In message <t3393j$1f7$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:18:11 on Tue, 12 Apr
2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 12/04/2022 06:34, Roland Perry wrote:
>> The article there implies helmets are required for those participating
>> in the e-scooter trials. The Cambridge trial says users "should" wear a
>> helmet, but very few people do. And isn't a provisional licence a
>> requirement, not some ill-defined additional (to what?) qualification.
>
>A part of the Edinburgh government scheme for hire bikes has just
>started here. A newspaper article by one of organisers specifically
>says that helmets and high visibility clothing are not required because
>they are used pff road

The bike hire trials I'm aware of are specifically for *on road* use.
Not sure what an *off-road* trial brings to that party.

>but all the ones that I have seen have been on the road. It will be
>interesting to see the accident figures - one of the came down a side
>road and straight into the traffic without looking or stopping.

They do that all the time in Cambridge. But so do pedal cyclists!

>Also see them going around with people sitting in the basket at the front.
>
>They have a big logo on them, I might have thought they would have a
>clearly identifiable registration or number to enable easier
>prosecutions.

You'd need to look at the specification for the scheme, and while
experimental bikes must have some sort of identification on them (for
use by the proprietors) it's not as big and visible as a numberplate.
Which you'd have difficulty affixing to a bike, let alone a scooter.
--
Roland Perry

On 12/04/2022 09:22, Roland Perry wrote:
> The bike hire trials I'm aware of are specifically for*on road* use.
> Not sure what an*off-road* trial brings to that party.

I think it was referring to cycle track as opposed to on the road itself
(I might have misquoted but going from memory) nut most of the ones that
I have seen have been on the road mixed in with normal traffic.

In message <t33qlg$50g$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:17:51 on Tue, 12 Apr
2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:

>On 12/04/2022 09:22, Roland Perry wrote:

>> The bike hire trials I'm aware of are specifically for*on road* use.
>> Not sure what an*off-road* trial brings to that party.
>
>I think it was referring to cycle track as opposed to on the road
>itself (I might have misquoted but going from memory) nut most of the
>ones that I have seen have been on the road mixed in with normal traffic.

The official trials allow the electric scooters/bikes to use
*designated* shared pavements, and cycle tracks. They don't allow
infringement on pedestrian-only areas. And the requirement for
helmets and provisional licences applies to all use (despite the
former being routinely ignored).

Of course, by ignoring it and behaving like idiots on the trial, they
exactly encouraging TPTB to decide to roll them out more widely.
--
Roland Perry

In message <iLBdEaiD9XViFA+k@perry.uk>, at 14:31:47 on Tue, 12 Apr 2022,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>In message <t33qlg$50g$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:17:51 on Tue, 12 Apr
>2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>
>>On 12/04/2022 09:22, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>> The bike hire trials I'm aware of are specifically for*on road* use.
>>> Not sure what an*off-road* trial brings to that party.
>>
>>I think it was referring to cycle track as opposed to on the road
>>itself (I might have misquoted but going from memory) nut most of the
>>ones that I have seen have been on the road mixed in with normal traffic.
>
>The official trials allow the electric scooters/bikes to use
>*designated* shared pavements, and cycle tracks. They don't allow
>infringement on pedestrian-only areas. And the requirement for
>helmets and provisional licences applies to all use (despite the
>former being routinely ignored).
>
>Of course, by ignoring it and behaving like idiots on the trial, they

not

>exactly encouraging TPTB to decide to roll them out more widely.

--
Roland Perry

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 10:02:01 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t2khkt$ts9$5@dont-email.me>, at 17:11:57 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <kskl4h9fhad2nn3brdhvka2sd7m8t0cnsg@4ax.com>, at 12:18:03 on
>>>>> Mon, 4 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 19:59:57 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 03/04/2022 16:20, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <w8idnbb-Nv0IAdT_nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>>>>>>>>>> 14:09:42 on Sun, 3 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any such trains would have to be dedicated to unaccompanied trailers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and new methods of loading / unloading would need to be invented
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They would just use the methods which are quite happily being used on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Continent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Would I be correct in thinking there aren't matching facilities in the
>>>>>>>>>>> UK, nor has anyone built and approved the new style of freight
>>>>>>>>>>> train for
>>>>>>>>>>> the tunnel?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not clear why different freight shuttle wagons would be needed?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Normal freight shuttle, drive in, park, next artic follows, parks, next
>>>>>>>>> artic follows, park etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With unaccompanied trailers they need to be backed on (full length of
>>>>>>>>> train to start, reducing as the train fills), dropped, tractor unit then
>>>>>>>>> needs to drive back up the full length of train before next trailer can
>>>>>>>>> be backed down etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Very different process so current shuttle trains not practicable as the
>>>>>>>>> dropping process is very time consuming. Better to be done elsewhere
>>>>>>>>> where more space is available.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why such unnecessary complexity? Just use temporary, small shunting
>>>>>>>> tractor units to haul the trailers on to standard freight shuttles and off
>>>>>>>> at the other side. Ideally, these would be electric.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, articulated truck pulls in, the road tractor unit disconnects and
>>>>>>>> drives away to a holding/service area, while the waiting local shunting
>>>>>>>> tractor couples up and takes the trailer on to the train. These would be
>>>>>>>> driven by local shunting drivers (but ideally be self-driven) who
>>>>>>>> would not
>>>>>>>> go through the Tunnel. The process is reversed at the other side. The
>>>>>>>> shunting drivers just work in one terminal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, no drivers waste time going through the Tunnel, and the road tractors
>>>>>>>> are released as soon as they drop off their trailers. They may then wait
>>>>>>>> for then next for their next load in a holding/service area, or go
>>>>>>>> straight
>>>>>>>> across to the pick-up area if the next load is already waiting for them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You'd still need some works to the terminal areas, as they're not remotely
>>>>>>> set up for that kind of operation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking at Folkestone on Google maps, I guess there could be space found
>>>>>>> for tractor unit exchange somewhere before boarding (after check-in and
>>>>>>> customs, presumably?); for arriving trailers you could maybe make an
>>>>>>> exchange area somewhere near the fuel station? Or perhaps the nearby truck
>>>>>>> stop around 5km away would be more convenient.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it would be highly desirable for the tractor swaps to happen
>>>>>> within the terminal area. That way, the small
>>>>>> shunting tractors won't need to be capable of hauling trailers on the
>>>>>> public highway.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's been said that the temporary tractors would have to be full size
>>>>> ones because there's no spare space at Folkestone.
>>>>
>>>> The half-cab tractor units are perfectly road-legal.
>>>
>>> On the motorway?
>>
>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages which
>> are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>
> If their top speed is, say, 20mph, would it make sense or be legal to
> take them on a motorway?
>

A good point, I'd not considered that they might have a lower top speed. So
perhaps a version with a higher speed might be needed, or a base-spec
conventional tractor unit.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 11:02, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages which
>> are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>
> Not seen many traction engines on motorways.
>
> Then there is the complication of "Special Roads" :=)
>
>

Luckily Special Roads have a list at the entry points
<https://goo.gl/maps/vPSWXHm85KJc1maz5>

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t2kkou$tjd$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:18 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <RJg*Zv1Ky@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 09:56:47 on Wed,
>>> 6 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <PJg*kLYKy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:23:05 on Tue,
>>>>> 5 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> But outside uk.railway, the fact that it has't been done yet doesn't
>>>>>>> mean it can never be done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, there's a lot of uk.r's traditional overthinking going on here.
>>>>>> The Cargobeamer special trains are just trains of flat wagons, which
>>>>>> presumably could gain tunnel approval relatively easily (if the
>>>>>> trailers are
>>>>>> allowed on Shuttles, there are presumably fine on flat wagons too).
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps the safety case is more complicated than you think. I wonder if
>>>>> the unaccompanied vs accompanied is an issue too.
>>>>
>>>> Why? On conventional Shuttle trains the trailers are 'unaccompanied' - the
>>>> drivers are in the coach at the end of the train, not in their cab. In an
>>>> emergency they are not going back to their vehicle to drive it anywhere.
>>>
>>> Can you quote the bits of the safety case for the existing shuttles,
>>> which is pertinent to that? Otherwise we just guessing.
>>>
>> Are you denying that the drivers are in a separate coach?
>
> No, I'm interested in why the freight shuttles have the cage-like
> structure (which the CargoBeamer trains don't) and whether that's a
> factor in the safety case.
>

The second (third?) generation of Eurotunnel cargo shuttle wagons have a
much smaller structure, which seem to cover just the cabs of the lorries
(pics 11 and 12 on <https://www.eurotunnelfreight.com/uk/about/library/>)

> Some people have suggested that being open-sided *at all* is a risk,
> especially from fire/smoke spreading from an HGV on fire, and would
> rather have it contained very locally.

The major risk is from the tractor unit; if you're not taking that, the
risk is hugely reduced.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <PJg*8M7Ky@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:28:17 on Thu,
> 7 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages which
>>> are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>>
>> Bicycles
>> Horse-drawn vehicles

I knew I should have specified 'motor' vehicles.

>> Some agricultural vehicles

Yes, I forgot those.

>> Light quadricycles
>
> And invalid carriages, which includes the mobility-scooter-shaped
> examples.
>

I already mentioned those.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:45:54 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <t2kkou$tjd$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:18 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <RJg*Zv1Ky@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 09:56:47 on Wed,
>>>>> 6 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <PJg*kLYKy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:23:05 on Tue,
>>>>>>> 5 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> But outside uk.railway, the fact that it has't been done yet doesn't
>>>>>>>>> mean it can never be done.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed, there's a lot of uk.r's traditional overthinking going on here.
>>>>>>>> The Cargobeamer special trains are just trains of flat wagons, which
>>>>>>>> presumably could gain tunnel approval relatively easily (if the
>>>>>>>> trailers are
>>>>>>>> allowed on Shuttles, there are presumably fine on flat wagons too).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps the safety case is more complicated than you think. I wonder if
>>>>>>> the unaccompanied vs accompanied is an issue too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? On conventional Shuttle trains the trailers are 'unaccompanied' - the
>>>>>> drivers are in the coach at the end of the train, not in their cab. In an
>>>>>> emergency they are not going back to their vehicle to drive it anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you quote the bits of the safety case for the existing shuttles,
>>>>> which is pertinent to that? Otherwise we just guessing.
>>>>>
>>>> Are you denying that the drivers are in a separate coach?
>>>
>>> No, I'm interested in why the freight shuttles have the cage-like
>>> structure (which the CargoBeamer trains don't) and whether that's a
>>> factor in the safety case.
>>>
>>> Some people have suggested that being open-sided *at all* is a risk,
>>> especially from fire/smoke spreading from an HGV on fire, and would
>>> rather have it contained very locally.
>>
>> Yes, but I think that would make the freight wagons+cargo too heavy.
>
> That’s certainly an explanation I’ve seen before. There’s also the issue
> of whether being enclosed might make the fire more dangerous and more
> difficult to control than on the semi-open wagons. For me that’s an
> imponderable, and probably down to probabilities rather than strict
> analysis.
>

There are roller-shutter fire doors between each railway vehicle of the
passenger shuttles; presumably they'd be present on some hypothetical
fully-enclosed freight shuttle. They're intended to contain a fire to one
railway vehicle for long enough that the train can leave the tunnel (there
are doors to allow people to move to the next carriage).

Two of the major reasons cited for the effects of the two freight shuttle
fires are (a) the fire wasn't contained within the vehicle and disabled the
train, forcing it to stop within the tunnel and (b) the fire was able to
spread to other lorries on the train.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:54:09 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 07/04/2022 11:02, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages
>>> which are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>>
>> Not seen many traction engines on motorways.
>>
>> Then there is the complication of "Special Roads" :=)
>>
> Luckily Special Roads have a list at the entry points
> <https://goo.gl/maps/vPSWXHm85KJc1maz5>

Motorways used to have these too.

https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=NO_Sign

Mike

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Two of the major reasons cited for the effects of the two freight shuttle
> fires are (a) the fire wasn't contained within the vehicle and disabled the
> train, forcing it to stop within the tunnel and (b) the fire was able to
> spread to other lorries on the train.

Wasn't there some suggestion that the latticework of the previous freight
vehicles provided a kind of 'Bunsen burner' effect that enhanced the fire,
over a completely open wagon? I thought that was the reason for the second
generation being fully open?

Theo

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:45:54 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <t2kkou$tjd$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:18 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <RJg*Zv1Ky@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 09:56:47 on Wed,
>>>>>> 6 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <PJg*kLYKy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:23:05 on Tue,
>>>>>>>> 5 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> But outside uk.railway, the fact that it has't been done yet doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> mean it can never be done.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Indeed, there's a lot of uk.r's traditional overthinking going on here.
>>>>>>>>> The Cargobeamer special trains are just trains of flat wagons, which
>>>>>>>>> presumably could gain tunnel approval relatively easily (if the
>>>>>>>>> trailers are
>>>>>>>>> allowed on Shuttles, there are presumably fine on flat wagons too).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps the safety case is more complicated than you think. I wonder if
>>>>>>>> the unaccompanied vs accompanied is an issue too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why? On conventional Shuttle trains the trailers are 'unaccompanied' - the
>>>>>>> drivers are in the coach at the end of the train, not in their cab. In an
>>>>>>> emergency they are not going back to their vehicle to drive it anywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you quote the bits of the safety case for the existing shuttles,
>>>>>> which is pertinent to that? Otherwise we just guessing.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Are you denying that the drivers are in a separate coach?
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm interested in why the freight shuttles have the cage-like
>>>> structure (which the CargoBeamer trains don't) and whether that's a
>>>> factor in the safety case.
>>>>
>>>> Some people have suggested that being open-sided *at all* is a risk,
>>>> especially from fire/smoke spreading from an HGV on fire, and would
>>>> rather have it contained very locally.
>>>
>>> Yes, but I think that would make the freight wagons+cargo too heavy.
>>
>> That’s certainly an explanation I’ve seen before. There’s also the issue
>> of whether being enclosed might make the fire more dangerous and more
>> difficult to control than on the semi-open wagons. For me that’s an
>> imponderable, and probably down to probabilities rather than strict
>> analysis.
>>
>
> There are roller-shutter fire doors between each railway vehicle of the
> passenger shuttles; presumably they'd be present on some hypothetical
> fully-enclosed freight shuttle. They're intended to contain a fire to one
> railway vehicle for long enough that the train can leave the tunnel (there
> are doors to allow people to move to the next carriage).
>
> Two of the major reasons cited for the effects of the two freight shuttle
> fires are (a) the fire wasn't contained within the vehicle and disabled the
> train, forcing it to stop within the tunnel and (b) the fire was able to
> spread to other lorries on the train.

Yes, thanks. One of the implications of the design of the later shuttle
freight wagons is that it’s too expensive (in money and/or weight) to
change to fully enclosed wagons and the risks will have to be mitigated
some other way. The roofs over the tractors are presumably because one of
the initiating factors in one of the fires was a long whip aerial causing
an OHLE flashover, and they also might possibly reduce the chance of flames
from a tractor fire having a similar effect, though that’s probably only a
slight effect given the movement of the train.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:45:54 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <t2kkou$tjd$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:18 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <RJg*Zv1Ky@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 09:56:47 on Wed,
>>>>>>> 6 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <PJg*kLYKy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:23:05 on Tue,
>>>>>>>>> 5 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> But outside uk.railway, the fact that it has't been done yet doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>> mean it can never be done.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, there's a lot of uk.r's traditional overthinking going on here.
>>>>>>>>>> The Cargobeamer special trains are just trains of flat wagons, which
>>>>>>>>>> presumably could gain tunnel approval relatively easily (if the
>>>>>>>>>> trailers are
>>>>>>>>>> allowed on Shuttles, there are presumably fine on flat wagons too).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the safety case is more complicated than you think. I wonder if
>>>>>>>>> the unaccompanied vs accompanied is an issue too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why? On conventional Shuttle trains the trailers are 'unaccompanied' - the
>>>>>>>> drivers are in the coach at the end of the train, not in their cab. In an
>>>>>>>> emergency they are not going back to their vehicle to drive it anywhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you quote the bits of the safety case for the existing shuttles,
>>>>>>> which is pertinent to that? Otherwise we just guessing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you denying that the drivers are in a separate coach?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I'm interested in why the freight shuttles have the cage-like
>>>>> structure (which the CargoBeamer trains don't) and whether that's a
>>>>> factor in the safety case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some people have suggested that being open-sided *at all* is a risk,
>>>>> especially from fire/smoke spreading from an HGV on fire, and would
>>>>> rather have it contained very locally.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but I think that would make the freight wagons+cargo too heavy.
>>>
>>> That’s certainly an explanation I’ve seen before. There’s also the issue
>>> of whether being enclosed might make the fire more dangerous and more
>>> difficult to control than on the semi-open wagons. For me that’s an
>>> imponderable, and probably down to probabilities rather than strict
>>> analysis.
>>>
>>
>> There are roller-shutter fire doors between each railway vehicle of the
>> passenger shuttles; presumably they'd be present on some hypothetical
>> fully-enclosed freight shuttle. They're intended to contain a fire to one
>> railway vehicle for long enough that the train can leave the tunnel (there
>> are doors to allow people to move to the next carriage).
>>
>> Two of the major reasons cited for the effects of the two freight shuttle
>> fires are (a) the fire wasn't contained within the vehicle and disabled the
>> train, forcing it to stop within the tunnel and (b) the fire was able to
>> spread to other lorries on the train.
>
> Yes, thanks. One of the implications of the design of the later shuttle
> freight wagons is that it’s too expensive (in money and/or weight) to
> change to fully enclosed wagons and the risks will have to be mitigated
> some other way. The roofs over the tractors are presumably because one of
> the initiating factors in one of the fires was a long whip aerial causing
> an OHLE flashover, and they also might possibly reduce the chance of flames
> from a tractor fire having a similar effect, though that’s probably only a
> slight effect given the movement of the train.
>

I don't think the two major tunnel fires had anything to do with the
tractor units, but there might have been other, less newsworthy, small
fires that were.

On 29/03/2022 15:11, ColinR wrote:
> On 29/03/2022 14:57, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Nigel Emery <nigele3@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 23:23:44 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The net is tightening, not just on P&O, but on the wider ferry
>>>>> industry
>>>>> that Turner and his father have railed against for decades.
>>>>
>>>> On the Cross Channel route the eventual winners might turn out to be
>>>> Eurotunnel. A quick google suggests they currently have about 70% of
>>>> car traffic and 40% of freight. Of course the longer journey times of
>>>> the ferry give the freight drivers a break, interesting to see how
>>>> this plays out!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, not all freight is allowed through the Chunnel, and
>>> Eurotunnel
>>> is limited to a single route. The slower ferries offer much more
>>> flexibility.
>>>
>>> The future for freight might be for separate tractor units or at least
>>> drivers on both sides of the Channel. There's really no reason for the
>>> drivers to accompany their loads across the water.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The eurotunnel freight wagons don't allow easy transport of trailers
>> without tractor units; perhaps Eurotunnel would need a fleet of their own
>> shunting tractor units which just went from Folkestone to Calais and
>> back,
>> repeatedly. Or redesign the wagons.
>>
>>
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>
>
> Yes, very difficult. On ferries the system is to back a trailer into
> position, drop and secure the trailer, take the tug away and back the
> next trailer, repeat. This presupposes that there is a lane available to
> allow the tug to move away and the next trailer to arrive. A train does
> not have that width so trailers would need to be backed a considerable
> distance, dropped and secured and the tug allowed to drive out to allow
> the next trailer to back all the way up. Feasible, but time consuming.
> On a ferry you can have a line of tug/trailers waiting to move to
> position as soon as the previous tug is out of the way.
>

Ahh, my answer was based on my belief that the current Shuttle freight
wagons were as originally designed. I was not aware that the newer ones
just have a small roofed area over the cabs. In this case, each trailer
could be loaded onto a wagon at any point - with enough tugmasters
simultaneous loading could be undertaken. So all my comments about time
are obsolete!

--
Colin

In message <t35vj3$glv$4@dont-email.me>, at 07:54:11 on Wed, 13 Apr
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <PJg*8M7Ky@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:28:17 on Thu,
>> 7 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages which
>>>> are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>>>
>>> Bicycles
>>> Horse-drawn vehicles
>
>I knew I should have specified 'motor' vehicles.
>
>>> Some agricultural vehicles
>
>Yes, I forgot those.
>
>>> Light quadricycles
>>
>> And invalid carriages, which includes the mobility-scooter-shaped
>> examples.
>>
>
>I already mentioned those.

People often don't realise that mobility scooters derive such exemptions
as they might have from being legally "invalid carriages".

--
Roland Perry

In message <t35vj2$glv$3@dont-email.me>, at 07:54:10 on Wed, 13 Apr
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t2kkou$tjd$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:18 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <RJg*Zv1Ky@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 09:56:47 on Wed,
>>>> 6 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <PJg*kLYKy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:23:05 on Tue,
>>>>>> 5 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> But outside uk.railway, the fact that it has't been done yet doesn't
>>>>>>>> mean it can never be done.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed, there's a lot of uk.r's traditional overthinking going on here.
>>>>>>> The Cargobeamer special trains are just trains of flat wagons, which
>>>>>>> presumably could gain tunnel approval relatively easily (if the
>>>>>>> trailers are
>>>>>>> allowed on Shuttles, there are presumably fine on flat wagons too).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps the safety case is more complicated than you think. I wonder if
>>>>>> the unaccompanied vs accompanied is an issue too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? On conventional Shuttle trains the trailers are
>>>>>'unaccompanied' - the
>>>>> drivers are in the coach at the end of the train, not in their cab. In an
>>>>> emergency they are not going back to their vehicle to drive it anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> Can you quote the bits of the safety case for the existing shuttles,
>>>> which is pertinent to that? Otherwise we just guessing.
>>>>
>>> Are you denying that the drivers are in a separate coach?
>>
>> No, I'm interested in why the freight shuttles have the cage-like
>> structure (which the CargoBeamer trains don't) and whether that's a
>> factor in the safety case.
>
>The second (third?) generation of Eurotunnel cargo shuttle wagons have a
>much smaller structure, which seem to cover just the cabs of the lorries
>(pics 11 and 12 on <https://www.eurotunnelfreight.com/uk/about/library/>)

I'm not sure the geometry, or loading platforms, would allow each
carriage to be individually loaded from the side though.

>> Some people have suggested that being open-sided *at all* is a risk,
>> especially from fire/smoke spreading from an HGV on fire, and would
>> rather have it contained very locally.
>
>The major risk is from the tractor unit; if you're not taking that, the
>risk is hugely reduced.

It doesn't really matter for the existing shuttle trains, because they
are passed for real cabs (as well as presumably the tugs, unless there's
something we don't know about them).

The safety case for a hypothetical train of CargoBeamer flats would no
doubt take into account the lack of either kind of tractor.
--
Roland Perry

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> On 29/03/2022 15:11, ColinR wrote:
>> On 29/03/2022 14:57, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Nigel Emery <nigele3@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 23:23:44 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The net is tightening, not just on P&O, but on the wider ferry
>>>>>> industry
>>>>>> that Turner and his father have railed against for decades.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the Cross Channel route the eventual winners might turn out to be
>>>>> Eurotunnel. A quick google suggests they currently have about 70% of
>>>>> car traffic and 40% of freight. Of course the longer journey times of
>>>>> the ferry give the freight drivers a break, interesting to see how
>>>>> this plays out!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, not all freight is allowed through the Chunnel, and
>>>> Eurotunnel
>>>> is limited to a single route. The slower ferries offer much more
>>>> flexibility.
>>>>
>>>> The future for freight might be for separate tractor units or at least
>>>> drivers on both sides of the Channel. There's really no reason for the
>>>> drivers to accompany their loads across the water.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The eurotunnel freight wagons don't allow easy transport of trailers
>>> without tractor units; perhaps Eurotunnel would need a fleet of their own
>>> shunting tractor units which just went from Folkestone to Calais and
>>> back,
>>> repeatedly. Or redesign the wagons.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>
>>
>> Yes, very difficult. On ferries the system is to back a trailer into
>> position, drop and secure the trailer, take the tug away and back the
>> next trailer, repeat. This presupposes that there is a lane available to
>> allow the tug to move away and the next trailer to arrive. A train does
>> not have that width so trailers would need to be backed a considerable
>> distance, dropped and secured and the tug allowed to drive out to allow
>> the next trailer to back all the way up. Feasible, but time consuming.
>> On a ferry you can have a line of tug/trailers waiting to move to
>> position as soon as the previous tug is out of the way.
>>
>
> Ahh, my answer was based on my belief that the current Shuttle freight
> wagons were as originally designed. I was not aware that the newer ones
> just have a small roofed area over the cabs. In this case, each trailer
> could be loaded onto a wagon at any point - with enough tugmasters
> simultaneous loading could be undertaken. So all my comments about time
> are obsolete!
>

They still have low fenced sides, and AIUI they don't have the stabilising
jacks which the loading vehicles have, nor do they have the equipment to
cover the gap to the platform, so I’m pretty sure you couldn't load a
trailer onto these wagons. You might get away with loading just the tractor
unit but I wouldn't bank on it.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 08:31:18 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey
<mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:54:09 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 07/04/2022 11:02, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages
>>>> which are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>>>
>>> Not seen many traction engines on motorways.
>>>
>>> Then there is the complication of "Special Roads" :=)
>>>
>> Luckily Special Roads have a list at the entry points
>> <https://goo.gl/maps/vPSWXHm85KJc1maz5>
>
>Motorways used to have these too.
>
>https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=NO_Sign
>
They are also Special Roads but the restrictions now seem to work on
the basis of ignorance of the law not being an excuse.
https://pathetic.org.uk/features/special_roads/#:~:text=All%20motorways%20are%20Special%20Roads,not%20all%20of%20them%20do.

There are also roads with special restrictions which look like
"Special Roads" but aren't. (North-Eastern bits of the A406 North
Circular Road?).

In message <mfae5hldut6inrtdppbj0bjqqhd8knsvt6@4ax.com>, at 20:59:08 on
Wed, 13 Apr 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 08:31:18 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey
><mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:54:09 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 07/04/2022 11:02, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages
>>>>> which are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>>>>
>>>> Not seen many traction engines on motorways.
>>>>
>>>> Then there is the complication of "Special Roads" :=)
>>>>
>>> Luckily Special Roads have a list at the entry points
>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/vPSWXHm85KJc1maz5>
>>
>>Motorways used to have these too.
>>
>>https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=NO_Sign
>>
>They are also Special Roads but the restrictions now seem to work on
>the basis of ignorance of the law not being an excuse.

Not lacking signage though: https://goo.gl/maps/doU9osnZinc3pp1R6

Although sometimes you are told where to go if "prohibited", before you
see the sign specifying the prohibitions:
<https://goo.gl/maps/mhjSQxK9R8BKc4yt9>

Although on that stretch there *isn't* such a sign on the A14 special
road!

Further along we have this https://goo.gl/maps/qYmiqdhWkxQ3ZSrn9 which
is very confusing, because it means the sliproad etc has the
restriction, but the roundabout doesn't.

I suspect that this sign <https://goo.gl/maps/PkSy1NWogCrPU2me8> has
been erected in the wrong place, being partly for the access-only road
to the left, and partly for the right hand two lanes on the ramp (and
not the middle two lanes, which is the ordinary A428).

>https://pathetic.org.uk/features/special_roads/#:~:text=All%20motorways%
>20are%20Special%20Roads,not%20all%20of%20them%20do.
>
>There are also roads with special restrictions which look like
>"Special Roads" but aren't. (North-Eastern bits of the A406 North
>Circular Road?).

--
Roland Perry

On 14/04/2022 10:21, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <mfae5hldut6inrtdppbj0bjqqhd8knsvt6@4ax.com>, at 20:59:08 on
> Wed, 13 Apr 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 08:31:18 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey
>> <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:54:09 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 07/04/2022 11:02, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages
>>>>>> which are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not seen many traction engines on motorways.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then there is the complication of "Special Roads" :=)
>>>>>
>>>> Luckily Special Roads have a list at the entry points
>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/vPSWXHm85KJc1maz5>
>>>
>>> Motorways used to have these too.
>>>
>>> https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=NO_Sign
>>>
>> They are also Special Roads but the restrictions now seem to work on
>> the basis of ignorance of the law not being an excuse.
>
> Not lacking signage though: https://goo.gl/maps/doU9osnZinc3pp1R6
>
> Although sometimes you are told where to go if "prohibited", before you
> see the sign specifying the prohibitions:
> <https://goo.gl/maps/mhjSQxK9R8BKc4yt9>
>
> Although on that stretch there *isn't* such a sign on the A14 special road!

The west end of the A14 is also interesting: one of the very few places
where one can travel on a A road but be committed to joining a motorway.
Last exit sign: <https://goo.gl/maps/8uE7Z5dnCCAPHRXf9>
No "special road" sign for continuing or joining because it isn't one.

> Further along we have this https://goo.gl/maps/qYmiqdhWkxQ3ZSrn9 which
> is very confusing, because it means the sliproad etc has the
> restriction, but the roundabout doesn't.
>
> I suspect that this sign <https://goo.gl/maps/PkSy1NWogCrPU2me8> has
> been erected in the wrong place, being partly for the access-only road
> to the left, and partly for the right hand two lanes on the ramp (and
> not the middle two lanes, which is the ordinary A428).

Possibly, though they may want to stop horses and bicycles turning round
as they do with cars and motorbikes. (The road to the left is a U-turn.)

>> https://pathetic.org.uk/features/special_roads/#:~:text=All%20motorways%
>> 20are%20Special%20Roads,not%20all%20of%20them%20do.
>>
>> There are also roads with special restrictions which look like
>> "Special Roads" but aren't. (North-Eastern bits of the A406 North
>> Circular Road?).

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:21:24 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <mfae5hldut6inrtdppbj0bjqqhd8knsvt6@4ax.com>, at 20:59:08 on
>Wed, 13 Apr 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 08:31:18 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey
>><mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:54:09 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 07/04/2022 11:02, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages
>>>>>> which are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not seen many traction engines on motorways.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then there is the complication of "Special Roads" :=)
>>>>>
>>>> Luckily Special Roads have a list at the entry points
>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/vPSWXHm85KJc1maz5>
>>>
>>>Motorways used to have these too.
>>>
>>>https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=NO_Sign
>>>
>>They are also Special Roads but the restrictions now seem to work on
>>the basis of ignorance of the law not being an excuse.
>
>Not lacking signage though: https://goo.gl/maps/doU9osnZinc3pp1R6
>
My "they" were motorways, that sign is not on a motorway. If you e.g.
enter the M1 from the North Circular Road at Brent Cross, there are no
signs other than the blue ones indicating it is a motorway. The same
if entering from the A41 near Stanmore.

>Although sometimes you are told where to go if "prohibited", before you
>see the sign specifying the prohibitions:
><https://goo.gl/maps/mhjSQxK9R8BKc4yt9>
>
Alternatively "Non Motorway Traffic" at various places.

>Although on that stretch there *isn't* such a sign on the A14 special
>road!
>
>Further along we have this https://goo.gl/maps/qYmiqdhWkxQ3ZSrn9 which
>is very confusing, because it means the sliproad etc has the
>restriction, but the roundabout doesn't.
>
>I suspect that this sign <https://goo.gl/maps/PkSy1NWogCrPU2me8> has
>been erected in the wrong place, being partly for the access-only road
>to the left, and partly for the right hand two lanes on the ramp (and
>not the middle two lanes, which is the ordinary A428).
>
Or maybe there has been a local problem with
riders/cyclists/pedestrians wandering off down that road? That seems
to be an emergency/service access/exit to/from the M11 NB which has a
work area part way along it.

>>https://pathetic.org.uk/features/special_roads/#:~:text=All%20motorways%
>>20are%20Special%20Roads,not%20all%20of%20them%20do.
>>
>>There are also roads with special restrictions which look like
>>"Special Roads" but aren't. (North-Eastern bits of the A406 North
>>Circular Road?).

In message <t39a55$i74$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:50 on Thu, 14 Apr
2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>On 14/04/2022 10:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <mfae5hldut6inrtdppbj0bjqqhd8knsvt6@4ax.com>, at 20:59:08
>>on Wed, 13 Apr 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 08:31:18 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey
>>> <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:54:09 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/04/2022 11:02, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages
>>>>>>> which are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not seen many traction engines on motorways.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then there is the complication of "Special Roads" :=)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Luckily Special Roads have a list at the entry points
>>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/vPSWXHm85KJc1maz5>
>>>>
>>>> Motorways used to have these too.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=NO_Sign
>>>>
>>> They are also Special Roads but the restrictions now seem to work on
>>> the basis of ignorance of the law not being an excuse.
>> Not lacking signage though: https://goo.gl/maps/doU9osnZinc3pp1R6
>> Although sometimes you are told where to go if "prohibited", before
>>you see the sign specifying the prohibitions: <https://goo.gl/maps/m
>>hjSQxK9R8BKc4yt9>
>> Although on that stretch there *isn't* such a sign on the A14
>>special road!
>
>The west end of the A14 is also interesting: one of the very few places
>where one can travel on a A road but be committed to joining a motorway.
>Last exit sign: <https://goo.gl/maps/8uE7Z5dnCCAPHRXf9>
>No "special road" sign for continuing or joining because it isn't one.

That looks pretty standard to me, given it signs [only] a motorway and
the restrictions for that are well known. For example here on what used
to be the A14 north of Huntingdon https://goo.gl/maps/Ac6zizaW8ipnRhdy6

>> Further along we have this https://goo.gl/maps/qYmiqdhWkxQ3ZSrn9
>>which is very confusing, because it means the sliproad etc has the
>>restriction, but the roundabout doesn't.
>> I suspect that this sign <https://goo.gl/maps/PkSy1NWogCrPU2me8> has
>>been erected in the wrong place, being partly for the access-only road
>>to the left, and partly for the right hand two lanes on the ramp (and
>>not the middle two lanes, which is the ordinary A428).
>
>Possibly, though they may want to stop horses and bicycles turning round
>as they do with cars and motorbikes. (The road to the left is a U-turn.)

I think there are lots of "Authorised Vehicles Only" prohibitions, which
don't then go to the bother of separately excluding horses and cycles
etc. which would otherwise be allowed being non-motorised.

>>> https://pathetic.org.uk/features/special_roads/#:~:text=All%20motorways%
>>> 20are%20Special%20Roads,not%20all%20of%20them%20do.
>>>
>>> There are also roads with special restrictions which look like
>>> "Special Roads" but aren't. (North-Eastern bits of the A406 North
>>> Circular Road?).

--
Roland Perry

In message <2r7h5hlv5c0qbq3e7a4amtk007mc89jcri@4ax.com>, at 00:16:05 on
Fri, 15 Apr 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:21:24 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <mfae5hldut6inrtdppbj0bjqqhd8knsvt6@4ax.com>, at 20:59:08 on
>>Wed, 13 Apr 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 08:31:18 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey
>>><mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:54:09 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/04/2022 11:02, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages
>>>>>>> which are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not seen many traction engines on motorways.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then there is the complication of "Special Roads" :=)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Luckily Special Roads have a list at the entry points
>>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/vPSWXHm85KJc1maz5>
>>>>
>>>>Motorways used to have these too.
>>>>
>>>>https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=NO_Sign
>>>>
>>>They are also Special Roads but the restrictions now seem to work on
>>>the basis of ignorance of the law not being an excuse.
>>
>>Not lacking signage though: https://goo.gl/maps/doU9osnZinc3pp1R6
>>
>My "they" were motorways, that sign is not on a motorway. If you e.g.
>enter the M1 from the North Circular Road at Brent Cross, there are no
>signs other than the blue ones indicating it is a motorway. The same
>if entering from the A41 near Stanmore.
>
>>Although sometimes you are told where to go if "prohibited", before you
>>see the sign specifying the prohibitions:
>><https://goo.gl/maps/mhjSQxK9R8BKc4yt9>
>>
>Alternatively "Non Motorway Traffic" at various places.
>
>>Although on that stretch there *isn't* such a sign on the A14 special
>>road!
>>
>>Further along we have this https://goo.gl/maps/qYmiqdhWkxQ3ZSrn9 which
>>is very confusing, because it means the sliproad etc has the
>>restriction, but the roundabout doesn't.
>>
>>I suspect that this sign <https://goo.gl/maps/PkSy1NWogCrPU2me8> has
>>been erected in the wrong place, being partly for the access-only road
>>to the left, and partly for the right hand two lanes on the ramp (and
>>not the middle two lanes, which is the ordinary A428).
>>
>Or maybe there has been a local problem with
>riders/cyclists/pedestrians wandering off down that road? That seems
>to be an emergency/service access/exit to/from the M11 NB which has a
>work area part way along it.

It's only been open a little over a year (and that also means
streetviews etc are misleading about which bit might still have been
under construction when last photographed).

Notwithstanding any of this, it's still the case that no signs are shown
warning users what exactly the "prohibitions" might be, on the A14
special road which peels off at that intersection.

>>>https://pathetic.org.uk/features/special_roads/#:~:text=All%20motorways%
>>>20are%20Special%20Roads,not%20all%20of%20them%20do.
>>>
>>>There are also roads with special restrictions which look like
>>>"Special Roads" but aren't. (North-Eastern bits of the A406 North
>>>Circular Road?).

--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:22:02 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <t39a55$i74$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:50 on Thu, 14 Apr
>2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>On 14/04/2022 10:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <mfae5hldut6inrtdppbj0bjqqhd8knsvt6@4ax.com>, at 20:59:08
>>>on Wed, 13 Apr 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 08:31:18 -0000 (UTC), Mike Humphrey
>>>> <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 07:54:09 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/04/2022 11:02, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>>>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages
>>>>>>>> which are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not seen many traction engines on motorways.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then there is the complication of "Special Roads" :=)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Luckily Special Roads have a list at the entry points
>>>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/vPSWXHm85KJc1maz5>
>>>>>
>>>>> Motorways used to have these too.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=NO_Sign
>>>>>
>>>> They are also Special Roads but the restrictions now seem to work on
>>>> the basis of ignorance of the law not being an excuse.
>>> Not lacking signage though: https://goo.gl/maps/doU9osnZinc3pp1R6
>>> Although sometimes you are told where to go if "prohibited", before
>>>you see the sign specifying the prohibitions: <https://goo.gl/maps/m
>>>hjSQxK9R8BKc4yt9>
>>> Although on that stretch there *isn't* such a sign on the A14
>>>special road!
>>
>>The west end of the A14 is also interesting: one of the very few places
>>where one can travel on a A road but be committed to joining a motorway.
>>Last exit sign: <https://goo.gl/maps/8uE7Z5dnCCAPHRXf9>
>>No "special road" sign for continuing or joining because it isn't one.
>
>That looks pretty standard to me, given it signs [only] a motorway and
>the restrictions for that are well known. For example here on what used
>to be the A14 north of Huntingdon https://goo.gl/maps/Ac6zizaW8ipnRhdy6
>
>>> Further along we have this https://goo.gl/maps/qYmiqdhWkxQ3ZSrn9
>>>which is very confusing, because it means the sliproad etc has the
>>>restriction, but the roundabout doesn't.
>>> I suspect that this sign <https://goo.gl/maps/PkSy1NWogCrPU2me8> has
>>>been erected in the wrong place, being partly for the access-only road
>>>to the left, and partly for the right hand two lanes on the ramp (and
>>>not the middle two lanes, which is the ordinary A428).
>>
>>Possibly, though they may want to stop horses and bicycles turning round
>>as they do with cars and motorbikes. (The road to the left is a U-turn.)
>
>I think there are lots of "Authorised Vehicles Only" prohibitions, which
>don't then go to the bother of separately excluding horses and cycles
>etc. which would otherwise be allowed being non-motorised.
>
It varies with local circumstances. There is one part of the North
Circular Road (or a connected road) where the only signed prohibition
over a viaduct is horse-drawn vehicles. One likely common factor is
whether or not there is sufficient width to accommodate cyclists
and/or pedestrians. A "proper" footpath or cycle track is not always
provided, the A201 flyover on the New/Old Kent Road has no
traffic-specific prohibition but also no cycle path rather than a
single lane bounded on each side by a narrow pavement and about 5ft of
hatching.
https://goo.gl/maps/M83RugSb6wveghzFA

>>>> https://pathetic.org.uk/features/special_roads/#:~:text=All%20motorways%
>>>> 20are%20Special%20Roads,not%20all%20of%20them%20do.
>>>>
>>>> There are also roads with special restrictions which look like
>>>> "Special Roads" but aren't. (North-Eastern bits of the A406 North
>>>> Circular Road?).

In message <a8hj5hhkjluln62ep6hcug5tc9eeltmpga@4ax.com>, at 20:37:34 on
Fri, 15 Apr 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

>>>>>>>>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages
>>>>>>>>> which are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not seen many traction engines on motorways.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then there is the complication of "Special Roads" :=)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Luckily Special Roads have a list at the entry points
>>>>>>> <https://goo.gl/maps/vPSWXHm85KJc1maz5>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Motorways used to have these too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=NO_Sign
>>>>>>
>>>>> They are also Special Roads but the restrictions now seem to work on
>>>>> the basis of ignorance of the law not being an excuse.
>>>> Not lacking signage though: https://goo.gl/maps/doU9osnZinc3pp1R6
>>>> Although sometimes you are told where to go if "prohibited", before
>>>>you see the sign specifying the prohibitions: <https://goo.gl/maps/m
>>>>hjSQxK9R8BKc4yt9>
>>>> Although on that stretch there *isn't* such a sign on the A14
>>>>special road!
>>>
>>>The west end of the A14 is also interesting: one of the very few places
>>>where one can travel on a A road but be committed to joining a motorway.
>>>Last exit sign: <https://goo.gl/maps/8uE7Z5dnCCAPHRXf9>
>>>No "special road" sign for continuing or joining because it isn't one.
>>
>>That looks pretty standard to me, given it signs [only] a motorway and
>>the restrictions for that are well known. For example here on what used
>>to be the A14 north of Huntingdon https://goo.gl/maps/Ac6zizaW8ipnRhdy6
>>
>>>> Further along we have this https://goo.gl/maps/qYmiqdhWkxQ3ZSrn9
>>>>which is very confusing, because it means the sliproad etc has the
>>>>restriction, but the roundabout doesn't.
>>>> I suspect that this sign <https://goo.gl/maps/PkSy1NWogCrPU2me8> has
>>>>been erected in the wrong place, being partly for the access-only road
>>>>to the left, and partly for the right hand two lanes on the ramp (and
>>>>not the middle two lanes, which is the ordinary A428).
>>>
>>>Possibly, though they may want to stop horses and bicycles turning round
>>>as they do with cars and motorbikes. (The road to the left is a U-turn.)
>>
>>I think there are lots of "Authorised Vehicles Only" prohibitions, which
>>don't then go to the bother of separately excluding horses and cycles
>>etc. which would otherwise be allowed being non-motorised.
>>
>It varies with local circumstances. There is one part of the North
>Circular Road (or a connected road) where the only signed prohibition
>over a viaduct is horse-drawn vehicles.

I've seen something like that on the A12 in East London (maybe that's
where you are thinking of). Perhaps the slope is regarded as too steep
for a horse-drawn vehicle (wouldn't be the only place that might apply,
though).

>One likely common factor is whether or not there is sufficient width to
>accommodate cyclists and/or pedestrians. A "proper" footpath or cycle
>track is not always provided, the A201 flyover on the New/Old Kent Road
>has no traffic-specific prohibition but also no cycle path rather than
>a single lane bounded on each side by a narrow pavement and about 5ft
>of hatching.

>https://goo.gl/maps/M83RugSb6wveghzFA

The hatching there will be a structural issue, to persuade vehicles to
take a centre-line, spreading the load more effectively. The whole thing
looks a bit top-heavy, already: https://goo.gl/maps/twE1XCnEZzQBZVLr5
--
Roland Perry