A foot and cycle bridge across Barking Creek as part of the DLRDagenham Dock extension?
 

Evening all,

Question largely as in title!

The DLR extension to Dagenham Dock, now shelved AIUI, involves building a
rail bridge across Barking Creek, aka the River Roding, right at the creek
mouth, the line passing shorewards of the sewage works at Beckton.

Does/did the plan include a foot/cycle bridge as part of the bridge?
Whether double-deck, or Charing Cross style, or just a separate
construction as part of the works. Were plans ever far enough advanced
that that question even has an answer?

The reason i ask is that the current lowest bridge over the creek is the
A13 road bridge, a mile and a half upstream. It would seem to make a lot
of sense to include a pedestrian crossing here, so that local trips
wouldn't have to make a huge detour, enabling the area to develop as an
integrated site rather than as two separate ones on either side of the
creek.

It would be particularly useful for cyclists, as it would give A13-free
access from the Barking riverside redevelopment area to the Greenway, a
car-free cycle route which starts in Beckton and runs to Victoria Park,
where it connects with the canal towpath network [1].

tom

[1] And for which you can vote in the 400 kGBP London parks X-factor:

http://www.london.gov.uk/parksvote/r...t/greenway.jsp

--
All roads lead unto death row; who knows what's after?

A foot and cycle bridge across Barking Creek as part of the DLRDagenham Dock extension?
 

On 1 Dec, 18:51, Tom Anderson wrote:
The DLR extension to Dagenham Dock, now shelved AIUI, involves building a
rail bridge across Barking Creek, aka the River Roding, right at the creek
mouth, the line passing shorewards of the sewage works at Beckton.

The last iteration of the plan decided a tunnel was the preferred
option, due to the height of the bridge required by shipping
regulations.

U

A foot and cycle bridge across Barking Creek as part of the DLR Dagenham Dock extension?
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
Evening all,

Question largely as in title!

The DLR extension to Dagenham Dock, now shelved AIUI, involves building a
rail bridge across Barking Creek, aka the River Roding, right at the creek
mouth, the line passing shorewards of the sewage works at Beckton.


Seems to have been a tunnel AFAICT from this TfL web page, Tom:

http://developments.dlr.co.uk/extens...ham/option.asp

"The proposed route leaves the existing network at Gallions reach station
before running around the south of the DLR depot. The route then descends
into tunnel and after travelling under the south west corner of the Thames
Water site continues under the Thames foreshore. The alignent then emerges
to the east of the River Roding and rises up onto viaduct."

Paul S

A foot and cycle bridge across Barking Creek as part of the DLRDagenham Dock extension?
 

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 1 Dec, 18:51, Tom Anderson wrote:
The DLR extension to Dagenham Dock, now shelved AIUI, involves building a
rail bridge across Barking Creek, aka the River Roding, right at the creek
mouth, the line passing shorewards of the sewage works at Beckton.

The last iteration of the plan decided a tunnel was the preferred
option, due to the height of the bridge required by shipping
regulations.

Bugger! I hadn't realised Barking Creek was in use by any ships. No chance
of a bike tunnel too, i suppose!

Thanks also to Mr Scott for pointing this out to me.

tom

--
Caps lock is like cruise control for cool.

A foot and cycle bridge across Barking Creek as part of the DLR Dagenham Dock extension?
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 1 Dec, 18:51, Tom Anderson wrote:
The DLR extension to Dagenham Dock, now shelved AIUI, involves
building a rail bridge across Barking Creek, aka the River Roding,
right at the creek mouth, the line passing shorewards of the sewage
works at Beckton.

The last iteration of the plan decided a tunnel was the preferred
option, due to the height of the bridge required by shipping
regulations.

Bugger! I hadn't realised Barking Creek was in use by any ships. No
chance of a bike tunnel too, i suppose!

How about a hand-wound transporter bridge hanging from the fixed bar of the
flood barrier?

A foot and cycle bridge across Barking Creek as part of the DLR Dagenham Dock extension?
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 1 Dec, 18:51, Tom Anderson wrote:
The DLR extension to Dagenham Dock, now shelved AIUI, involves building
a
rail bridge across Barking Creek, aka the River Roding, right at the
creek
mouth, the line passing shorewards of the sewage works at Beckton.

The last iteration of the plan decided a tunnel was the preferred option,
due to the height of the bridge required by shipping regulations.

Bugger! I hadn't realised Barking Creek was in use by any ships. No chance
of a bike tunnel too, i suppose!

Thanks also to Mr Scott for pointing this out to me.

tom

--
Caps lock is like cruise control for cool.

Why should the fact that it's a tunnel mean that a pedestrian/cycle facility
is ruled out? A third bore could be used for this acting as an emergency
evacuation route if ever necessary.

A foot and cycle bridge across Barking Creek as part of the DLR Dagenham Dock extension?
 

Graham Harrison wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...

Bugger! I hadn't realised Barking Creek was in use by any ships. No
chance of a bike tunnel too, i suppose!

Why should the fact that it's a tunnel mean that a pedestrian/cycle
facility is ruled out? A third bore could be used for this acting
as an emergency evacuation route if ever necessary.

It doesn't, but the fact that the DLR extension has been canned means that
the tunnel has ben canned, and there's no way they are going to build a
tunnel just for bikes in the middle of nowhere.

A foot and cycle bridge across Barking Creek as part of the DLR Dagenham Dock extension?
 

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
Graham Harrison wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...

Bugger! I hadn't realised Barking Creek was in use by any ships. No
chance of a bike tunnel too, i suppose!

Why should the fact that it's a tunnel mean that a pedestrian/cycle
facility is ruled out? A third bore could be used for this acting
as an emergency evacuation route if ever necessary.

It doesn't, but the fact that the DLR extension has been canned means that
the tunnel has ben canned, and there's no way they are going to build a
tunnel just for bikes in the middle of nowhere.


Why not? What about the original Thames tunnels that were built as
pedestrian ways?

ducks

A foot and cycle bridge across Barking Creek as part of the DLRDagenham Dock extension?
 

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Graham Harrison wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 1 Dec, 18:51, Tom Anderson wrote:
The DLR extension to Dagenham Dock, now shelved AIUI, involves building a
rail bridge across Barking Creek, aka the River Roding, right at the
creek
mouth, the line passing shorewards of the sewage works at Beckton.

The last iteration of the plan decided a tunnel was the preferred option,
due to the height of the bridge required by shipping regulations.

Bugger! I hadn't realised Barking Creek was in use by any ships. No chance
of a bike tunnel too, i suppose!

Thanks also to Mr Scott for pointing this out to me.

Why should the fact that it's a tunnel mean that a pedestrian/cycle
facility is ruled out? A third bore could be used for this acting as an
emergency evacuation route if ever necessary.

My gut feeling is that adding a third bore to a two-bore setup is a lot
more expensive than adding a footbridge to a railway bridge. In fact, i
can't see how there being two bores there already makes the third any
cheaper, so it would be as expensive as building it as a standalone.

Having a separate escape tunnel is probably not justifiable for a tunnel
this short, sadly.

tom

--
I could tell you a great many more particulars but suppose that you are
tired of it by this time. -- John Backhouse, Trainspotter Zero

A foot and cycle bridge across Barking Creek as part of the DLRDagenham Dock extension?
 

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 1 Dec, 18:51, Tom Anderson wrote:
The DLR extension to Dagenham Dock, now shelved AIUI, involves
building a rail bridge across Barking Creek, aka the River Roding,
right at the creek mouth, the line passing shorewards of the sewage
works at Beckton.

The last iteration of the plan decided a tunnel was the preferred
option, due to the height of the bridge required by shipping
regulations.

Bugger! I hadn't realised Barking Creek was in use by any ships. No
chance of a bike tunnel too, i suppose!

How about a hand-wound transporter bridge hanging from the fixed bar of the
flood barrier?

APPROVED. Possibly even pedal-powered!

I want one on Dartford Creek too.

tom

--
I could tell you a great many more particulars but suppose that you are
tired of it by this time. -- John Backhouse, Trainspotter Zero

A foot and cycle bridge across Barking Creek as part of the DLRDagenham Dock extension?
 

On Dec 2, 3:39*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
My gut feeling is that adding a third bore to a two-bore setup is a lot
more expensive than adding a footbridge to a railway bridge. In fact, i
can't see how there being two bores there already makes the third any
cheaper, so it would be as expensive as building it as a standalone.

The DLR Woolwich Arsenal twin tunnels were built by sending one boring
machine from King George V to Woolwich, turning it round, and sending
it back again. So in theory you could give it another twirl (probably
works OK time-wise too, as fitting out a rail tunnel takes a lot
longer than fitting out a foot/cycle tunnel) for at least *some* cost
savings.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

A foot and cycle bridge across Barking Creek as part of the DLRDagenham Dock extension?
 

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, John B wrote:

On Dec 2, 3:39*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
My gut feeling is that adding a third bore to a two-bore setup is a lot
more expensive than adding a footbridge to a railway bridge. In fact, i
can't see how there being two bores there already makes the third any
cheaper, so it would be as expensive as building it as a standalone.

The DLR Woolwich Arsenal twin tunnels were built by sending one boring
machine from King George V to Woolwich, turning it round, and sending it
back again. So in theory you could give it another twirl (probably works
OK time-wise too, as fitting out a rail tunnel takes a lot longer than
fitting out a foot/cycle tunnel) for at least *some* cost savings.

Yebbut then you've got to pack it up at the far end, rather than at the
near end, where it started, and where you thus already have all the gear
and access. Logically, you should bore a *fourth* tunnel, to minimise
costs. :)

tom

--
I could tell you a great many more particulars but suppose that you are
tired of it by this time. -- John Backhouse, Trainspotter Zero

A foot and cycle bridge across Barking Creek as part of the DLR Dagenham Dock extension?
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, John B wrote:

On Dec 2, 3:39 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
My gut feeling is that adding a third bore to a two-bore setup is a lot
more expensive than adding a footbridge to a railway bridge. In fact, i
can't see how there being two bores there already makes the third any
cheaper, so it would be as expensive as building it as a standalone.

The DLR Woolwich Arsenal twin tunnels were built by sending one boring
machine from King George V to Woolwich, turning it round, and sending it
back again. So in theory you could give it another twirl (probably works
OK time-wise too, as fitting out a rail tunnel takes a lot longer than
fitting out a foot/cycle tunnel) for at least *some* cost savings.

Yebbut then you've got to pack it up at the far end, rather than at the
near end, where it started, and where you thus already have all the gear
and access. Logically, you should bore a *fourth* tunnel, to minimise
costs. :)


You'd have to bore a fourth tunnel, to separate the cyclists and the
pedestrians.

c.f. the various Tyne tunnels, where they are just completing the fourth
(sunken prefabricated) tunnel, having done everything in the wrong order
over the years... :-)

Paul S

A foot and cycle bridge across Barking Creek as part of the DLRDagenham Dock extension?
 

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Paul Scott wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, John B wrote:

On Dec 2, 3:39 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
My gut feeling is that adding a third bore to a two-bore setup is a lot
more expensive than adding a footbridge to a railway bridge. In fact, i
can't see how there being two bores there already makes the third any
cheaper, so it would be as expensive as building it as a standalone.

The DLR Woolwich Arsenal twin tunnels were built by sending one boring
machine from King George V to Woolwich, turning it round, and sending it
back again. So in theory you could give it another twirl (probably works
OK time-wise too, as fitting out a rail tunnel takes a lot longer than
fitting out a foot/cycle tunnel) for at least *some* cost savings.

Yebbut then you've got to pack it up at the far end, rather than at the
near end, where it started, and where you thus already have all the gear
and access. Logically, you should bore a *fourth* tunnel, to minimise
costs. :)

You'd have to bore a fourth tunnel, to separate the cyclists and the
pedestrians.

No, you need a cycle tunnel in each direction. Rubber rings for
pedestrians.

tom

--
I could tell you a great many more particulars but suppose that you are
tired of it by this time. -- John Backhouse, Trainspotter Zero

A foot and cycle bridge across Barking Creek as part of the DLR Dagenham Dock extension?
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, John Rowland wrote:

How about a hand-wound transporter bridge hanging from the fixed bar
of the flood barrier?

APPROVED. Possibly even pedal-powered!

I want one on Dartford Creek too.

There seems to be no fixed bar in the flood barrier there, so it would be
more expensive. And I don't think there are any ships there either, making
it a bit pointless. I don't think a hand-wound chain ferry like the one on
Trowbridge Island, Kingston would work well on a tidal creek. So a standard
bridge would probably be cheaper.

A foot and cycle bridge across Barking Creek as part of the DLRDagenham Dock extension?
 

John Rowland wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, John Rowland wrote:
How about a hand-wound transporter bridge hanging from the fixed bar
of the flood barrier?
APPROVED. Possibly even pedal-powered!

I want one on Dartford Creek too.

There seems to be no fixed bar in the flood barrier there, so it would be
more expensive. And I don't think there are any ships there either, making
it a bit pointless. I don't think a hand-wound chain ferry like the one on
Trowbridge Island, Kingston would work well on a tidal creek. So a standard
bridge would probably be cheaper.


I've often thought that a simple 'transporter bridge' for foot and bikes
could be built using standard components from a tower crane. With modern
electronics (including secure wireless) the contols and interlocks would
be a piece of cake. You don't need it hand wound as a few small wind
turbines, with a few batteries would easily provide the power and would
give less things for people to fiddle with.

I'd suggested a similar arrangement to cross a 'navigable' river
elsewhere, because approach ramps for a fixed span above navigation
level would require expensive long approach spans (an embankment would
not be permitted as it would obstructe flood flows)

Jim Chisholm

A foot and cycle bridge across Barking Creek as part of the DLR Dagenham Dock extension?
 

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, John Rowland wrote:

How about a hand-wound transporter bridge hanging from the fixed bar
of the flood barrier?

APPROVED. Possibly even pedal-powered!

I want one on Dartford Creek too.

There seems to be no fixed bar in the flood barrier there, so it would be
more expensive. And I don't think there are any ships there either, making
it a bit pointless. I don't think a hand-wound chain ferry like the one on
Trowbridge Island, Kingston would work well on a tidal creek. So a
standard bridge would probably be cheaper.

ITYM Trowlock Island, Teddington
--
David Biddulph