Congestion at Thatcham Station, Traffic survey approved but no bridge will be built Options

[Richard Garvie]

Congrats to the two ward councillors for securing £12,000 of funding for a traffic survey at Thatcham Station. I'm not sure in all honesty what it will achieve though when the council have already ruled out a bridge and / or any measures that require investment but I guess it's a step in the right direction. The £12,000 has been taken out of the members pot which is used for projects in individual members wards.

I was pretty scathing of both members when I asked the council about this previously to find they had done nothing, and it's only fair that I should give them some credit for starting to do something about it (better late than never). They have a long way to go, their pledge was to look far and wide to resolve the issue, and I for one hope they can sort it out.

[On the edge]

Well XJ even the railway company admit that the crossing sensors were cheap and take no account of the speed, or breaking distance of the train. So, simply to cope with the odd few very fast trains, hundreds of people are inconvenienced whilst the clapped out old junk running the local services limp along the line.

NB - not really surprised that FGW don't want to slow these things down; it takes them so long to get any speed up at all.

[Biker1]

Well XJ even the railway company admit that the crossing sensors were cheap and take no account of the speed, or breaking distance of the train. So, simply to cope with the odd few very fast trains, hundreds of people are inconvenienced whilst the clapped out old junk running the local services limp along the line.

Not getting into that one again OTE!
You have your opinion - live with it!
P.S. The trains, although being in a poor state in your opinion, don't usually break.
They do often brake though!

NB - not really surprised that FGW don't want to slow these things down; it takes them so long to get any speed up at all.

Network Rail control the crossing - not FGW.
It is manually controlled from the signal box at Colthrop.
The raising of the barriers IS automatic and happens AS SOON AS the line is clear.

[Richard Garvie]

It is manually controlled from the signal box at Colthrop.
The raising of the barriers IS automatic and happens AS SOON AS the line is clear.

Soon to be transferred to the Didcot Control Centre, which will result in slightly longer durations of the barriers being down as it will be automatic.

[Biker1]

Soon to be transferred to the Didcot Control Centre, which will result in slightly longer durations of the barriers being down as it will be automatic.

Nope, will still be manually controlled but yes, as you say, from Didcot.

[On the edge]

Nope, will still be manually controlled but yes, as you say, from Didcot.

What a shame - yet more missed opportunity. I thought we were supposed to be investing in modernising the railway.

When this line was built, it was designed for steam trains travelling at 50mph max. On the roads, horses and carts. since then, the roads have been metalled, straightened and made much safer for higher speed traffic. What's happened on the railway? Very little. Where there are significant dangers such as level crossings, why should rail speeds not be restricted? Yes, would hold up a few rail passengers a few minutes - so what?

Note, dear Biker1, how about getting Didcot to sponsor saving one of the Turbo trains? Would be one less we'd have to put up with and they could do with a new lavatory.

[Biker1]

Where there are significant dangers such as level crossings, why should rail speeds not be restricted? Yes, would hold up a few rail passengers a few minutes - so what?

One minute you are complaining about "the clapped out old junk running the local services limp along the line" and then in this post you are suggesting that trains are slowed down to reduce inconvenience to road users!

Are you suggesting that this is imposed at the 7000 level crossings in Britain or just make Thatcham a special case?

P.S. How slowing down trains reduces the waiting time at level crossings is a mystery to me.

[On the edge]

.....How slowing down trains reduces the waiting time at level crossings is a mystery to me.

Well you are always claiming that trains need a massive distance to stop - presumably, less fast, less distance. Or is that another example of where the railways have bent the laws of physics to satisfy commercial ends?

Why not slow the whole railway? Or is the alternative of finding a better way to stop trains too hard to even consider. We can get a man on the moon these days you know!

The speed of the train has nothing to do with the comfort on board.

The 'Turbo' trains were apparently designed using bus technology. I would love to meet the designer / manager / technocrat who actually thought that the passenger accommodation was anywhere suitable. Or indeed, the people who believe that it is still acceptable in customer service terms to keep these design errors in operation. Frankly, the mindsets that do are clearly troubled! I wonder how they travel to work or indeed how they live at home?

Painful though it may be, this is again evidence that the 'age of the train' is well passed its sell by date.

[NWNREADER]

Well you are always claiming that trains need a massive distance to stop - presumably, less fast, less distance. Or is that another example of where the railways have bent the laws of physics to satisfy commercial ends?
I'd guess a train takes longer to stop than a car because the coefficient of friction factor is so different. I do, however, doubt the necessity to close the barrier as soon as a train leaves Newbury Station (and I know that does happen through the wonders of mobile phone technology...)
Why not slow the whole railway? Or is the alternative of finding a better way to stop trains too hard to even consider. Hi-grip wheels/rails? Interesting, but doubt the practicalityWe can get a man on the moon these days you know! Not for the last 39 years......



The speed of the train has nothing to do with the comfort on board. That is not a completely correct statement

The 'Turbo' trains were apparently designed using bus technology. I would love to meet the designer / manager / technocrat who actually thought that the passenger accommodation was anywhere suitable. Or indeed, the people who believe that it is still acceptable in customer service terms to keep these design errors in operation. Frankly, the mindsets that do are clearly troubled! I wonder how they travel to work or indeed how they live at home? Apart from the way the passengers conduct themselves, the trains are broadly comparable to other services in Europe. As for the design, if the current one is so poor why not contact FGW etc and propose an improvement? No problem with being unhappy with what is provided, but please have an alternative to offer.

Painful though it may be, this is again evidence that the 'age of the train' is well passed its sell by date. The problem is the lack of investment in train services and rail usage. Mr Beeching did what he was told when the car was to be the mode of transport, leaving nothing to work with when a rail network was recognised as being an element of a national transport infrastructure.

[Andy Capp]

So one shouldn't complain if they don't have a solution?

[NWNREADER]

So one shouldn't complain if they don't have a solution?

That is not what I said:
No problem with being unhappy with what is provided, but please have an alternative to offer.

Sweeping generalisation about what is wrong doesn't enable even a willing service provider to deliver a solution that addresses the problem....

Say what is wrong, even better, offer a solution. Not necessarily to Blueprint standard, but set out 'the problem'. The seats are uncomfortable? Not enough luggage space? Not enough legroom? Not enough seats?

[On the edge]

That is not what I said:
No problem with being unhappy with what is provided, but please have an alternative to offer.

Sweeping generalisation about what is wrong doesn't enable even a willing service provider to deliver a solution that addresses the problem....

Say what is wrong, even better, offer a solution. Not necessarily to Blueprint standard, but set out 'the problem'. The seats are uncomfortable? Not enough luggage space? Not enough legroom? Not enough seats?

Of course I'll clarify. If you've bothered to read previous threads on this issue, its all been explained.

First, the traffic issue. The barriers are down for far too long causing major congestion and delay to road users in an area serving a major commercial zone, an acknowledged fact.

There have been half hearted attempts to solve the problem with a bridge. In spite of how it may seem to the layman, this is quite feasible and economic and has been done elsewhere.

However, if the issue was solved, this would disturb a few residents the other side of the track as the route would become the obvious path to Basingstoke and the M3 - so sharing the burden the majority suffer when the delays occasioned by the crossing mean routing via Newbury is seen as more economic.

However, there is no reason why a solution could not come from the railway itself. The Rail Authorities admit that the equipment controlling the Thatcham crossing is set to cope with the few non stopping high speed trains using the line and not the local trains.

These local trains, employing an outdated design based on bus technology do not travel at anywhere near the speed and have trouble accelerating anyway. The train sets are themselves life expired and from a passenger view noisy and dirty. So:-

1. Install better control equipment that is available 'off the shelf' as Transport for London use it. This is able to recognise the type and characteristics of the trains concerned and so should reduce the gate close time significantly.

2. Replace the time expired train sets with modern and more effective units. Siemens and Bombadier are both willing and able to provide trains with far more effective acceleration and breaking.

In both cases, in accounting terms, the equipment would have been written off - so any new investment commercially viable. Locally SW Trains have managed to re-equip their fleet - no reason why it shouldn't happen in Thames Valley. Electrification is too far off to wait.

To see just how to run a clean and efficient train service, take a trip to Glasgow, where a division of the same Company, using the self same units can run a clean and efficient service. However, although in Scotland the trains are much. much cleaner and carpeted, they are still

lacking leg room
cramped seating even in 1st class
very noisy
badly ventilated
difficult for for standing passengers

Hope the above is sufficient; and not simply sweeping generalisations. And before you think otherwise, yes, I do complain, in writing, by phone and in person. So then, there are the problems and some easily achievable solutions.

Have to say, in my opinion, Newbury people will often grumble, but then are generally willing to simply accept the status quo - which is often second best. i.e. a hospital without a maternity unit, a one way bridge over the Kennet....

[Biker1]

Of course I'll clarify. If you've bothered to read previous threads on this issue, its all been explained.

First, the traffic issue. The barriers are down for far too long causing major congestion and delay to road users in an area serving a major commercial zone, an acknowledged fact.

There have been half hearted attempts to solve the problem with a bridge. In spite of how it may seem to the layman, this is quite feasible and economic and has been done elsewhere.

However, if the issue was solved, this would disturb a few residents the other side of the track as the route would become the obvious path to Basingstoke and the M3 - so sharing the burden the majority suffer when the delays occasioned by the crossing mean routing via Newbury is seen as more economic.

However, there is no reason why a solution could not come from the railway itself. The Rail Authorities admit that the equipment controlling the Thatcham crossing is set to cope with the few non stopping high speed trains using the line and not the local trains.

These local trains, employing an outdated design based on bus technology do not travel at anywhere near the speed and have trouble accelerating anyway. The train sets are themselves life expired and from a passenger view noisy and dirty. So:-

1. Install better control equipment that is available 'off the shelf' as Transport for London use it. This is able to recognise the type and characteristics of the trains concerned and so should reduce the gate close time significantly.

2. Replace the time expired train sets with modern and more effective units. Siemens and Bombadier are both willing and able to provide trains with far more effective acceleration and breaking.

In both cases, in accounting terms, the equipment would have been written off - so any new investment commercially viable. Locally SW Trains have managed to re-equip their fleet - no reason why it shouldn't happen in Thames Valley. Electrification is too far off to wait.

To see just how to run a clean and efficient train service, take a trip to Glasgow, where a division of the same Company, using the self same units can run a clean and efficient service. However, although in Scotland the trains are much. much cleaner and carpeted, they are still

lacking leg room
cramped seating even in 1st class
very noisy
badly ventilated
difficult for for standing passengers

Hope the above is sufficient; and not simply sweeping generalisations. And before you think otherwise, yes, I do complain, in writing, by phone and in person. So then, there are the problems and some easily achievable solutions.

Have to say, in my opinion, Newbury people will often grumble, but then are generally willing to simply accept the status quo - which is often second best. i.e. a hospital without a maternity unit, a one way bridge over the Kennet....

1. TFL have NO level crossings.
You cannot automatically control a fully gated, busy crossing.
The signaller DOES recognise the type and characteristics of the trains concerned to reduce the gate close time significantly
2. This is down to the government. As was with SWT who had to replace their slam door 1960's stock to comply with modern safety regulations.
These units only operate in the Thames Valley. They do not exist in Scotland.
Agree with some of your points on the units but as we choose not to invest sufficiently in the railways we get second best.
There was an experiment to replace the old 1st generation units with these which had a separate engine and not underfloor but cost prevailed and we got the Turbos which will remain until electrification. Maybe even after on the Bedwyn service.
Personally I think your criticism of them is a bit over the top but I am finished with that argument.
Noisy - yes
Clapped out - No
Slow - they do 90mph.
Poor leg room and cramped - yes
Can't see an increased problem for standing passengers compared with any other train.
Dirty - often but that is not the train's fault.
They are deep cleaned every night.

I'll leave it there as the same points seem to being raised time again.
As you can see I don't totally disagree with you just trying to provide a balancing view.

[On the edge]

1. TFL have NO level crossings.
You cannot automatically control a fully gated, busy crossing.
The signaller DOES recognise the type and characteristics of the trains concerned to reduce the gate close time significantly
2. This is down to the government. As was with SWT who had to replace their slam door 1960's stock to comply with modern safety regulations.
These units only operate in the Thames Valley. They do not exist in Scotland.
Agree with some of your points on the units but as we choose not to invest sufficiently in the railways we get second best.
There was an experiment to replace the old 1st generation units with these which had a separate engine and not underfloor but cost prevailed and we got the Turbos which will remain until electrification. Maybe even after on the Bedwyn service.
Personally I think your criticism of them is a bit over the top but I am finished with that argument.
Noisy - yes
Clapped out - No
Slow - they do 90mph.
Poor leg room and cramped - yes
Can't see an increased problem for standing passengers compared with any other train.
Dirty - often but that is not the train's fault.
They are deep cleaned every night.

I'll leave it there as the same points seem to being raised time again.
As you can see I don't totally disagree with you just trying to provide a balancing view.

Rather than replay, simply adding a few facts to the balance.

1. I have it from FGW and can remember seeing a press report some time back where the reason for the delay at Thatcham Crossing is because the system is set to cope with 125mph express trains. I'm going to enjoy going back and suggesting that this response is being economic - because it appears that human signalmen excercise the control and can, therefore, use some intelligence.

2. Speed. Well, a mate of mine was given a speeding ticket for riding a 125cc BSA Bantam at 90mph. Going down hill and took him a good 15 minutes to get there.

3. Deep cleaned!! I'll try and get some photo's. Whoever has the contract is having a laugh - run your fingers along the top of the window frame. And, are we really saying that the people in West Berkshire are more yobbish and dirty than people from Glasgow? That's a sociological change I've missed somewhere.

[blackdog]

2. Speed. Well, a mate of mine was given a speeding ticket for riding a 125cc BSA Bantam at 90mph. Going down hill and took him a good 15 minutes to get there.

When did Bantams shrink? Mine was 175cc - but I never got close to 90.

[NWNREADER]

When did Bantams shrink? Mine was 175cc - but I never got close to 90.

They didn't shrink, they grew....
The early ones - many MOD green - were 125cc.....