc is used where the marking and geometry (near straight) reflect the end of a lane and so you only get one at a time. With wicket sign you can get multiple lane closures and the lane markings continuing until the taper. The former is designed to be safe to merge up to the end of the lane; with wickets you hope all lane changes have been completed by the 200 yard sign.

As for the cranked arrow on MS4s its only for incident management and being in the relevant meeting the technology boys from Bristol were a bit vague when asking DfT for the content of Schedule 15.

[nowster]

...with wickets you hope all lane changes have been completed by the 200 yard sign.

Can you explain what you mean by that? Do you mean that you expect that everyone will have moved out of the closed lanes well in advance of 200 yards before the first taper cone?

[Conekicker]

...with wickets you hope all lane changes have been completed by the 200 yard sign.

Can you explain what you mean by that? Do you mean that you expect that everyone will have moved out of the closed lanes well in advance of 200 yards before the first taper cone?

Ideally yes, traffic conditions permitting, which overnight at a Relaxation closure shouldn't be a problem. Although there will always be some idiots who leave it to the last second and "run the taper". All too often this results in the taper being struck, with cones, lamps and occasionally signs scattered to the four winds. Which means some poor souls have to go out and fix it, the damaged taper presenting a confusing picture to approaching traffic. If the damage is sufficiently bad it might even result in traffic entering the site, which is highly dangerous.

[nowster]

...with wickets you hope all lane changes have been completed by the 200 yard sign.

Can you explain what you mean by that? Do you mean that you expect that everyone will have moved out of the closed lanes well in advance of 200 yards before the first taper cone?

Ideally yes, traffic conditions permitting, which overnight at a Relaxation closure shouldn't be a problem.

On a quiet road, I wouldn't even be thinking of moving out of a lane before the 200 yard sign, nor would I expect would most other drivers. Is this the reasoning for putting up the red X on the lane in advance of the taper?

[Conekicker]

Can you explain what you mean by that? Do you mean that you expect that everyone will have moved out of the closed lanes well in advance of 200 yards before the first taper cone?

Ideally yes, traffic conditions permitting, which overnight at a Relaxation closure shouldn't be a problem.

On a quiet road, I wouldn't even be thinking of moving out of a lane before the 200 yard sign, nor would I expect would most other drivers. Is this the reasoning for putting up the red X on the lane in advance of the taper?

Yes plus the distance between the last gantry and the taper will vary considerably, given how few gantries there tend to be.

[nowster]

Ideally yes, traffic conditions permitting, which overnight at a Relaxation closure shouldn't be a problem.

On a quiet road, I wouldn't even be thinking of moving out of a lane before the 200 yard sign, nor would I expect would most other drivers. Is this the reasoning for putting up the red X on the lane in advance of the taper?

Yes plus the distance between the last gantry and the taper will vary considerably, given how few gantries there tend to be.

Just my opinion here, but this is very silly, hugely confusing and incredibly frustrating. I can understand it from the safety aspect, but without an explanation of the "why" behind it to the general public it's going to cause problems.

There's a wicket sign saying it's legal (but unsafe) to drive all the way up to the cones, but there's a (seemingly) pointless red X over an empty lane. Mixed messages.

[Vierwielen]

Set me thinking. If we were to change to km/h, which variable speed limit boards could easily be changed to show 100 km/h and which ones could not?

I think only the MS4's could do so and even then that would be a stretch*.

See the standardsforhighways drawings PDF I linked to above (also attached below as PNG). The glyphs are probably already in the hardware in recent units built since 2001.

This makes sense, especially if one want to use teh same model for both local and export use. On the latter score, it is a pity that the DfT has taken control of road sign design rather than BSI. If the BSI had control, then they would no doubt have provision for export as well as for local markets - for example I believe that Cypriot road signs ar emodelled largely on British designs, with additons to accomodate the Greek alphabet.

[Bomag]

On a quiet road, I wouldn't even be thinking of moving out of a lane before the 200 yard sign, nor would I expect would most other drivers. Is this the reasoning for putting up the red X on the lane in advance of the taper?

Yes plus the distance between the last gantry and the taper will vary considerably, given how few gantries there tend to be.

Just my opinion here, but this is very silly, hugely confusing and incredibly frustrating. I can understand it from the safety aspect, but without an explanation of the "why" behind it to the general public it's going to cause problems.

There's a wicket sign saying it's legal (but unsafe) to drive all the way up to the cones, but there's a (seemingly) pointless red X over an empty lane. Mixed messages.

The Red X should only be used during set up/removal where the works vehicles/IPV is the hazard. Once the TTM is complete the signing must be fixed wicket signs or equivalent aspects on VMS.

[Bryn666]

...with wickets you hope all lane changes have been completed by the 200 yard sign.

Can you explain what you mean by that? Do you mean that you expect that everyone will have moved out of the closed lanes well in advance of 200 yards before the first taper cone?

Ideally yes, traffic conditions permitting, which overnight at a Relaxation closure shouldn't be a problem. Although there will always be some idiots who leave it to the last second and "run the taper". All too often this results in the taper being struck, with cones, lamps and occasionally signs scattered to the four winds. Which means some poor souls have to go out and fix it, the damaged taper presenting a confusing picture to approaching traffic. If the damage is sufficiently bad it might even result in traffic entering the site, which is highly dangerous.

Single banking does seem to encourage a lot of last minute panic lane changes because people have simply ignored or genuinely not seen the signs. Given the flashing beacon used with the WORKFORCE IN ROAD - SLOW sign seems to draw attention maybe the lane closure signs need the same, especially on lit motorways or otherwise difficult to see locations. I take it double banking for single evening work is verboten these days.

[Conekicker]

Can you explain what you mean by that? Do you mean that you expect that everyone will have moved out of the closed lanes well in advance of 200 yards before the first taper cone?

Ideally yes, traffic conditions permitting, which overnight at a Relaxation closure shouldn't be a problem. Although there will always be some idiots who leave it to the last second and "run the taper". All too often this results in the taper being struck, with cones, lamps and occasionally signs scattered to the four winds. Which means some poor souls have to go out and fix it, the damaged taper presenting a confusing picture to approaching traffic. If the damage is sufficiently bad it might even result in traffic entering the site, which is highly dangerous.

Single banking does seem to encourage a lot of last minute panic lane changes because people have simply ignored or genuinely not seen the signs. Given the flashing beacon used with the WORKFORCE IN ROAD - SLOW sign seems to draw attention maybe the lane closure signs need the same, especially on lit motorways or otherwise difficult to see locations. I take it double banking for single evening work is verboten these days.

There's nothing to stop contractors putting a flashing beacon with each approach sign. Apart from the expense, £20-£25 each...

It doesn't help that contractors tend not to use the correct size wicket for whatever road they are working on. For too many of them a "one size fits all" attitude seems to prevail.

Single banking isn't verboten, it's just that people very rarely do it. There might be some locations where it would be sensible to do it and a reputable contractor would do so if needs be. But the default these days is single banking on the grounds of cost but more so safety - fancy scuttling across 2, 3 or 4 lanes of a reasonably busy motorway at the start and end of a shift? No, me neither - and driving the wagon around to put out/pick up the offside signs eats into the working window by at least half an hour and often more depending on the location.

[Bomag]

Ideally yes, traffic conditions permitting, which overnight at a Relaxation closure shouldn't be a problem. Although there will always be some idiots who leave it to the last second and "run the taper". All too often this results in the taper being struck, with cones, lamps and occasionally signs scattered to the four winds. Which means some poor souls have to go out and fix it, the damaged taper presenting a confusing picture to approaching traffic. If the damage is sufficiently bad it might even result in traffic entering the site, which is highly dangerous.

Single banking does seem to encourage a lot of last minute panic lane changes because people have simply ignored or genuinely not seen the signs. Given the flashing beacon used with the WORKFORCE IN ROAD - SLOW sign seems to draw attention maybe the lane closure signs need the same, especially on lit motorways or otherwise difficult to see locations. I take it double banking for single evening work is verboten these days.

There's nothing to stop contractors putting a flashing beacon with each approach sign. Apart from the expense, £20-£25 each...

It doesn't help that contractors tend not to use the correct size wicket for whatever road they are working on. For too many of them a "one size fits all" attitude seems to prevail.

Single banking isn't verboten, it's just that people very rarely do it. There might be some locations where it would be sensible to do it and a reputable contractor would do so if needs be. But the default these days is single banking on the grounds of cost but more so safety - fancy scuttling across 2, 3 or 4 lanes of a reasonably busy motorway at the start and end of a shift? No, me neither - and driving the wagon around to put out/pick up the offside signs eats into the working window by at least half an hour and often more depending on the location.

Single banking was a concept for wider carriageways developed by a signing specialist The signs are always on the side of the closure; when the H&S brigade got hold of it they did not have a Scuby so they put them on the wrong side and, as Conekicker said, too small. Not a problem for the trial as the traffic flow was never more than the limit for relaxation schemes. Scale it up to 1200vph per lane and drivers in the closed lane see the first taper cone as the first sign of road works. Perhaps with eMCC this will be fixed.

[ManomayLR]

The Red X should only be used during set up/removal where the works vehicles/IPV is the hazard. Once the TTM is complete the signing must be fixed wicket signs or equivalent aspects on VMS.

I don’t like this rule at all.
Where is the logic?

Especially at night, a VMS is FAR better than a fixed sign. Not only it is brighter, but it is genuinely more visible because VMS are situated overhead.

Having VMS slow down traffic, and move them out of closed lanes gradually, one by one, well in advance of the taper, should be promoted as best practice to manage four lanes merging into 1 or 2.

Once the taper is up the VMS should STAY ON to make the lane closures and speed limits more visible to drivers.

A handful of managed stretches have so-called ROTTM signs. I think it was Conekicker that first mentioned these in another thread, several years ago when managed motorways were in their heyday.

They’re these small VMS which are operated by contractors and apparently can take on the role of double banked fixed TTM signs. But I’ve never seen them used - always yellow signs on A-frames.

Work and money has gotten into installing VMS that can look natural, like fixed signs. So why in the world are we not using them?!

[Conekicker]

The Red X should only be used during set up/removal where the works vehicles/IPV is the hazard. Once the TTM is complete the signing must be fixed wicket signs or equivalent aspects on VMS.

I don’t like this rule at all.
Where is the logic?

Especially at night, a VMS is FAR better than a fixed sign. Not only it is brighter, but it is genuinely more visible because VMS are situated overhead.

Having VMS slow down traffic, and move them out of closed lanes gradually, one by one, well in advance of the taper, should be promoted as best practice to manage four lanes merging into 1 or 2.

Once the taper is up the VMS should STAY ON to make the lane closures and speed limits more visible to drivers.

A handful of managed stretches have so-called ROTTM signs. I think it was Conekicker that first mentioned these in another thread, several years ago when managed motorways were in their heyday.

They’re these small VMS which are operated by contractors and apparently can take on the role of double banked fixed TTM signs. But I’ve never seen them used - always yellow signs on A-frames.

Work and money has gotten into installing VMS that can look natural, like fixed signs. So why in the world are we not using them?!

Because that's not the purpose of the permanent VMS, they are there for emergency/incident use. Imagine the scenario where the VMS were set to display the number of lanes closed ahead at roadworks, then an incident happens elsewhere. What does the control room operator do, reassign the VMS to warn/inform of the incident or leave them set for the roadworks, leaving drivers uninformed of the incident or the roadworks?

The VMS are used temporarily to aid in setting up/removing the roadworks and that's it. Also there are a limited number of control room operatives on duty and often multiple roadworks each night, you can't have them dedicated to altering the VMS for numerous roadworks, they'd not be able to react to incidents in a timely manner.

Speed limits are not required for Relaxation closures, so there's no point in setting them overnight for roadworks, other than perhaps temporarily when the closure is being established/removed.

ROTTMs are fairly rare beasts and I'm not sure how much use they get - that would be an illuminating* FOI. The NH SM Team were of a mind to not have them or remove them at some point, I'm not sure what the current position is on them. They tend not to be double banked but are much more visible than static plate signs.


*DYSWIDT

[Bryn666]

The Red X should only be used during set up/removal where the works vehicles/IPV is the hazard. Once the TTM is complete the signing must be fixed wicket signs or equivalent aspects on VMS.

I don’t like this rule at all.
Where is the logic?

Especially at night, a VMS is FAR better than a fixed sign. Not only it is brighter, but it is genuinely more visible because VMS are situated overhead.

Having VMS slow down traffic, and move them out of closed lanes gradually, one by one, well in advance of the taper, should be promoted as best practice to manage four lanes merging into 1 or 2.

Once the taper is up the VMS should STAY ON to make the lane closures and speed limits more visible to drivers.

A handful of managed stretches have so-called ROTTM signs. I think it was Conekicker that first mentioned these in another thread, several years ago when managed motorways were in their heyday.

They’re these small VMS which are operated by contractors and apparently can take on the role of double banked fixed TTM signs. But I’ve never seen them used - always yellow signs on A-frames.

Work and money has gotten into installing VMS that can look natural, like fixed signs. So why in the world are we not using them?!

Because that's not the purpose of the permanent VMS, they are there for emergency/incident use. Imagine the scenario where the VMS were set to display the number of lanes closed ahead at roadworks, then an incident happens elsewhere. What does the control room operator do, reassign the VMS to warn/inform of the incident or leave them set for the roadworks, leaving drivers uninformed of the incident or the roadworks?

The VMS are used temporarily to aid in setting up/removing the roadworks and that's it. Also there are a limited number of control room operatives on duty and often multiple roadworks each night, you can't have them dedicated to altering the VMS for numerous roadworks, they'd not be able to react to incidents in a timely manner.

Speed limits are not required for Relaxation closures, so there's no point in setting them overnight for roadworks, other than perhaps temporarily when the closure is being established/removed.

ROTTMs are fairly rare beasts and I'm not sure how much use they get - that would be an illuminating* FOI. The NH SM Team were of a mind to not have them or remove them at some point, I'm not sure what the current position is on them. They tend not to be double banked but are much more visible than static plate signs.


*DYSWIDT

The ROTTMS on the M62 J18-20 have occasionally seen use when the tapers have aligned with them, but more often than not you get a single tiny single banked sign in front of them looking distinctly out of place

[Bomag]

The Red X should only be used during set up/removal where the works vehicles/IPV is the hazard. Once the TTM is complete the signing must be fixed wicket signs or equivalent aspects on VMS.

I don’t like this rule at all.
Where is the logic?

Especially at night, a VMS is FAR better than a fixed sign. Not only it is brighter, but it is genuinely more visible because VMS are situated overhead.

Having VMS slow down traffic, and move them out of closed lanes gradually, one by one, well in advance of the taper, should be promoted as best practice to manage four lanes merging into 1 or 2.

Once the taper is up the VMS should STAY ON to make the lane closures and speed limits more visible to drivers.

A handful of managed stretches have so-called ROTTM signs. I think it was Conekicker that first mentioned these in another thread, several years ago when managed motorways were in their heyday.

They’re these small VMS which are operated by contractors and apparently can take on the role of double banked fixed TTM signs. But I’ve never seen them used - always yellow signs on A-frames.

Work and money has gotten into installing VMS that can look natural, like fixed signs. So why in the world are we not using them?!

Do a search for Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8 Part 3 U2.15, U2.17, U7.4, U7.5 ad U7.6. This informs you why the fixed VMS system (which was designed to a lower level of resilience as it was for incident and congestion management) is only fit for setting up and removal where the IPV provides the level of safety required.

In terms of VMS, while brighter/more conspicuous, in terms of being able to read and understand them they are not much better unless, like ROTTMs, the light output settings are at the bottom and not the top of the range in EN 12966. ROTTMs have been a disaster due the the National Highways NH&S Teams specification and insistence of them being set by the ROC/RCC and not the contractor.

[Chris5156]

ROTTMs have been a disaster due the the National Highways NH&S Teams specification and insistence of them being set by the ROC/RCC and not the contractor.

I can't recall ever seeing one in use. I've been through plenty of roadworks on roads equipped with them, and have only ever seen ordinary temporary signs on A-frames plonked next to them.

[nowster]

Because that's not the purpose of the permanent VMS, they are there for emergency/incident use. Imagine the scenario where the VMS were set to display the number of lanes closed ahead at roadworks, then an incident happens elsewhere. What does the control room operator do, reassign the VMS to warn/inform of the incident or leave them set for the roadworks, leaving drivers uninformed of the incident or the roadworks?

This is a failure in planning and communication at many levels.

I have seen VMS used on approach to roadworks well after they've been set up, causing driver confusion.

I've seen VMS speed limits be set approaching the taper point whilst the roadworks are being set up and then the rest of the VMS gantries are left blank until the end of roadworks extent, where an NSL appears on the VMS gantries. This is dangerous for the workers.

[RichardA35]

ROTTMs have been a disaster due the the National Highways NH&S Teams specification and insistence of them being set by the ROC/RCC and not the contractor.

I can't recall ever seeing one in use. I've been through plenty of roadworks on roads equipped with them, and have only ever seen ordinary temporary signs on A-frames plonked next to them.

I have seen them in action in the last two months at either the M5 or M3 smart sections at night - I forget which.