Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Washwaterman Mar 28 2014, 06:40 PM

I would like, along with the other several hundred drivers thank Network rail and the Thatcham Level crossing for wasting 35 minutes of my life today.

I can only imagine how long I would have been stuck there if they had not spent 80 grand on the new improvements .

When will someone wake up to this problem that it's now a major route and get something done.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 28 2014, 07:22 PM

It's only going to get worse.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 28 2014, 07:29 PM

Sadly, our local Council think otherwise.

Apparently, in spite of all the monies they've extracted from developers over the years, it would be far too costly to build a bridge. Equally, in civil engineering terms, that would be wholly impossible too.

Equally, the road the other side of the bridge is of no strategic importance as very few people would want to get to Basingstoke or the M3. Lorries don't use the route because they are too heavy and it's far better that they go through Newbury anyway.

Similarly, that route would at some stage be of interest to Hants CC. Councils are not allowed to liaise with each other, let alone come up with joint strategies.

Having a bridge might also encourage developers to build the other side of the canal. We can't have that because the Council rightly never ever goes against it's strategic plans.

So there you have it! I can't imagine you would have been doing anything important, after all, you could be like your Council betters and work from home as the mood suits.

Posted by: motormad Mar 29 2014, 02:14 AM

To be fair building (homes) on the other side of the railway/canal is only going to make things worse.
That road cannot take much more traffic, it's already falling apart.
It floods regularly.
The area is already overpopulated (with Kennet Heath, etc).


The bridge discussion has come up time and time again.
It's no issue for me as I never go down that way anyway, I'd always go to Newbury - A339 .

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 29 2014, 07:03 AM

Why blame NR?
I suppose they could have opened the crossing for you but I think if they had done that you would have wasted more than 35 minutes!!
The crossing has been there for 150 years, it's something they inherited, I'm sure they would like to be rid of it as much as you.
Also, it was not they who spent the money on "improvements".
I am sure they and the local authorities would dispute that it is a "major route" and would not want it to become so.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 29 2014, 08:44 AM

Don't network rail control when the barriers go up and down then?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 29 2014, 10:58 AM

That exacerbates the issue, slow trains contribute significantly to hold ups.

Posted by: Lee Mar 29 2014, 02:31 PM

Only going to be worse if Siege Cross goes ahead.... 500houses within half a mile of Level Crossing
http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=2683

Posted by: JeffG Mar 29 2014, 03:27 PM

I have to confess I don't know why that road is so important. Maybe because I don't use it. Seeing as Siege Cross would be the population (i.e. Thatcham) side of the crossing, why would that make a difference?

What is on the south side that people need to get to - apart from the Football Club?

Posted by: Washwaterman Mar 29 2014, 04:13 PM

What is on the south side that people need to get to - apart from the Football Club?
[/quote]

How about Basingstoke, Southampton, Winchester, the M3, M25 to name a few places

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 29 2014, 05:26 PM

...also there's Tesco, Greenham Common and New Greenham Park.

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 29 2014, 09:11 PM

Well you have to let the trains through, or do they stop them until the traffic stops?
(Someone is bound to say yes! )

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 29 2014, 09:13 PM

Could speed them up I suppose and not stop them at any stations!

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 29 2014, 10:27 PM

Or leave the barriers up longer.

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 30 2014, 07:12 AM

We've been through all that Andy in great depth.
I'm not going to spell it out again.
Haven't got time to trawl through and find the thread again either.
It would be interesting, if at all possible, to arrange a visit to Colthrop Crossing Signal Box for those who don't understand how the crossing / signalling works so that they could see for themselves the issues involved and may be less inclined to make statements such as "leave the barriers up longer".
The ONLY solution is a bridge whether on the current site of the crossing (technically difficult) or elsewhere (maybe at Colthrop itself).
In conjunction with that, in order to cope with the inevitable increase in traffic, the whole route to the junction with the A339 would have to be improved thus creating what would then effectively be an Eastern by-pass.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 30 2014, 10:05 AM

I know we have been through it all before, but that doesn't stop the fact that the problem of the barriers is exacerbated by the slow trains, and that would be mitigated if the barriers were left up longer. It's a fact of life, not a serious proposition.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 30 2014, 02:04 PM

I have never heard a good reason for the barriers to go down 10 minutes before a train comes through, or why they can't open them between trains.

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 30 2014, 04:28 PM

Obviously you don't understand so I'll leave it there.

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 30 2014, 04:29 PM

They don't
With the "slow" trains they lower as the train is between the Racecourse Station and the signal on Thatcham Moors. (this is the one that protects the crossing.)
In the other direction they lower as the train is between Midgham and Colthrop. How is that 10 minutes either way?

They do. (If there is sufficient time to do so.)

Like I said, it would be useful for all you disbelievers to have a visit to the Box as you would see how it all works and see that no more delay than is necessary is made to road traffic.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 30 2014, 04:38 PM

I've sat there by the gates for 10 minutes at a time plenty of times. Often a lot more, and I've timed it, because I know it can feel a lot longer. When do they go down for a "fast train"

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 30 2014, 05:27 PM

Yes, you will if there is more than 1 train.
They do not lower for 10 mins. for just 1 train.

Posted by: motormad Mar 30 2014, 07:09 PM

Maybe more than one train goes back/forth at a time......

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 30 2014, 07:15 PM

What is there to understand? The barriers are down for ages for slow trains,

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 31 2014, 05:03 AM

A lot Andy, a lot!

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 31 2014, 08:07 AM

Thought I'd bump this one for those of you who may be interested and may want to get a better understanding of how level crossings work and why you may be held up at them.
During several evenings in August Network Rail are holding open days / tours of Kintbury Crossing Signal Box.
You can get more information or a booking by emailing

kintburycrossing@hotmail.com

I don't know if they are going to do similar at Colthrop Crossing Box which is the one that controls Thatcham Crossing but they may do this if demand is there.
I would suggest that some of you folks on here that complain about the delays may well benefit from a better understanding by attending one of these visits.
Believe me they will be very interesting!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 31 2014, 09:18 AM

It might be interesting, but sat waiting 5 minutes or more for a slow moving freight train to pass will still not be fun; however, some of the annoyance is relieved by my having an app to tell me how long I am likely to wait, and the likelihood of being held up in the first place.

Posted by: JeffG Jul 31 2014, 09:52 AM

Surely since you can't use the app while you're in your car, you would use it to time your departure so you are not held up?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 31 2014, 11:41 AM

You can use it in the car but you can also use it to know before hand if it is going to be a long wait or not. There are occasions where there are only a few minute gaps between multiple trains - big queues likely - so one might reconsider going that way. If it is only a 3 minute/1 train wait, then it is probably not worth worrying about.

Posted by: JeffG Jul 31 2014, 01:48 PM

How can you legally use it in the car, unless you are stopped? Even then, I read somewhere (possibly on this forum) that the legality is dubious.

Posted by: Washwaterman Jul 31 2014, 02:24 PM

Just Build a bridge, it's only going to get worse.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 31 2014, 05:38 PM

What you should have said is 'use it in your hand while driving', then you would be right.

You can use it in the car as a passenger
You can use it in the drivers seat with the engine switched off (and handbrake on?)
You can use it hands free

I understand.

Posted by: JeffG Jul 31 2014, 07:31 PM

Pretty clever app if you can use it hands free.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 31 2014, 09:57 PM

Not at all, it is completely automatic. There is no interaction other than opening it; however, my previous post was about what one can do legally, rather than practically, which was in context of the comment I replied to.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 1 2014, 08:34 AM

Anyway..............
There have been some on here who have intimated the absolute tosh that Network Rail keep crossing barriers down for longer than is necessary.
I just thought that a visit to a crossing signal box might explain to some of those people that this is not the case and show the reasons why the barriers are down for the time that they are.
Apart from that, I'm sure many would find it generally very interesting and would improve their understanding so that we don't get as many threads under titles such as this one!!

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 1 2014, 08:40 AM

I think it would be better to avoid an expensive app and just have a flashcard you could read saying "LEVEL CROSSING THIS WAY, YOU MAY GET HELD UP FOR SOME TIME ESPECIALLY IN RUSH HOUR AS IT IS A BUSY ROAD CROSSING A BUSY LINE SO YOU MAY WISH TO USE AN ALTERNATIVE ROUTE"

Posted by: motormad Aug 1 2014, 09:58 AM

Or build the bridge that will never happen.

Was chatting to a mate and the other option (arguably easier and probably no more expensive) would be to simply build the rail way down and under the road.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 1 2014, 10:01 AM

I have an inexpensive app that offers another option too! Notwithstanding an alternative route is many miles out of the way, or means driving through often busy towns.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 1 2014, 01:40 PM

simply??

Posted by: Nothing Much Aug 1 2014, 02:17 PM

Terrible problems underground MM. Tunnels all going to secret sites. I think there is a UFO under the Swan.

ce

Posted by: JeffG Aug 1 2014, 02:44 PM

Gerroff! All they need is a little fellow like http://tunnellingjournal.com/files/2010/05/DSC_0423.jpeg.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 27 2015, 07:49 AM

Thought I would put the record straight in here rather than start another TLC thread!
In the report "Bridge at Thatcham is one too far"article today on the web site there is the statement "Stopping trains currently activate the level crossing barriers when they are four minutes from the station, with fast and freight trains two-and-a-half minutes and three-minutes 20 seconds respectively."
Trains do not activate the barriers at Thatcham Crossing. They are controlled and activated by the signaller at Colthrop Signal Box.
All full barrier crossings in the UK are, at present, operated by humans. They have to be!

Posted by: motormad Jul 27 2015, 09:18 AM

I thought the crossing at Thatcham was Electronically controlled.

Learn something new..

Posted by: motormad Jul 27 2015, 09:18 AM

I thought the crossing at Thatcham was Electronically controlled.

Learn something new..

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 27 2015, 10:46 AM

How does the Cothrop signaller know where the trains are?

Posted by: Nothing Much Jul 27 2015, 11:08 AM

Like Tonto... puts his head on the track,
then sprints for the signal box when the Iron Horse starts to shake the rail!

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 27 2015, 11:40 AM

Track circuits (now axle counters) relay where the train is.
Rings a bell in the box when a train enters that section warning that the crossings need to close and signals to clear.
Progress of train is shown on diagram above box controls. Also type of train and headcode is displayed giving signaller the correct timing of the lowering of the barriers.
See image.
Also you can see the cctv monitors etc.


(Bit of an old picture but best I could find of the box interior.)

Posted by: CrackerJack Jul 27 2015, 04:39 PM

I get the impression when driving over Colthrop that the inside of the control box hasn't changed at all inside since that photo was taken and as a working environment it matches working in a Didcot museum piece....

Question for biker:
I was coming up to the Ufton Nervet crossing last week. The half barriers came down and literally 15 seconds later a 125 sped past. How come that crossing can have such a minimal delay? If the delay at Thatcham was reduced then there wouldn't be half of the complaints.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 27 2015, 05:22 PM

I think it may be a little more than 15 secs.
Ufton is an Automatic Half Barrier Crossing.
This type IS operated by the train as it approaches.
Unlike full barrier crossings it is not controlled by signals which will be clear (or off) as the train approaches even though the barriers have not yet lowered until the train is much closer.
AHBC's reliy purely that traffic has cleared the crossing and none has entered because of the lights, siren and barrier.
There is no cctv on this type of crossing.
Hence, because the full barrier type is controlled by signals, the barriers have to be lowered in sufficient time to clear them and not delay the train.
Volume of traffic is usually the deciding factor in which type of crossing is installed.
(Just as a bye - the crossing is just Ufton (or http://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/gwa/S183.htm) - Ufton Nervet is the village some distance away.)

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 27 2015, 06:39 PM

An informative post Biker. I'm surprised to hear the barriers are activated by a human, I would have assumed that it had been automated.

Off on a bit of a tangent - but has there been much development of automating the driving of the trains themselves? Google have an autonomous car and that's presumably a much more difficult prospect, so how about autonomous trains?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 27 2015, 06:43 PM

Don't start, we have enough strike action to endure already!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 27 2015, 06:57 PM

I find even the 2 or 3 minute delay for a HST isn't really a problem. The problem is when you have number of trains close to each other. Also the extra waiting time for a slow trains leaving Newbury takes quite a long time as do the 'earth movers'. Those Hanson trains often take over 4 minutes to go past.

I remember once sat watching an ambulance on 'blues and 2s' stopped at the crossing on the south side. I remember wondering whose night was being made worse by the decision to go that route.

Another thing, not only do we have major south Newbury developments coming on line - like Sandlford, which are bound to add to the traffic - but there is now a new development on the south-side of the crossing. So we have the prospect of people stopped to turn right which is going to cause the same problem that was partially solved by the north-side crossing road-layout improvements recently.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 28 2015, 07:07 AM

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 28 2015, 07:14 AM

There are tests being made with object detection equipment on level crossings, but until then it takes a human to recognise if the crossing is clear in order to lower the barriers, or if someone is trapped.

Driverless trains are already used on short length, high intensity, low speed lines but their introduction on the UK network I think is a long way off, but no doubt will come.
In cab signalling, which can be used to directly control the train, is already in use in parts of the country but it will be a while, and after lots of investment, before it is in use nationwide.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 28 2015, 12:21 PM

Great explanations Biker. Given the constraints, the fewer and fewer operational people still manage to do a very good job with ageing and outdated technology. Sadly, unlike most other nations, there is little hope for improvement in spite of the massive amounts of cash poured into the industry. Instead of investing in innovative, properly customer focussed engineering, we in the UK would rather make do and mend or produce pedestrian modernisations, designed to ensure rapacious executive salaries and bonuses are maintained. I can certainly understand why rail engineers are likely to be so demoralised and disenchanted that innovative design isn't even thought about. Our fault; a direct consequence of what we vote for.

Posted by: CrackerJack Jul 28 2015, 07:25 PM

I rather suspect that the controlling hands of the Union bosses have a significant influence over how much modernisation is permitted on our railways. When it comes to 'get what you vote for' then it's also Union member votes that count...

Posted by: On the edge Jul 28 2015, 08:44 PM

When even the Prime Minister suggests 'Britain needs a pay rise' we could conclude that Trades Unions have had their day. Most of their modern day disputes have a grounding of truth; it's just that they aren't media savvy; so inevitably get trounced.

Certainly for this particular issue, I don't think there is any remote connection between Trades Union activity and say the pedestrian penny pinching design of Reading Station, or the lack of an innovative solution to the Thatcham Level Crossing issue.

It surprises me that anyone would actually join a trades Union these days; considering their abject failure to deliver any real improvement to working conditions or prospects.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 29 2015, 03:43 PM

Just an observation.

I've just come back from Southern France via SNCF and then Eurostar. SNCF is nationalised of course. However, the 2nd class seats we had were very comfortable, with little tables, sufficient leg room and a good amount of luggage space. There was a reasonably equipped restaurant and the 'facilities' worked and were reasonably clean. The comfort compared favourably with journeys I have to make in UK to Scotland, where a kind benefactor pays for 1st class. Of course, the French can fit less seats width ways in their carriages because they have a wider loading gauge... Ticket prices stand comparison and as to punctuality, the 6 hour journey ended in Paris within a minute of the advertised time.

Something wrong here surely?

Posted by: Nothing Much Jul 29 2015, 05:16 PM

Daughter who was 8 months pregnant was due to go with a bunch of girlfriends to Turkey.
She was dubious about the whole flying thing with check ins, heat,food,I suggested Avignon by TGV. My wife and I enjoyed the experience some years before. Turned out to be a complete success. TGV had finished but SNCF did the job. No faffing around with terminals.
Now she has a got a new toy...8 month old Isabel. (Izzy)..crawling now. They are off to the Lake district-- erm by Audi RS5.
Can't win 'em all!
We took a tour round the ports by TGV and were in 1st class. It was packed with French people going on holiday.They like camping and it seems taking their clothes off as well(but not on the train)

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 29 2015, 08:29 PM

Interesting OTE.
What is wrong?
As you say, most of Europe's railways are nationalised.
BUT - look...........

Abellio (a subsidiary of Nederlandse Spoorwegen) operates Abellio Greater Anglia, Abellio Scotrail, Merseyrail and Northern Rail.

Arriva UK Trains (a subsidiary of Arriva, part of Deutsche Bahn) - operates Arriva Trains Wales, CrossCountry, Chiltern Railways, London Overground and Grand Central Railway.

Govia (a subsidiary of Keolis) operates Great Northern, London Midland, Southern, Southeastern and Thameslink.

DB Schenker (part of Deutsche Bahn) - largest rail freight operator in UK.

Plus, OTE, the French allow themselves to build new, high speed lines. (Which I presume you travelled on?) http://stophs2.org/

So yes, something is wrong??

PS - UK is now the safest rail in Europe. It's not all bad!

Posted by: On the edge Jul 29 2015, 09:36 PM

Quite so.

This actually makes me very angry, because it demonstrates exactly what is wrong with our British attitude to Europe. I've tried to explain to both our present MP and his predecessor the stupidity of our present position.

It's blindingly obvious to most of us that there is just one reason a Business takes over another, particularly if the victim is in another Country. The nationalised German State railway is hardly going to do it for altruistic reasons. It's also hardly a fair market, any other private firm making a bid for the victim firm is actually bidding against State money. Similarly, our businesses can't make a bid for the State owned firms on the Continent, no matter how inefficient they are.

That's the EU for you! We always play by the rules and we always loose. Frankly, it's a wonder we have any rail service at all, given the cash that's been leeched away via payments to Continental state businesses, excessive executive salaries and bonuses not to mention 'lets pretend' leasing and other parasitic hanger on businesses. Trades Unions? Yes, to blame but only insofar as they let Toni Blair abolish clause 4, which simply needed reinterpretation.

We have the best safety record; which again recognises the innate skill and competence of the operational staffs in the face of political economic incompetence, inept regulation and executive greed.

NOTE - same thing can be seen in nuclear energy, where a French nationalised industry will design and operate our next generation of nuclear power stations. How cleaver is that? Perhaps we could get a private equity firm to launch a hostile bid for EdF.....!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 29 2015, 10:01 PM

Not surprising considering the frequency trains have to travel at walking pace due to signal failure!

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 30 2015, 07:29 AM

Nice one Andy!
When signals fail, which I agree is too often, the safety of the passengers is paramount.
In a failure situation the reason the train is stopped or travelling "at walking pace" is because, without signals, the driver is only confident of the track ahead being clear by vision and instruction from the signaller.
To travel faster under a failure condition would be putting the safety of passengers at risk.
NOT ACCEPTABLE!
It is because of measures such as this that we have the safest railway in Europe.
Better get there late than not at all eh??

With regard to signal failure I am not sure what the answer is.
The main area for failure, that between Reading and Paddington, is hammered by a continuous flow of 125mph trains all day every day and is working at full capacity.
When you consider the number of track circuits (axle counters), signals and points that are involved it is amazing it works at all!

Posted by: On the edge Jul 30 2015, 10:19 AM

Yet again demonstrating why any decent UK railway engineer is likely to be demotivated and demoralised. Having no options other than to use time expired technology or where replacement is actually authorised, less than optimum solutions. Still, to the rail executives, we are only customers, and as Barnum once said 'why give a sucker an even break'.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 30 2015, 10:49 AM

QED

I'd like to think that you knew I already knew that!


Of course, but if a passenger system is so fragile, one has to wonder whether the solution is fit for purpose.

Most train journeys I make are within 5 minute accuracy, which is fine. My frustrations are with passenger information. I frequently 'fluke' the right train, or find myself reaching extreme anxiety when being unsure whether I am on the right train or where I need to be: things like the tickertape notice on trains that are not displaying the right journey, no 'next stop' announcements being made, or station announcements that are made at the same time a diesel is revving.

The one I find most annoying is the pre-amble on the tickertape board: "Welcome aboard this First Great Western service to Paddington calling at..." ... just give me the destinations and stations, please! It takes so long to know if you are in fact on the right train.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 30 2015, 12:08 PM

I'm sure you did. Just keeping folks up with the facts in case anyone was not as well informed.

Yes, agreed with both yourself and OTE.
As I've said before I'm not trying to defend failures, just keeping informed with facts.

Interesting your comment on "diesel revving".
You may already know that the HST's,, which have the diesel engines nicely away from the punters in power cars, are being replaced by "bi-modal" IEP's which have the diesel engines slung under each carriage.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 3 2015, 06:26 PM

It seems that WBC have decided Thatcham Crossing doesn't need a bridge. Their PR head says it would only solve a local problem. So there we have it - WBC says no.

I can't say I'm surprised, past history demonstrates WBC doesn't seem to have any highways staff with bridge experience, so WBC doesn't do bridges. What they can't do we can't have.

Oh well, Newbury Dormitory Suburb.

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 3 2015, 09:13 PM

So, in short, Thatcham is a local problem and we don't need a bridge, whilst ufton nervet, the great metropolis gets one! Explanations on the back of a postcard please.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 3 2015, 11:30 PM

Casualty rates.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 4 2015, 05:35 AM

M4 next then.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 4 2015, 07:53 AM

Ufton has an unfortunate recent history of tragedies.
This, combined with the fact it is an AHBC, means that something has to be seen to be done.
Will probably not make the many other AHBC's in the country any safer though.

Incidently, Crackerjack made an earlier comment in this thread about the time between the crossing operating and the train passing.

The Sequence for Automatic Half Barriers is:

0:00 Amber
0:03 Flashing Red - Barriers Up
0:07 Barriers begin to fall
0:13 Barriers down
0:28 Minimum time in which train arrives if travelling at line speed.

So 15 secs. between barriers fully down and train passing seems about right!
Well folks don't like to be kept waiting at crossings do they?!

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 4 2015, 08:01 AM

Thought I'd bung this in here since it is a railway thread...........

A new fleet of trains which will serve customers between London and Devon and Cornwall have been approved by the Department for Transport.
The DfT has agreed to a deal that will see 29 state-of-the-art AT300 bi-mode trains from Hitachi introduced on West of England routes from summer 2018. This will double the number of trains into and out of Devon and Cornwall from London Paddington.
The new AT300 rolling stock replaces the 40-year-old HST’s currently in passenger service on the key West of England route, and will be made up of seven nine-car and 22 five-car trains. They will use higher engine operating power to cope with track gradients in Devon and Cornwall, running as electric trains between London and Newbury, and using bigger fuel tanks for long distance journeys to Plymouth and Penzance.
The trains will provide up to 24% additional seats into and out of the West of England, and help speed up typical journey times from London to Penzance by up to 14 minutes.
The £360 million fleet will be financed by Eversholt Rail and leased to Great Western Trains.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 4 2015, 11:25 AM

There are far more roads with a higher casualty rate than that (per journey).

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 4 2015, 11:27 AM

Few would complain about that, but on the other hand, 'Hason trains' have often caused me a await of ~4/5 minutes before they pass Thatcham crossing.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 4 2015, 12:31 PM

Then perhaps they should be given priority. I'm rather amazed that our local politicians and their acolytes who often accuse the electorate of 'sentiment' are doing exactly that with Ufton.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 4 2015, 12:34 PM

As I understand it, FGW had push and pressurise the Department of Transport to agree to let them do this. So hats off to FGW!

Posted by: CrackerJack Aug 4 2015, 07:08 PM

I've got to say it did surprise me how short it was as I'd just turned off the A4 and a second later the lights started flashing and I thought "bullocks I'll be here for ages" but literally before I'd even got to the crossing the barriers had gone down, the 125 had whizzed through and the barriers were straight up again.. All jolly efficient it seemed. Wasn't held up at all.

Posted by: CrackerJack Aug 4 2015, 07:44 PM

WBC is in fairness just a small rural unitary local authority. It does have bridge engineers but they are mostly working on ensuring that existing bridges, including swing bridges, fixed bridges and culverts are appropriately maintained. A new structure of the sort required to span the Thatcham crossing (including the canal, river and leaving the clearance for the electrification paraphernalia) would stretch the resources of many structural engineer consultancies, so why would you need to keep someone on the books for that type of 'one-off/never going to happen' event?



As you well know, it's a combination of factors:
a - Insufficient funds (£millions required to build a bridge for a road that isn't even a B Class road and has a restriction to prevent vehicles over 7.5t from using it)
b - Engineering and physical limitations/constraints (The approach ramps alone would require a complete resetting of position of the Station Road/Pipers Way roundabout with that junction needing to be raised several metres just to allow for the correct gradient for the ramps. This large embankment would pretty much cut off The Swan as a functioning pub and the other businesses and PO Depot would likely have to relocate.
c - I could go on but it's been covered to death on previous threads.... If you live in Lala Land then you'd support the need for a bridge. If you live in the real world you'll realise that the reality is it's not going to happen and would just open up a whole new can of worms if the money was even found under a Network Rail mattress somewhere.....

There's more to it than 'computer says no'





But you knew that.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Aug 4 2015, 08:12 PM

Pity the RMT don't want them then...

Posted by: On the edge Aug 4 2015, 08:58 PM

In fairness. WBC could hire competent help when it's needed, but as we know and as independent reports reveal, the 'not invented here' syndrome is alive and kicking. Known as 'the West Berkshire way'

As for the technical constraints umm. Let's see, a little imagination and a little input from what has been achieved elsewhere might just solve the problem. Called innovation, another commodity in short supply round here.

Who says it needs to be done on exactly the same site? We could even use compulsory purchase, and use somewhere more suitable, even WBC have heard of that. Aaah but that would take imagination, blast, we don't do that either.

Money in short supply? Really??? With the massive housing and commercial developments that have happened in recent times even in the immediate vicinity.

I think I know where Lala Land is, it's where they claim to be short of money but can squitter it away doing up derelict buildings for no purpose, dishing out free dinners yo kids who don't need them, let developers walk all over them because they wont employ the skills needed to deal with them?

Do you honestly expect me to believe anything they say?

Posted by: On the edge Aug 4 2015, 09:02 PM

With all the nostalgia about the good old days and our Museum's lack of feeling for history, it's nice that someone is still showing us what the past was like!

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 4 2015, 10:04 PM

Like a road and bridge at Colthrop, or just before it.

Posted by: CrackerJack Aug 4 2015, 10:55 PM

...but you were moaning that WBC have put a stopper on a bridge for the Thatcham Crossing....



....now you're saying a bridge at another site. That's a different thing and wouldn't be a 'Thatcham Crossing' it would be a Colthrop Crossing

Posted by: CrackerJack Aug 4 2015, 11:16 PM

.... and here's the nub of the problem.... never mind the fallacy of 'the West Berkshire way', a FAR more difficult obstacle to overcome is what is known as 'The British Way'....

..otherwise known as nimbyism

People can sign a petition, organise a march, shove leaflets through your door in support of 'a bridge'...as long as it doesn't affect them... As soon as they realise that, actually, it might mean that MY house is being flattened to make way for it they dance to a different tune and join the nimby brigade .....and there's a lot of nimbys in every street.

I suspect even you OTE would have something to say if a compulsory purchase order came through your letterbox telling you to pack up and make way for the march of progress as the bulldozers are on their way...?

Why do you think most of our rural roads are so winding when the most efficient way of getting from A to B is generally a straight line. The roads are pretty much following paths and animal tracks that have remained the same for centuries. Despite the Romans trying to introduce efficient road building techniques to these islands the british way is to go around obstacles rather than crash through them.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 5 2015, 12:55 AM

Surely the biggest nimbys are estate owners. Surfs could just be kicked out of the way, not so a baron or king, or whatever.

This isn't about Thatcham rail crossing; it is about an administration that has failed to coordinate a decent road network for Newbury and Thatcham, but we are not the only ones: Reading's road network, for example, will serve as an example if things are not planned well.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 5 2015, 06:18 AM

Spot on Andy Capp - you clearly don't work for WBC's planning team!

As for me, Crackerjack, and I don't think I'm alone, I would not be at all concerned if someone wanted to make me a reasonable offer to move on. Sure, I'd negotiate, that's just how we buy and sell houses, but I'd go and happily. Again, we have a local authority too small to be able to employ the skills needed to appreciate the difference between negotiation and valid objection.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 5 2015, 07:39 AM

Not defending RMT or FGW workers, but I believe the dispute not about the introduction of the trains themselves but how they are staffed and operated.

Posted by: blackdog Aug 5 2015, 08:33 AM

Most of the time it doesn't work that way - nimbys face a degradation of their locale with no compensation, just a worse living environment. No wonder they object - usually to no avail.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 5 2015, 09:29 AM

I'm not totally convinced about that. After all, no one had a prescriptive right to stay exactly where they live for ever. Also, much degradation is actually caused by neighbours creating small scale disturbance - ill considered extensions, badly maintained property, selling gardens etc. I'm old enough to remember the dirty, dank often insanitary courts off the main streets of the town. I'm not convinced that the occupants of those had a better environment than the residents in the newer flats. Much crass planning is down to the local politicians who pander to the apparently logical voice of reaction. Hence we have a technical college newly built on a green field site in a rural / residential area. Classic!

Posted by: blackdog Aug 5 2015, 06:48 PM

Nimbys aren't asserting rights, they just don't want the disturbance of a development close by, followed by increased traffic past their door, loss of view from their windows, their street filled with parked cars and the value of their property to fall. They generally recognise they are helpless, they have no rights and that the planners will ignore their concerns - they just think it's wrong that they have to suffer, that their little piece of England will be more congested and lose the character they have been accustomed to.

As for the courts and yards - they were largely replaced by council house building on green field sites. The arrival of the blocks cramped flats is a much more recent phenomenon - no one complains much about such developments because there was no one living nearby to care about them.

If someone came up with a plan that involved building 4 or 5 storey blocks of flats just the other side of your garden fence would you be happy?

It's easy enough to rationalise that more housing is needed and that the greater good means that some inconvenience/loss to a few is acceptable - but don't expect people to suffer silently.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 5 2015, 07:53 PM

Spot on.

Posted by: CrackerJack Aug 5 2015, 08:06 PM

Back to the level crossing area and bridge argument;
just to give a sense of the proportions required to build a bridge at the current site, the rough graphic below gives an idea on why, if there is ever to be another bridge built, that it will not happen here.

The new bridge being built on the Racecourse development is an ideal comparison. The south side of the bridge (where the Nuffield Health Centre is located) is still a bit off completion but the ramp leading down from the new structure to a new roundabout is around 210 metres from the trackside to the southern extent of the roundabout. Even at that point the roundabout is raised around 2 metres above the level of the surrounding land. This is the sort of length required to get the proper gradient for a ramp built to current DMRB construction standards (Design Manual for Roads & Bridges).

The red outline below shows the current construction area for the southern ramp next to Nuffield


Using the same necessary length/dimensions to get that correct ramp gradient and transposing it onto the current Thatcham crossing area, you would need something along the area shown below, whether the roundabout was along Pipers Way or Station Road.

Bear in mind that the current roundabout position would be wiped out by the new ramp embankment. The red round area just shows the extent of where that 210 metres would take you and even that far out from the crossing it would still need to be raised from the surrounding area by about 2 metres.


That's quite some change and a number of properties or local businesses would have to go to make way for it. There would also be the sheer length of time this build would take and the disruption caused to the town. How long has it taken to build the Racecourse bridge so far?

Even if the money was there this isn't the right location.

Yes the graphic's a bit rough and was designed as per this piece of paper... but you get the idea.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 5 2015, 08:21 PM

I'm not sure that is down to the engineering challenge as much as the 'enthusiasm' of the developer.

In any unlikelihood of a bridge it would have to be in a different location so as not having to extend over the waterways in the same spot. But, the 'problem' will not go away, nor get better.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 5 2015, 09:14 PM

All very interesting CrackerJack. Now stand back from the maps and see if you can come up with other alternative sites nearby. Particularly of you don't mind having a look at some contemporary continental bridge design books first.

All I'll add is that Newbury has a wonderful, cheap, fast and effective example of innovation in heavy vehicle bridge design at the end of Park Way. What some arguably well stressed engineers achieved in months during a mortal national emergency, apparently couldn't be bettered by their predecessors some fifty years later in a time of peace and plenty!

Sorry, still no evidence that 'we do bridges' in West Berkshire. Sadly, we don't seem to do imagination or innovation either.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 5 2015, 09:50 PM

Wow!
Going by this scale the unnecessary bridge at Ufton is going to be an eyesore!?
Decision tonight. Give you one guess which way it will go.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 5 2015, 11:51 PM

So is a crashed train.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 6 2015, 08:15 AM

I've decided to delete my original reply.
Became somewhat angry at your response AC (which I assume was your objective) but have calmed now.
I still believe the crossing is being replaced to remove a reputation rather than a danger.
As I have said before, there are hundreds of other AHBC's in the country, many have been the site of crashes, all due to misuse by road users.
However, as predicted, it's decided now so debate over.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 6 2015, 01:23 PM

I meant no such thing. Just because AHBC's are common and have accidents doesn't empower your flawed argument. A bridge will almost certainly mean no derailment or crashes at that site. Fault of an accident is irrelevant. The company has a duty of care which they have enacted.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Aug 6 2015, 05:00 PM

This is the thinking that has led to the removal of the dual carriageway on the A4, one fatality three years ago. Let's just close all the roads, all railway crossings as well as taking the sharp scissors from the hands of politicians. You know, just in case.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 6 2015, 05:27 PM

Actually, the official line is it was installed following a number of incidents that have occurred and particularly as a result of a coroners report following a fatality; however, I too am peed off about it. Not that matters to anyone of course!

Posted by: je suis Charlie Aug 6 2015, 07:24 PM

If we extrapolate that rationale we find what we really need to do is to reduce all dual carriageways and motorways down to one lane.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 6 2015, 07:36 PM

What we need to do is remove unnecessary risk. The A4 is getting so busy now that it really isn't much of an advantage to overtake a vehicle at the section of the road anyway. As much as I resent the new layout, the arguments put forward in the paper look specious to me, except that it is possible that people will be more inclined to take risks elsewhere on the road. I see that as a possibility.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 7 2015, 05:06 AM

The company has acted due to media and public pressure.
When this one is eliminated then unfortunately another one will become "notorious".
In all forms of transport there will always be a danger which cannot be eliminated.
No matter what we do, travelling around at speed in bits of metal will always be dangerous and people will be killed / injured.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 8 2015, 04:02 PM

Tucked away in the 'Thatcham News' in this week's hard copy NWN is a nice little story about UKIP. Seems they are actually still alive and kicking and are suggesting a bridge just a little further up the line at Colthrop(?) crossing would solve the issue and not be overly expensive. Careful lads, you might find yourselves elected.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 8 2015, 11:18 PM

Not even as far as Colthrop. Just at the bend on Pipers Lane, so just 250 metres away. Same canal and river and rail crossing to make, so still the same large structure to construct. And instead of using established road line it would need land to be bought at even more expense. The brand new property owners of that development south of the crossing would also strongly object as they bought on the assumption they would be looking over fields, not over a dirty great bridge rampart.

They've drawn a thick red line on a map with a crayon in effect.

Posted by: motormad Oct 8 2015, 11:35 PM

Same issue. Tracks and river. Except this is miles off the beaten track.

Posted by: blackdog Oct 8 2015, 11:36 PM

If the Tory's statement about councils keeping all their area's business rates comes true (I suspect this one was written on a flying pig) then WBC could actually have some real cash to spend - £50 million or so extra dosh every year. This is the sort of money that could fund an eastern ring road around Newbury/Thatcham - including a bridge.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 9 2015, 11:58 AM

Yes. Hooray (well, sort of) they have an improved junction on the north side of the level crossing, but now they have the new development on the south-side to fk things up in just the same way! Wnkrs!

Posted by: On the edge Oct 9 2015, 06:18 PM

Umm not convinced the altered arrangement makes too much difference. Deckchairs and Titanic are words that come to mind.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 9 2015, 08:58 PM

It makes a fkn massive difference you're the poor knt stuck behind a car wanting to turn right!

Posted by: On the edge Oct 9 2015, 09:20 PM

Odd, no one seems to mind Aldi in London Road coming into the town centre! Rather more clients rather easier to solve. The crossing change was simply a political sticking plaster.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 9 2015, 11:03 PM

People do find Aldi a nuisance; however, one is not likely to get help up for 10 or so minutes at Aldi due to a car turning right, which is what can happen at Thatcham station. The crossing was all that could be done and while it didn't fix the real issue, they installed a junction that should have been there in the first place. Indeed, it was an idiotic decision to have a single access at that position in the first place.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 13 2015, 05:45 PM

I realise I'm quoting myself but this article and map made me laugh.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/all-districts/16072/Solution-offered-to-solve-Thatcham-level.html


It's as if the ghost of Screaming Lord Sutch lives on and has taken the form of a group of UKIP supporters ‘with engineering experience’. Having access to a handful of coloured felt tips and being able to scribble lines on a map doesn’t equate to ‘engineering experience’ in my book, any more than putting some red plastic blocks from a Monopoly set on a map constitutes providing a 3D design model of a hotel.

Car park relocated to the south west side of the crossing? (into the field that floods so good luck anyone parking there) A bridge of the same dimensions as needed at the level crossing site, which WBC and Network Rail have already said would not be funded? A new bridge for the River Kennet as well as the bridge for the rail track and canal?


This ‘plan’ would require FAR more funding and engineering effort than would be required to 'just' build a bridge at the current site (new roads, closing roads, roundabouts, removing car parks, building new car parks, embankments, compulsory purchase of farmland). They've also just scrubbed out one of the businesses south of the rail crossing to make way for their bridge as easily as just putting two black crosses on the map. I don't think it'll be that easy to demolish buildings and viable businesses with just the application of a few flicks of the wrist with a black felt tip.....

There isn’t the willingness to provide a bridge in the first place so where they think they'll get the £22m to £30m they've plucked out of the air to fund it from from God only knows.

They (UKIP) probably want to be a party that's at least being ‘seen to be doing something’, but sometimes that just exposes how weak a position you are in or how lacking your combined braincells are in coming up with workable solutions to a problem..

Posted by: spartacus Oct 13 2015, 05:51 PM

"The design, which is not a formal planning application.........."

No $hit Sherlock...

...and just how big would a construction have to be which would satisfy the needs of Network Rail and their electrification scheme clearance requirements yet provide "a wheelchair and cycle-friendly footbridge"?

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 13 2015, 06:07 PM

**** those swivel eyed loons!!

Posted by: The Hatter Oct 13 2015, 06:16 PM

It won't happen because influential people live the other side and don't want more of us plebs passing by.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 13 2015, 08:38 PM

It looks like a reasonable idea to me. It solves the difficulty of the unacceptably steep gradient of the approach road. My feeling is that there needs to be an eastern by-pass, and the sooner we build one the better or we'll have covered all the possible routes in houses and will be struggling with traffic for evermore. I think we should be having this debate and building some enthusiasm for the cost of it - £30M for a bridge seems bit stiff but if that's what it costs I don't think that would be unreasonable.

Posted by: x2lls Oct 13 2015, 09:03 PM

Great post Simon.

No blatant disregard purely based on stupidity and ignorance.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 13 2015, 09:44 PM

I'm not sure why the gradient would be less severe when the location has only been shifted by around 250m to the east? The gradient for approach ramps is fairly fixed according to the Design Manual for Roads & Bridges as it is determined by the required platform height of the bridge and in this case that is determined by the need to accommodate electrification infrastructure for the railway.

Certainly on the north side construction space is just as restricted

There's the oil depot on that bend on Pipers Lane that would most likely have to relocate (along with other businesses that would be seriously impacted during bridge construction).

The killer is that the bridge height and off ramp on the south side would potentially bring high vehicles into conflict with the powerlines from Thatcham sub station on Pipers Lane (I doubt the National Grid will be too amenable to a suggestion to raise or reroute their cabling or reposition a couple of pylons)

https://goo.gl/maps/TbEVaQsYcG52


Costs start to spiral when you put down the crayons and put on thinking caps instead.

Drainage and flood mitigation measures required both during construction and following build, especially for the new development on Rainsford Farm which will have been encircled by bridge ramps. National Grid cables in the way. Residents aplenty wanting compensation. Days in Court to sort mountains of legal wrangling.

Paying for a bridge will be the relatively easy bit.

....and as a project of this size would require a year or three to deliver where would Thatcham traffic go in the interim? Into an already over capacity Newbury network perhaps?

You might think my previous comments stupid and ignorant x2lls but there are other reasons to dismiss this pie-in-the-sky 'engineering suggestion' and that's because it might just be undeliverable in that location. (That is, unless you live in some fantasy alternative existence where money for this non-strategic traffic scheme might be available.... and I would think given the above that the '£30m' cost estimate is a tad on the light side....)

Posted by: On the edge Oct 14 2015, 06:28 AM

Of course, there are going to be engineering and land acquisition issues no matter what. That even happens with a like for like replacement such as Boundary Road. These only become insurmountable when there is no political will to do anything. The 'technical expert' excuse is one of the best. Yes, the cost is high, that's why the problem needs to be considered as part of a much wider strategic vision. Then the real values can be seen and the costs properly weighed. Ironically, the railway itself has demonstrated that just along the line, the cost of the flyover at Reading was huge, but all done just to avoid a few minutes delay to trains. So the question is really one of wanting an acceptable transport infrastructure which will sustain the local economy.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 14 2015, 06:35 AM

Moving the crossing east solves the ramp gradient problem because the ramp isn't then constrained to meet the level of the existing road on the north at the mini roundabout which is uncomfortably close to the crossing. There may well be a need to re-route services,and I would expect the feasibility of that to be addressed in the scheme evaluation, but there's nothing obviously preventing that, and likewise there may well be a need to demolish some industrial buildings, but in the context of an important scheme that's neither here nor there

Posted by: Washwaterman Oct 14 2015, 07:00 AM

Well another record 1 hour 5 minutes from The SSE roundabout to the level crossing Failure of the barriers this time. cannot remember the last time a bridge broke down.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 14 2015, 08:01 AM

…ahh yes, "The Greater Good" argument....

I assume you don't work at one of these businesses that would be demolished then...

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 14 2015, 09:32 AM

I've worked at a number of firms who, for one reason or another, have had to up-sticks, that's five relocations in my 30-odd year working life. It's disruptive for sure, but it often also creates an opportunity to modernise and organise so as long as the companies involved are compensated for theirloss I don't see any problem at all. Compulsory relocation of residential property is a different matter because of the entirely reasonable emotional connection to home and hearth, but that's not an issue with industrial.

So yes, "Hot-Fuzz" connotations acknowledged, but I do believe in the greater good and I think the proposal is a serious contribution to an important local issue and it deserves serious consideration.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 14 2015, 10:40 AM

Anything is possible.

But is it realistically achievable. We don't live in ancient Egypt and we don't have the financial resources to support this.

Feasibility study done in 2004 (letter attached) indicated an approximate £20m cost at that time. With the passage of time and other costs at this new location (compensation for relocated businesses, repositioning of pylons and HV cables, new roundabouts, new entrances, land acquisition etc) the costs would be significantly more (double? treble?)

As the attached states, to keep to construction design standards regarding gradient the site of the current roundabout on Pipers Way/Station Road would have to be raised by around 10ft anyway. There is a specific gradient that has to be achieved if the bridge is to meet standards and it can't be solved by keeping the roundabout at current level and making the ramp steeper.

(from the letter)
"...although the local benefits are plain to see, the benefits to the strategic road network will be minimal. Indeed the environmental issues associated with the increase in traffic along this route may well cancel out the traffic flow benefits. "



Network Rail were prepared to dig deep into their pockets to support that scheme as it directly impacted on their timetables and DfT concurred that it was a positive strategic decision for UK Plc's network based on delivering people and goods around the country. This level crossing is a short link road between a small Berkshire town and the A339 which is already subject to a 7.5t weight limit, so cannot be used strategically.

Where do you think the civil servants who run the Major Scheme funding at DfT will place this type of proposal?

Network Rail don't suffer delays, either of a few minutes or longer, because of the level crossing. Their passengers are fine. It's the motorists sat fuming in their cars that are delayed and Network Rail and their shareholders are hardly likely to agree to fund something to help resolve that, are they.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 14 2015, 10:46 AM

That didn't get in the way of the Parkway and Faraday Road development. Where's Emily Pankhurst when you need one!

Posted by: spartacus Oct 14 2015, 10:53 AM

Waiting around the top bend of the racecourse development?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 14 2015, 12:13 PM

Lovely but quite typical response from WBC, which clearly demonstrates they (we) have absolutely no cohesive road transport strategy for this area. Of course, a bridge will herald demands for further road improvements and of course there will be an increase in emissions. There are quite obvious counters to both, which don't get a mention. Let's be honest, in detail terms, it's possibly a little less as credible than UKIPs proposal. Nonetheless, it was the right response from WBC and exactly fits with the Council's ethos. After all it is a very small, cash strapped authority whose horizons are consequently severely restricted. Anything bigger than the addition of a conservatory to the local museum or the management of public conveniences, necessarily has to be left to developers or national government. West Berkshire, unlike the wider publically owned Network Rail, really doesn't have the capacity or capability to look wider than the parish boundary.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 14 2015, 01:17 PM

I'm intrigued as to why people might think Network Rail might want to contribute squillions to such an ambitious engineering project. From their perspective their facility works fine. Their default position would be to close it, not build OVER it.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 14 2015, 02:03 PM

Perhaps I should have made it clearer. Network Rail's flyover was only mentioned as an example of what strategic thinking can deliver. Of course, they aren't interested in building a bridge at Thatcham, not their bag. As for closing it, yes for them, that's the right answer, but does beg the question as to why they bridged Ufton - when even against the political hand wringing, closure would have been the most effective and cost efficient answer.

One answer for WBC to solve its Thatcham crossing issue would be to do just that, significantly down grade the road opposite and alter the Thatcham local road network in front to suit. In effect, this is what WBC believes it's electorate want; nothing wrong with that position, but why don't they say so?

Posted by: spartacus Oct 14 2015, 05:29 PM

Seriously.... you sat in a queue for 1 hour 5 minutes over that short a distance when there are numerous junctions and turning areas you could have used to get yourself out of that queue and find a different way around.. With a 'Washwaterman' username you're not an out-of-townie so should have been able to work out how to get to where you needed to get to avoiding the queue. I can only assume you were getting paid and were using it as an excuse not to get to work

Posted by: spartacus Oct 14 2015, 05:38 PM

You keep mentioning 'strategic'. There's nothing 'strategic' about Crookham Hill or Thornford Road. It's a back road rat run avoiding Newbury to get to Basingstoke. It's not even a B Class road.


For the most part that road is just what I'm after. Out of peak hours it's a good cross country route to use as a start point to get to Basingstoke or to the Tesco/retail park side of Newbury for most Thatcham dwellers. In peak hours it's a nightmare, with dumb people sat in queues for over an hour not knowing what to do. Outside of peak it's perfectly acceptable.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 14 2015, 05:44 PM

I don't understand your position on this spartacus. Why such vehemence? If a bridge is a poor choice then there will be objective evidence to support that reasoning, but I would like to see an informed public debate with the various proposals and options given a thorough airing because on the face of it the Thatcham/Newbury conurbation already needs an eastern by-pass and all the time we build the need increases and the options reduce so for me there's no time like the present.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 14 2015, 05:45 PM

With the Brimpton Road shut and Boundary Road shut and the consequential traffic on other route(s), the ideal options to get to Greenham Common are limited.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 14 2015, 05:48 PM

I agree. If only Newbury had a long term strategy rather than their short-termism, we might have had the inner distribution routes the town deserves.

The problem in south Thatcham is not going to go away, but each administration takes one look and goes: *sharp intake of breath* too hard, lets just say there's nothing that can be done.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 14 2015, 05:55 PM

Until there's a burst water main, or a road closure, or the fkwit council 'allow' two 'relief' roads to be closed at the same time, and then the barriers fail = cluster fk.


In other words: you don't have to use those routes at peak time, so screw those that do, eh?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 14 2015, 05:59 PM

Which is exactly the problem: Newbury and Thatcham don't have a main southeast relief/distribution road/route.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 14 2015, 06:09 PM

Indeed. I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is an easy solution, but a solution is all the same necessary, and I would like to see a broad public debate of the options because it's going to cost a lot of money and whatever we choose it won't be universally popular.

Posted by: Phil Oct 14 2015, 06:44 PM

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 14 2015, 08:21 PM

Can we quote you on that?

Posted by: x2lls Oct 15 2015, 06:53 AM

I trust you have evidence to support that comment?

Posted by: Washwaterman Oct 15 2015, 07:22 AM

Yes as I was not going to be beaten by the level crossing I was going to see it out to the bitter end along with many other people. And I was on my own time just trying to get home

Posted by: x2lls Oct 15 2015, 10:11 AM

Something not yet , as far as I can see, is a propsal to have a subway UNDER the line..

Posted by: Rdg Oct 15 2015, 11:34 AM

A Subway under a canalised river and on a gravel floodplain - yep sounds cheap and sensible to me

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 15 2015, 12:01 PM

What we 'need' is some suicides and major train accidents.

Posted by: x2lls Oct 15 2015, 03:46 PM

If a dirty great tunnel can be built under the English Channel, then why not?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 15 2015, 04:02 PM

Quite.

You are forgetting x2ls, we don't do imagination or innovation round here!

Posted by: spartacus Oct 15 2015, 05:20 PM

...yeah but we'll get all those blanket wearing immigrants from Hampshire sneaking in through the tunnel at night attracted by the bright lights of Thatcham (or the other way around)

Posted by: spartacus Oct 15 2015, 05:25 PM

That's the spirit! It's what made Britain Great. I hope you were sat behind the wheel chewing on a stiff upper lip and 'harumphing'? (It's bad form to rustle your copy of The Times even if you're in stationary traffic)



Perhaps a half barrier configuration would sort out these delays?.... eventually..... ...if enough fed up motorists without the iron resolve of Washwaterman jumped the reds and weaved through..... ....and were 'tapped' by a 125....

Posted by: spartacus Oct 15 2015, 05:35 PM

Innovation, imagination and thinking outside the box will provide the answers, like wot UKIP did....

What about Network Rail changing the lines to a sort of corkscrew arrangement like you see at Alton Towers, so that actually the TRAIN is upside-down and below the surface of the level crossing at the point of the crossing?


<thinks> ...hmmm..... might only work on the 125. The gravel train may have a problem...


[EDIT] Magnetic tracks!! That's the answer....!! (and obviously some sort of cover on the gravel train carriages to keep the gravel in....)

Posted by: x2lls Oct 15 2015, 05:44 PM

Wash my keyboard with soap and water!

Posted by: x2lls Oct 15 2015, 05:46 PM

Obviously the meds supply is out

Posted by: spartacus Oct 15 2015, 06:05 PM

I think we probably go to the same clinic?


Anyway, it's about as realistic as your tunnel idea....

Tunnel under the railtrack, canal and river indeed.... what were you thinking of?

You're probably too young to have enjoyed whiling away hours of your life in a smoke filled room listening to the 'Revolver' album on repeat back in the day... but I reckon you've just had a psychedelic event nonetheless...

Posted by: x2lls Oct 15 2015, 08:01 PM

The beatles were never my favorite band, Frank Zappa, Hot Rats, with Willy the Pimp were more in my line. before that, the lemon Pipers. That said, I did have given as a christmas present, a badly made plastic beatles wig.
TBH, your reply makes some stupid assumptions in that the older you are the more intelligent your are. FAIL.

I can also recall many events from way back. Kennedy being shot, Marilyn Monroe killing herself(?). I also recall going through London to get the steam train from Victoria station to Brighton in the fifties and seeing the destruction from WW2 .

So stop being a stupid kid...

Posted by: Rdg Oct 16 2015, 10:41 AM

ok then to be a bit more scientific about it

Where do you think the 2 ends of the tunnel could be then, taking into account a sensible down gradient and 3m min height differential between top of tunnel (of bore large enough to take a lorry) and riverbed (that is a guess so if you have real figures use them) - the cross rail TBM's have an outside diameter of 7.1m which is too narrow for a standard 2 way road once you allow for wall thickness (modern roads standards set 7.5m verge to verge for a 2 way road). So assuming you do not want traffic lights and single direction travel in your tunnel you are looking at 2 parallel bores. So assuming you use cross rail TBM's you are now looking at over 15m of width for your tunnel (I don't know min separation between bores and guess my .8m is woefully inadequate so feel free to rework accordingly. The roadway could be up to about 2m over the base of the tunnel I guess to allow for services whilst still allowing the min 4m clearance for lorries required for uk tunnels.

So you need to drop to river bed depth + 3m (clearance) + 7.1m (tunnel diameter) - 2m (height of roadway above tunnel bottom) - so 8m below riverbed depth. Max gradient allowed is 5% and <4% is preferred so minimum ramp lengths of 200m + 25m for each m of vertical difference between road level at start of ramp and bottom of riverbed. And the bottom of the gradient has to be before you reach the line of the river/can from the South and the railway line form the North (I know that is higher than canal riverbed but I am guessing network rail would want max support for their railway line so lets assume it works out same as the riverbed equiv.

Now do me a red pen and crayon sketch of where the tunnel will go to allow it to interface with local roads and using min sensible tunnel length (tunnels cost a lot). All my figures are back of a fag packet using google resources to find uk figures for road width etc so feel free to find your own figures if you feel i am wrong

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 16 2015, 12:18 PM

You've too much spare time!

Posted by: Rdg Oct 16 2015, 12:38 PM

took <5mins to research and write that - it was obvious a tunnel would take more space longitudinally than a bridge when there is a river that a 4m lorry would have to fit under, gradient of ramp already listed for why a bridge won't work so just required 2 google searches for the numbers to show why a tunnel is madder

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 16 2015, 01:10 PM

Yeah right.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 16 2015, 01:26 PM

Oh, that's it then, nothing at all can be done; computer says no.

Good job those idiots who are building Crossrail, or those clowns who built the Shard etc. etc. etc. endlessly don't live round here!

Not to worry, they have an even better excuse now. Apparently WBC haven't even got the cash to fit cameras to the Robin Hood lights; so no chance for a real project. It also makes much better economic sense, they don't need to employ expensive engineers, just a few clerks.

Still, never mind, why does a dormitory town need a strong and thriving local economy?

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 16 2015, 01:50 PM

But with all the proposed new development how long will it be before we get total gridlock.......instead of gridlock most of the day?
I took time off work the other day to enable me to get some chores done before the winter. I needed to get to the recycle centre with some bits and pieces...total waste of the day as it took 1 hour 45 minutes of travel time that should have took at most 10 minutes I suspect. I always wondered why the wife was always moaning about the time it took to get anywhere in Newbury.........I thought it was only the weekends that it took an hour or more to travel a couple of miles? Understand why people say they always avoid going into Newbury town centre unless absolutely vital now!

Posted by: Rdg Oct 16 2015, 04:14 PM

start from the other end then - how much money do you believe it is worth spending to relieve the grid lock then lets see what can be be delivered for the money.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 16 2015, 05:19 PM

How much is it costing, such as lost revenue, because people are avoiding Newbury because of the gridlock? How much is it costing people in the extra fuel costs and time etc. etc.?
As others have been stating unless this is discussed and all options investigated then look forward to say 10 - 15 years time when all the green space has been built on and it is too late to have any options left?
It is not only the Thatcham level crossing that needs discussion it is the whole infrastructure for the area for a longer time span than the next election which currently happens at present it would seem?
As a Council spokesperson stated a new junction on the A339 for the new Faraday Road development would not cause any significant new hold ups?
What like the Sainsbury's roundabout does not have any significant hold up?
If this is the standard thinking that our Councillors are capable of then perhaps they could suggest packing an overnight bag to assist getting across Newbury if you are unfortunate enough to have to travel?

Posted by: blackdog Oct 16 2015, 05:51 PM

How about another alternative - build a rail bridge.

A road bridge has to cross rail, canal and river all in a small distance. A rail bridge just has to cross a road.

A road bridge requires a lot of land either side to create the gradient to take it to the necessary height - as would a rail bridge - but the rail bridge option could build the gradient on the existing rail track footprint.

Okay the railway would need to close for a few months (they've closed enough roads for months at an end, maybe it's their turn).

And yes Thatcham Station would need some major modification.

Is it as stupid an idea as it seems?

Posted by: spartacus Oct 16 2015, 06:33 PM

It's your turn to have been sipping on the turps.... or is this just a mischievous tweak to try and get biker1 to come out of hiding and make a comment about railways?


By comparison to this suggestion the road bridge would be the cheaper option even if it was built on gold pillars. The on/off ramps for a new road bridge would be measured in a few hundred metres. Re-grading (completely rebuilding) a high-speed strategic rail link between London and the west of England, which has high volume of rail traffic both freight and passenger would be an enormous undertaking and to get the necessary over bridge height would need the gradient change to start several thousand metres away in either direction. And all those bridges and railway platforms and sidings and level crossings in between would be out of height too.

Straight out of the Ministry of Silly Ideas that one.

Great tactic though. Put something forward so far-fetched that the bridge option becomes more realistic (by comparison)

Posted by: Rdg Oct 16 2015, 06:47 PM

I am agreeing with you but saying moneterise that so we have a number to start from - what is the per year/decade cost inc opportunity cost in your mind

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 16 2015, 06:53 PM

I think it's a possibility. As you say, I think the closure of the line would be problematic, but it is an interesting idea.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 16 2015, 06:57 PM

More of the businesses in the town, whose workers are helping to contribute towards the town's 'gridlock', need to work smarter and even more need to adopt working from home practices or flexi start and finish times to the day if it's all such a problem. It's all well and good moaning about the traffic but 90% who pour out of the Hambridge Lane businesses and various Bone Lane and Kennet Side businesses could probably help matters and remove some of the holdup on Hambridge Road if they didn't ALL swarm out of their offices bang on 5pm.

It's always "The idiot in front is holding me up" (while the driver in the car behind is thinking exactly the same thing). Start at 10am finish at 6pm (or early start early finish). There's just not enough of it.


Newbury is also in that (un)fortunate position of being a busy, thriving town yet it's too small for a Park & Ride scheme to be viable.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 16 2015, 07:02 PM

I would suggest that £80M is a reasonable figure to think about, and that we shouldn't just be talking about a rail bridge but an eastern by-pass. Spread the cost over 30 years and the 50 thousand households that would benefit (or more specifically, households that would suffer for the lack of adequate infrastructure if we don't invest), and that's £50/household/year. We'd get more prosperity and value from that investment than we currently get from other local taxation that I could mention.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 16 2015, 07:15 PM

If it's a real problem there then the Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership should dig into their huge war chest of goodies and install one. They are absolutely flush with funding from the various fixed and mobile speed camera sites they operate and if it was a site where the problem was significant and could be justified they should install. Any fines would after all go back to their coffers regardless of who installs.

Why then should WBC fund it?

Yes, drivers are jumping the lights but to date I don't think there have been a great number of accidents there resulting in anything other than bent metalwork and some airbags going off perhaps.

Truvelo Red Light Safety Cameras cost in the region of £65,000 or more. I'm not sure how many council tax payers would be so supportive of that amount being spent on a single camera when other public services are going to be getting funding cut and may be withdrawn over the next year.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 16 2015, 07:19 PM

I think councillors are only interested in fairly short initiatives they can put their name to. There needs to be a strategic long term plan for a distribution route, before it all gets built on. For an example of not having one, just look at Reading.

When all routes are fine then Newbury doesn't have a real traffic problem. The problem starts when the wnkrs at Network Rail decide to spend 10 years to build a poxy little bridge and the wnkrs at SSE decide to successfully apply for the Brimpton Road to be shut at the same time. All you need is the Newbury bypass to be shut, or Thatcham barriers to fail, or a drain to flood, then Newbury and Thatcham is fkd.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 16 2015, 07:23 PM

Hear, hear; agree all the way!!! Notwithstanding those wnkrs at TVSR are about to get another £100.00 from my Newbury pub beer-supping fund shortly.

Posted by: Rdg Oct 16 2015, 09:11 PM

80m mortgage over 30 years at 3% is a repayment of £337k per month so £7 per household per month or £86 per year (assuming the historically low 3% stays)

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 16 2015, 10:42 PM

Perhaps it may of been wiser to not have given away half of Newbury to Developers for a pound then and not bother with redeveloping the Faraday Road site as we don't have the infrastructure to cope with it. It's a case of what comes first the chicken or the egg isn't it?
If Newbury has to expand then it needs the infrastructure and the facilities to cope with the expansion or what is the purpose of the expansion? Except to create a larger Local Authority empire of course!

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 16 2015, 10:56 PM

I admit I don't very often go into town and have no real experience of the local traffic apart from the weekends, which is why I avoid Newbury town centre, but on the day that it took 1 hour 45 minutes to do what should have taken approx ten minutes was a Wednesday and it was mid morning so no peak period involved.

Park and ride would not be of any use to people like myself who live in Newbury and have to travel across town for whatever reason by car though would it? To basically travel across Newbury and to take a couple of hours out of the day I can fully understand why businesses and visitors may very well be deterred!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 16 2015, 11:16 PM

You're right I'm sure, but to an order of magnitude we're talking about £100/year, so quite a bit of money. At this stage all I'm really arguing is that there should be an informed public debate, and it might well turn out that a full cost-benefit analysis shows that the lack of an eastern bypass just doesn't cost us enough to warrant the cost of the bypass, but that's not obviously right and as the cost and difficulty of the bypass increases every year we delay I would like to see that public debate advanced.

Posted by: x2lls Oct 16 2015, 11:58 PM

Accidents?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 17 2015, 12:28 AM

Wiki says: An accident is an incidental and unplanned event that could have been prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 17 2015, 08:15 AM

Plod still call them RTAs even if the correct term is collision. Red light cameras won't stop the ignorant or unwary drivers jumping lights and causing 'collisions', it just means TVSRP tills will go 'ker-ching!'

If a camera is installed as a 'preventative measure' for the 'unplanned event' at RH and a collision still occurs it doesn't suddenly make that a deliberate act. In most common parlance it would have been an 'accident'.

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 23 2015, 10:05 AM

Perhaps Thatcham residents should have been slightly more careful what they wish for?
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/16500/EXCLUSIVE-Two-bridges-and-700-homes.html

Posted by: On the edge Nov 23 2015, 10:57 AM

Or then perhaps our local politicos should have listened a bit harder!

It seems someone has pinched the UKIP crayon doesn't it. How odd, that for years we've been fed that cost, overweening technical difficulties and geographic considerations make a bridge an utterly impossible dream. Yet when a nice development plan gets dropped down, not one, but two bridges become a straightforward practical reality.

Let's face facts, if we are brutally honest, Thatcham and Newbury are really a cohesive whole. A new town has been created by stealth. That was always the plan, even 40 years back. The sooner our local government and thinking catches up with that the better. The political failure to recognise the reality of this has meant that the local infrastructure hasn't kept up with developments and what has been done is no longer fit for purpose.

What we have here is simply the latest manifestation of the real vision for Greater Newbury.

Posted by: The Hatter Nov 23 2015, 06:46 PM

It's a good idea, I can't see any problems with this, the new houses are near the station so it will be easy for the people to get to work.

Posted by: user23 Nov 23 2015, 07:56 PM

Two bridges become a straightforward practical reality if someone's willing to pay the millions for building them, in this case private money.

This is hardly Greater Newbury, from what I can see most of the proposed development isn't even in Thatcham.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 23 2015, 08:22 PM

But of course, just as a good few pointed out when the depot the other side of the tracks was developed. As you rightly suggest it always was a feasible and practical reality - just our local politicians didn't want it. I'm simply objecting to the misinformation given out over the years.

Saying the site isn't in Thatcham, is rather like saying Westminster isn't in London. Look at a development map, like it or not, the area even now built up. Drive along the A4, you'll see the famous green gap is essentially little more than a municipal park!

Sleepy Newbury about sums it up, a dormitory / retirement suburb. Nothing wrong with that, and it could be very pleasant indeed BUT only if we recognise and accept what's coming.

Posted by: spartacus Nov 23 2015, 08:54 PM

I can only think that an office junior at http://www.jsaarchitects.com/ has not only borrowed the UKIP crayons but has managed to find a big bag of highlighters in a desk drawer and decided to continue scribbling. I know there's the big 'PRELIMINARY for consultation purposes only' disclaimer but it's a bit 'wooly' and amateurish...

The green area on the western end is marked as 'recreational' space. That seems to ignore the fact that there's already a housing development at Rainsford Farm. It seems a bit pie in the sky to realistically comment on it much at this stage, but it would be interesting to see the detail rather than this poorly scanned children's drawing. If something other than this is in the next NWN it might be worth grabbing a free copy from B&Q (if they still have the pile of free copies).

They intend to "widen parts of Crookham Hill into a dual carriageway", introduce "a 100-berth marina, a sports complex, playing fields and a new primary school", provide 700 new homes and introduce "two new road bridges...between Colthrop Mill and Station Road."

....And all this in an area classified as Flood Zone 2 & 3 type land according to the maps on the Environment Agency website.

I'd suggest that considerable flood mitigation measures will be required if the proposed owners are able to have any chance of getting their houses insured in future.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 23 2015, 09:10 PM

I wondered about the flood risk too.

Posted by: spartacus Nov 23 2015, 09:11 PM

There's nothing in that news report to suggest that the 'Colthrop Village Consortium' have the slightest clue what they're putting forward. To me it seems the 'developers' ("a consortium made up of waste management firm Grundon and members of the Henry family") have met up at The Swan pub just by the station and had a few pints before putting any old rubbish down on a plan. I think you're making a few too many assumptions about this OTE to suggest that many grey cells have been wasted putting this together or that anything about this has suddenly become 'a straightforward practical reality'.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 23 2015, 09:25 PM

It's a shame then isn't it, but then I wonder why a commercial concern should even waste the time of a few junior people to float such an impractical proposal. Particularly if accepted would make them look foolish or worse unprofitable. Sure, as I've already mentioned, development this side of the railway isn't politically wanted on the pretence that the level crossing inhibits transport. The plan shows how it can be done. One other minor point, I've been wondering how UKIP or Developer crayons and highlighters differ from those used by WBC and NTCs planners and advisors. Do they get them from a different shop?

Posted by: blackdog Nov 23 2015, 11:02 PM

Once they get planning permission (okay it won't happen - but just pretend it will) we will hear that the new bridges will only service the new housing, there will be no through route to Crookham. Just like the Racecourse, a major route through a development hits profits.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 23 2015, 11:29 PM

Unless they are toll bridges?

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Nov 24 2015, 10:45 AM

On the 12th of November, I attended an event where the Chairman of the West Berkshire Council was present.

I voiced my opinion to him regarding the housing on Lower Way. I asked him why don't they build on the area where buildings where knocked down on the the former air base. Not the common, but where bowling alley was, the dorm, the dining facility and a few other buildings. Access is already there to the 339? The Chairman said nobody would want to live on an industrial estate.

Wouldn't Greenham be a better location for this, and just build another bridge crossing.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 24 2015, 11:22 AM

Well, Phil_D11102, you aren't supposed to think laterally or have innovative ideas in West Berkshire! An eminently sensible and because it reuses brown land a sustainable one too. Yet apparently rejected because of the personal preferences of our leaders.

This again illustrates the fossilised thinking of our town planners, who seem stuck in 1945. Everyone must have a brick built three bed semi on a housing estate. Clearly, the Greenham Estate could have been developed as an absolute showpiece - oh well, our loss!

Posted by: motormad Nov 24 2015, 04:36 PM

700 new homes is great.
But I've seen a proliferation of homes build for OAPs , or those which are not suitable for FTB, because they start at £300k.

Why can half of those new homes be sold ONLY to FTB's who do not have other properties?
I am not adversed to 700 new homes being built on the greenham side of the river. I don't suspect this would cause much traffic for Thatcham anyway as MOST people would be working in Newbury or Basingstoke anyway (ergo they would be using the roads the same, or heading in the opposite direction) .

With a decent train connection and buses I can see how you would simply use the train to go to and from work.