http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Paddockholme cycle barriers en Mon, 18 May 2026 19:25:51 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774&page=2#post-180033 Thu, 05 Feb 2015 22:14:05 +0000 Stickman 180033@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>When I went past this morning it looked like new wooden framing was being put in, so perhaps they are replacing the whole thing? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774&page=2#post-180027 Thu, 05 Feb 2015 21:09:36 +0000 HankChief 180027@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Over the page Eddie_h posted a picture of the terrible repair job on the Balgreen steps up to the Pinkhill Railway.</p> <p>There was a skip and some building material there this morning so it looks like it is being fixed. Let's hope they do a better job... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774&page=2#post-154126 Tue, 20 May 2014 20:49:12 +0000 HankChief 154126@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Tulyar - Thanks for the response.</p> <p>A £1 coin is 3mm wide, so the 'dropped' kerb should have a no more than 2 coins worth of step up...</p> <p>I show the result of my measurements over on the <a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11930">Tram Depot Entrance</a> thread.</p> <p>But I think you can guess the result... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-154101 Tue, 20 May 2014 15:18:32 +0000 Tulyar 154101@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Well back I think on the Trams thread (the interminable Trams thread) I listed all the tolerances I could find for things like dropped kerbs (6mm max - ideal= 0mm) ironwork in the carriageway and footway (+3mm max) edges of footways (+3mm for any kerbs) and recently I posted the diagram from ORR guidelines for tram rails installed in a roadway (Part 1 of Tram design guidance page 7).</p> <p>For Level Crossings the Group Standards (Network Rail) set the level variation (5mm) between rail and roadway panels and the gap (10mm) and also the flangeway gap, between the rail and the surface in the 4-foot. I recall this is around 60mm, because it was checked after a fatal incident (Staines Moor) and the gaps were found to be slightly wider than they should have been.</p> <p>If you are referring to the dropped kerb it should be 6mm max for cycles and wheelchairs. Remember that the railway which has far higher loadings from trains (a 20T static axle load for Class 43 at 125mph can whack down at around 80T distributed dynamic load per sleeper in figures I've seen quoted. A Class 67 is especially impressive I'm told - will see if I can get a figure from the automated measuring point on ECML at Ferryhill Co Durham. All that punishing loading yet the points that critically have to be properly aligned to avoid causing a derailment and fail-safe if even a plastic sheet gets trapped by the moving blade are maintained to tight tolerances - yet we cannot have roads without potholes..... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-153819 Sat, 17 May 2014 06:45:17 +0000 HankChief 153819@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Tulyar - do you have a link to the standards you are quoting?</p> <p>Could be useful...</p> <p>I asked the trams about the east side of the depot entrance which has quite a bump, and was told it had been checked and was within standards. I wasn't convinced.</p> <p>Cheers </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-153816 Fri, 16 May 2014 20:46:19 +0000 Tulyar 153816@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Took a look on the blog site.</p> <p>Pen as scaling = 10mm diameter?</p> <p>Dropped kerb upstand - standards = 0mm to +6mm for pedestrian and cycle traffic - fail.</p> <p>Laying new tarmac - cut edge of existing tarmac to a sound and square edge, and pour/paint a tar seal and lay new tarmac to but against a sound and vertical face. Feathered edges invite early failure.</p> <p>Setts? looks more like a concrete kerb sliced up with a stone cutting disc, and some of the cut corners have crumbled, presaging further deterioration, especially if it gets wet freezing conditions.</p> <p>Gaps between setts/slabs, need to check standards for that one, but for level crossings the limit for gaps between panel units is (officially) 10mm. (Actual checking on site suggests that this is frequently exceeded). Gaps here (pen=10mm) may exceed 10mm.</p> <p>Almost as rough as parts of Edinburgh's on-street tram tracks. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-153797 Fri, 16 May 2014 17:44:31 +0000 chdot 153797@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Seems it didn't happen today!</p> <p>"<br /> Alan Alexander (@trapprain)<br /> 16/05/2014 18:10<br /> @CyclingEdin @cocteautriplets @SRDorman @west_team Nothing to see here? #FridayFail </p> <p><a href="http://twitpic.com/e3ynz4" rel="nofollow">http://twitpic.com/e3ynz4</a></p> <p>" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-153727 Fri, 16 May 2014 10:20:41 +0000 chdot 153727@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<br /> contractor is back today to grout the setts. I have asked our engineering team to raise the other issues with the contractor.</p> <p>" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-153681 Thu, 15 May 2014 20:03:18 +0000 SRD 153681@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>update: <a href="http://www.trapprain.blogspot.nl/2014/05/dropped-kerb-at-paddockholm-eh12-7xr.html?m=1" rel="nofollow">http://www.trapprain.blogspot.nl/2014/05/dropped-kerb-at-paddockholm-eh12-7xr.html?m=1</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152935 Sat, 10 May 2014 21:36:42 +0000 neddie 152935@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It was probably the same contractors that did this:</p> <p><a href="http://imgur.com/n8jHvbY"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/n8jHvbYl.jpg" title="Hosted by imgur.com" /></a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152898 Sat, 10 May 2014 16:55:51 +0000 chdot 152898@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"</p> <p><a href="http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/strategy-and-research/publications-and-consultations/j185500-06.htm#accesscontrols">Chicanes should be placed at least 5.0 metres from any bend or junction, so riders can approach them straight on.<br /> </a><br /> " </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152892 Sat, 10 May 2014 14:46:10 +0000 HankChief 152892@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Errr... Good diagram, showing that the Southern barrier should be moved East (&amp; further from the Northern one), resulting in Westbound traveller exiting on the outside of the corner (with better sightlines)</p> <p>Sadly that is not what they have done...</p> <p><a href="https://flic.kr/p/mM9uwX"><img src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2870/13638034563_84931bc71e.jpg"></a><a href="https://flic.kr/p/mM9uwX">Paddockholm chicane</a> by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/people/91842878@N03/">HankChief</a>, on Flickr</p> <p>This photo is looking East and you can see that the Northern one has been moved further East (and not that far from Southern one)</p> <p>I see that in the first post the Council have acknowledged that <em>The current layout was constructed in error by the contractor and we will be asking them to remediate this.</em></p> <p>I'm sorry, but the amounts of hoops and money that the council have to go through to get anything changed, including drawing detailed plans is then completely wasted by employing a contractor that then installs something different.</p> <p>CEC should be forcing them to fix it as well as billing them for the plans that they had to draw up which were then completely ignored.</p> <p>I don't get annoyed often, but this has. What sort of contractors are CEC using that don't look at or don't care about following a plan? How can they stay in business with such sloppy work?</p> <p>Are these the same people who have still to correct the <a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12365">signage</a> on the cycle route 9? It's been a couple of months since they were put up and they are still wrong.</p> <p>Come on CEC you can do better than this... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152873 Sat, 10 May 2014 11:49:08 +0000 chdot 152873@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7333/14127883956_73ab6aa54e_h.jpg"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7333/14127883956_f0c23a170b.jpg"></a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152744 Fri, 09 May 2014 13:51:48 +0000 chdot 152744@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I'm sure that happens, but it doesn't <em>really</em> explain why no-one comes up with a better idea... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152741 Fri, 09 May 2014 13:43:57 +0000 Cyclingmollie 152741@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>chdot: <em>"What is it with CEC and chicanes!!??"</em></p> <p>Ooh, I think I know. I had a senior CEC employee explain to me how it works. She goes to meeting A, hears an idea and then passes it off as her own at meeting B. </p> <p>Ideas get passed around to impress others who want to impress in turn. No need to closely examine the ideas; quite the opposite in fact. My own experience bears this out. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152609 Thu, 08 May 2014 20:47:44 +0000 chdot 152609@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>0h !</p> <p>Too much speedreading or alcohol or both </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152606 Thu, 08 May 2014 20:37:28 +0000 HankChief 152606@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@chdot <em>Don't quite get the 'unadopted' bit - CEC has just adjusted chicane(?)</em></p> <p>Where did you see that - are you confusing threads? </p> <p>The CEC responses on the chicane thread was talking about differing locations. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152602 Thu, 08 May 2014 20:26:16 +0000 chdot 152602@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Out of interest, why don't you see speed bumps on cycle paths?"</p> <p>Er, not entirely true - canal, Criagleith (OK lumps more than bumps). </p> <p>But, yes, better than chicanes (surely!!??) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152600 Thu, 08 May 2014 20:22:59 +0000 PS 152600@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Out of interest, why don't you see speed bumps on cycle paths?</em></p> <p>Because we'd complain about them being a crash-causing hazard! ;o) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152599 Thu, 08 May 2014 20:22:34 +0000 chdot 152599@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I'm definitely getting more 'anti' chicanes - not just because CEC is being inept </p> <p>Also 'liking' the idea of <a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12776#post-152570">BOLLARDS</a>. </p> <p>Partly because (only this week - via CCE!) I've learned that you need an odd number - ie, have 2, that's three gaps, so people (tend to) go through the middle in both directions!</p> <p>So I suggest -</p> <p>Remove chicanes, put in two or even three bollards along the curved section add some paint saying SLOW and maybe a mirror or two. </p> <p>Don't quite get the 'unadopted' bit - CEC <em>has</em> just adjusted chicane(?) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152595 Thu, 08 May 2014 20:01:47 +0000 HankChief 152595@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It's a interesting balancing act between giving enough space for access for all to get through it versus slowing down <u>some</u> cyclists.</p> <p>I think he has a point about the set up being such that you are deposited to the inside of the bend when heading West. </p> <p>I think that the approach they took was to leave the left barrier (when heading West) where is was and move the right barrier from behind to in front of the left barrier, thereby reversing the direction of the path through. Not sure if this approach was due to money saving or planned?</p> <p>Out of interest, why don't you see speed bumps on cycle paths? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152555 Thu, 08 May 2014 15:50:04 +0000 Coxy 152555@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I see Mr Mohican most days on my commute home. I wouldn't say he looks very furious to me. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152546 Thu, 08 May 2014 15:07:46 +0000 SRD 152546@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>also: " if anyone who uses Balgreen to Paddockholm path regularly and feels brave enough we would be grateful if they could have a word with the young adult male with (?brightly-coloured) mohican-style haircut who has been allegedly spotted cycling 'furiously'. " </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152545 Thu, 08 May 2014 15:06:51 +0000 chdot 152545@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12776#post-152544">Bollards</a>! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152543 Thu, 08 May 2014 15:01:46 +0000 PS 152543@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>With the caveat again that I don't know the path, photograph on trapprain's blog suggests that the order of the chicane (passage on the left then right) seems to put a potentially frantically-cycling cyclist onto the inside of the blind corner. Wouldn't it be better to put them onto the outside of the bend?</p> <p>Noting, of course, that a cyclist going the other way would then be put on the inside, so I guess it depends on the profile of that curve and exactly where the perceived conflict point is. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152542 Thu, 08 May 2014 14:58:10 +0000 Stickman 152542@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Thanks SRD, I hadn't thought of it like that. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152535 Thu, 08 May 2014 14:50:04 +0000 SRD 152535@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Chicanes push cyclists and pedestrians into much narrower space than path. much as cyclists reject being mobile speed bumps where 'road narrowing' is proposed as a way of slowing traffic down, pedestrians object to being used in similar fashion on paths. </p> <p>it's like someone said "oh look, we'll put them on a collision course, then they'll *have* to slow down." basic premise is wrong. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152533 Thu, 08 May 2014 14:46:15 +0000 chdot 152533@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Or is it a case of being grateful for any improvements, even when they are flawed?"</p> <p>Think there's an element of 'one person's OK, is another person's compromise'. </p> <p><a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12776">Not that CEC has a good record on chicanes!</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152530 Thu, 08 May 2014 14:36:31 +0000 Stickman 152530@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>PS - yes, that's it. </p> <p>I'm not quite sure what the issue is here (other than not having the 3m gap)? I've found it far easier to negotiate after the changes. Or is it a case of being grateful for any improvements, even when they are flawed? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=12774#post-152528 Thu, 08 May 2014 14:25:29 +0000 PS 152528@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I don't know this path at all. Is the chicance at the bit where the path bends round the southern end of <a href="http://goo.gl/maps/7mIM6">this</a> L-shaped building? </p>