Botched Traffic Signals

Discussion about street lighting, road signs, traffic signals - and all other street furniture - goes here.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

L.J.D wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 15:49Maybe they took out the bulbs during these roadworks and forgot to put them back in.
Ah yes, seems like a sensible theory that they've disconnected those aspects for the works and just not reconnected them again. I wonder how long they've been left like that? :roll:
L.J.D wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 18:25It's a mystery why it's only the newer ones doing it because the old halogen heads didn't do it from what I've observed.
As I think I've mentioned before, I think it's because they require a retaining ring to hold them in place. On the halogen ones and the CLS ones with FuturLED3 and Dialight light engines, they were needed because there was literally nothing else to hold the mask in. The newer STC light engines twist-lock onto the front door and do a reasonably good job at holding the mask in place... until they don't. I don't know if it's just sheer human error or sometimes a bit of laziness plays into it as well, but I suspect the retaining rings aren't always being used.
Simon
User avatar
L.J.D
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 06:34
Location: W.Yorkshire

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by L.J.D »

I wonder why they've installed two signals heads here with ahead arrows on. Perhaps it used to be a right turn and they just turned the arrow to face ahead and kept the extra head. Or maybe they just wanted to double up though I can't think why.
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

L.J.D wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 03:02 I wonder why they've installed two signals heads here with ahead arrows on. Perhaps it used to be a right turn and they just turned the arrow to face ahead and kept the extra head. Or maybe they just wanted to double up though I can't think why.
It's an odd one that, and I've never worked it out other than perhaps wanting two reds for whatever reason. It doesn't seem like the kind of approach where you'd see that kind of thing though, and especially not from the Mellor era.

A pole in the centre of the island with a 6 aspect head on it would be a monster but still neater IMO, exactly like this. Having said that, having all arrows as well as box signs is a bit overkill :twisted:

Going back to my other point, though, I've noticed a few of these double secondary arrangements popping up (though admittedly, that one is quite old now). I have to say, I much prefer them to a 6m pole when it's just more aspects you're after!
Simon
User avatar
L.J.D
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 06:34
Location: W.Yorkshire

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by L.J.D »

traffic-light-man wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 19:39 It's an odd one that, and I've never worked it out other than perhaps wanting two reds for whatever reason. It doesn't seem like the kind of approach where you'd see that kind of thing though, and especially not from the Mellor era.
They have been refurbished anyway and replaced with our favourite signal heads (sarcasm from the other thread) :laugh: and the replacement just has one head but they've omitted the no U turn box on it.

Though to add to further strangeness in Scarborough i came across this oddball setup. It appears to be a recent modification too.

Also this head is poorly positioned and isn't needed at all I can imagine it causes confusion to people who don't know the area well because you can see it from the main road. Another very odd installation.
User avatar
Gareth
Member
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 19:16
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Gareth »

traffic-light-man wrote: Mon Jun 20, 2022 19:39Going back to my other point, though, I've noticed a few of these double secondary arrangements popping up (though admittedly, that one is quite old now). I have to say, I much prefer them to a 6m pole when it's just more aspects you're after!
Seems utterly redundant to me, outside of backup for aspect failure. At the risk of starting to sound obsessed, that's another location where a mast arm could be useful, considering the width of the road.

And yes, I'm aware of the overhead gantry signals at the line.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by jervi »

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.12606 ... 312!8i6656

Its removed now, but when the traffic signal controller wants to cross the road.

The current installation is also botched with three of the Push Button Units being on the back of the footway, but with near side indicators.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.12607 ... 384!8i8192
User avatar
L.J.D
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 06:34
Location: W.Yorkshire

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by L.J.D »

Gareth wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 13:31 Seems utterly redundant to me, outside of backup for aspect failure. At the risk of starting to sound obsessed, that's another location where a mast arm could be useful, considering the width of the road.

And yes, I'm aware of the overhead gantry signals at the line.
I can think of plenty of places that would benefit from a mast arm here. Having only 2 heads on a 3 lane approach is insane especially one been a bus lane so the risk of the signals been blocked off is higher. It should have at least 2 more heads at that junction. Definitely a botch job.
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

jervi wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 18:37The current installation is also botched with three of the Push Button Units being on the back of the footway, but with near side indicators.
Though if the poles were in the 'correct' location and blocking the footway, I'm sure there would be issues raised, and rightly so. I also suspect there's statutory services playing into the mix as well. Though far from ideal, it's not a botch, it's a reasonable layout given the constraints.
Simon
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by jervi »

traffic-light-man wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 17:25
jervi wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 18:37The current installation is also botched with three of the Push Button Units being on the back of the footway, but with near side indicators.
Though if the poles were in the 'correct' location and blocking the footway, I'm sure there would be issues raised, and rightly so. I also suspect there's statutory services playing into the mix as well. Though far from ideal, it's not a botch, it's a reasonable layout given the constraints.
I'm not suggesting that the signal posts should of been mounted on the front of the footway, in fact post number 4 ought to be at the rear of the footway too. What I would suggest is that maybe far side signals should have been used in this case as 3/8 of the PBUs are on the back of the footway.
User avatar
Gareth
Member
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 19:16
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Gareth »

L.J.D wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 19:33
Gareth wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 13:31 Seems utterly redundant to me, outside of backup for aspect failure. At the risk of starting to sound obsessed, that's another location where a mast arm could be useful, considering the width of the road.

And yes, I'm aware of the overhead gantry signals at the line.
I can think of plenty of places that would benefit from a mast arm here. Having only 2 heads on a 3 lane approach is insane especially one been a bus lane so the risk of the signals been blocked off is higher. It should have at least 2 more heads at that junction. Definitely a botch job.

Or at least a signal on the left far corner as well. I do quite like the American standard of having at least two signals visible at the line, within, I think, a 30 degree either side cone of vision. I'm less enthusiastic about no signals at the line or simply a farside mast arm with a signal per lane, which can actually look quite neat on a crossroads where both roads are very wide but wouldn't work here very well, where road widths are often much narrower and junction geometry much more irregular.

Australia does it pretty well, the basic standard being one at the line and one on each farside corner but they can go overboard on the number of signal heads sometimes.
User avatar
MotorwayGuy
Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 15:37
Location: S.E. London

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by MotorwayGuy »

User avatar
Big L
Deputy Site Manager
Posts: 7517
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 20:36
Location: B5012

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Big L »

Make poetry history.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
User avatar
MotorwayGuy
Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 15:37
Location: S.E. London

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by MotorwayGuy »

Big L wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 22:44 I saw you must turn left even though there’s a signposted right in Yeovil this morning.
Should have a "20 yards ahead" plate at least, what's more absurd is the fact there are abandoned traffic signals in an urban setting that were bagged over at least 8 years ago! In the other direction we have a set of no vehicles signs, one of which has a plate that says "No access except cycles", but the signals don't have an exemption for cycles not to turn left. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Devil ... -2.6256669
User avatar
MotorwayGuy
Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 15:37
Location: S.E. London

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by MotorwayGuy »

Not sure what is going on with these on Wood Lane at the junction with the A40:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5151171 ... 384!8i8192
It looks like right turns were permitted at certain times here at one point but this setup is messy and the nearside pole appears to have been struck at one point and replaced with one without a backing board. If it's not needed why bother replacing it?
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Chris5156 »

MotorwayGuy wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 23:54 Not sure what is going on with these on Wood Lane at the junction with the A40:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5151171 ... 384!8i8192
It looks like right turns were permitted at certain times here at one point but this setup is messy and the nearside pole appears to have been struck at one point and replaced with one without a backing board. If it's not needed why bother replacing it?
I asked about those a decade ago and nobody could explain it! It's really weird. They were possibly a leftover from some old setup, but if that's the case I've no idea why they're still replacing them.
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

I still suspect it's to do with closing the Westway east of that point. Having looked at the area again, it would make sense if it was perhaps intended to allow continued access to the West Cross Route while Westway itself was closed, especially with the off-slip arrangements.

Those must be some of the last Mellor secret signs still in use in the capital now, too.
Simon
User avatar
L.J.D
Member
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 06:34
Location: W.Yorkshire

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by L.J.D »

traffic-light-man wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 08:22 I still suspect it's to do with closing the Westway east of that point. Having looked at the area again, it would make sense if it was perhaps intended to allow continued access to the West Cross Route while Westway itself was closed, especially with the off-slip arrangements.

Those must be some of the last Mellor secret signs still in use in the capital now, too.
I always thought like with the secret signs I mentioned on the A10 at Stamford Hill it was so buses could divert incase Wood Lane or the Westway slip roads were blocked off because route 95 turns right here. Maybe if Wood Lane or slip roads closed at any point buses can go ahead at the lights and use the Westway Roundabout further up to divert or in this case use the Roundabout to turn around and go onto the westway if the slip is closed for any reason. Instead of having to go on lengthy diversion routes.
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

It's plausible, though perhaps a little over-engineered for that. Surely a regular exemption would suffice, like is present here?

The staging arrangement will also have to change to deal with the right turn when the signs are switched off. It'd be interesting to see how they manage it, i.e. is it remotely switched from UTC or do they come out and do it locally etc.

I also find it strange that the secret sign box signs haven't been included within the signal heads themselves, rather than being mounted separately. It's going back quite a way in my memory, but I'm fairly certain they were mounted in the same way when the site had Mellors as well.
Simon
Skipsy
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2019 19:53

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by Skipsy »

Is this a botch? Surely there should be a secondary light next to the one for right turns.
It can be quite hard to see any of the lights at the front, especially if you were caught waiting at the yellow box beyond the stop line.
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4728
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Botched Traffic Signals

Post by traffic-light-man »

Skipsy wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 18:17 Is this a botch? Surely there should be a secondary light next to the one for right turns.
It can be quite hard to see any of the lights at the front, especially if you were caught waiting at the yellow box beyond the stop line.
No, I don't think so. I don't think it's really any different to having a closely associated secondary on the offside which would be the typical place for it, other than it being over to the nearside. I suspect it's been placed there so that drivers coming from the right don't confuse it for a second stop line on the exit of the junction.
Simon
Post Reply