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

[Richard Garvie]

In one thread Richard is moaning about the lack of consultation or studies before a decision was made.

In this he's moaning that a consultation or study is taking place perhaps as a precursor to a decision about improvements being carried out.

I wish he'd be a bit more consistent.

Rubbish. The council claim they have already identified the only available solution - a bridge!!! What will a traffic survey contribute? If any work was to be carried out, they should establish the cost of the bridge. How can they say it's unaffordable if it's not even been costed up?

[Andy Capp]

For £12k, they should be providing exactly that, but I won't hold my breathe. I may ask David Betts to let me know when it's taking place so I can monitor what methods they use and report back. This survey will not provide ay outcomes though, which is why I would rather they had used the money to cost a bridge.

Now that would be a waste of money.

[Richard Garvie]

Surely a formal study would be the first step in any process that involved building a bridge?

But when the only available solution has been identified, what will this survey contribute to the process?

[Andy Capp]

Rubbish. The council claim they have already identified the only available solution - a bridge!!! What will a traffic survey contribute? If any work was to be carried out, they should establish the cost of the bridge. How can they say it's unaffordable if it's not even been costed up?

You don't have to be developer/engineer to know that it will cost more than several million pounds, which already writes it off as an idea. You're barking up a wrong one here.

[Andy Capp]

But when the only available solution has been identified, what will this survey contribute to the process?

The only solution to any hold-up is a bridge, but a survey might bring about data that might mean better traffic management, or maybe show how pressure could be applied to the rail company to partner an idea to mitigate the delay.

Just because something can't be fixed, doesn't mean things couldn't be done to help reduce the nuisance.

Another big problem at that junction is the right turn to the post office. That could do with some thought.

[Richard Garvie]

You don't have to be developer/engineer to know that it will cost more than several million pounds, which already writes it off as an idea. You're barking up a wrong one here.

All I'm saying is that a £12k traffic survey is pretty much worthless. It will provide no value to delivering a solution, I fear that the council will simply use it to say that the number of cars using the hill does not justify a bridge and that's the end of the matter. The officers have already said nothing could be done, this survey is all about the elected members responding to criticism that they promised the world and won't be able to deliver.

[Andy Capp]

All I'm saying is that a £12k traffic survey is pretty much worthless. It will provide no value to delivering a solution, I fear that the council will simply use it to say that the number of cars using the hill does not justify a bridge and that's the end of the matter. The officers have already said nothing could be done, this survey is all about the elected members responding to criticism that they promised the world and won't be able to deliver.

I fear that your myopia might in truth be only exposing your eagerness to cause mischief for your political opponents. They said they would search far and wide for a solution, in my view they are doing all they can, so you are being disingenuous with your view.

[Andy Capp]

All I'm saying is that a £12k traffic survey is pretty much worthless. It will provide no value to delivering a solution, I fear that the council will simply use it to say that the number of cars using the hill does not justify a bridge and that's the end of the matter. The officers have already said nothing could be done, this survey is all about the elected members responding to criticism that they promised the world and won't be able to deliver.

I'll repeat:

The only solution to any hold-up is a bridge, but a survey might bring about data that might mean better traffic management, or maybe show how pressure could be applied to the rail company to partner an idea to mitigate the delay.

Just because something can't be fixed, doesn't mean things couldn't be done to help reduce the nuisance.

Another big problem at that junction is the right turn to the post office depot; that could do with some thought.

[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?

[Andy Capp]

Perhaps OTE would clarify?

[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.

[NWNREADER]

Of course I'll clarify. If you've bothered to read previous threads on this issue, its all been explained. Well spank my bottom and sit me on the naughty step.....

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. I wasn't referring to the traffic situation, and i agree the barrier management is defective. That is especially so as the barrier is manually controlled.... 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...)

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. If there was to be a bridge, and it would have to be of a height and span to clear the river and canal too, it would doubtless massively change the traffic patterns on the surrounding roads, and that could bring a whole raft of further considerations. If we cannot afford the bridge (which the rail management decline to contribute to) we certainly cannot afford all the ensuing road amendments and management schemes. Maybe the bottleneck is seen as serving a purpose?

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. As the congestion does not affect the trains, the rail companies will be very slow to come forward with cost projects, I suspect

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. Don't know the kit you refer to, but many have negative things to say about TfLs ability to run a train set.....

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. I assume you refer to the local trains. Are they that old in terms of lifespan? What was their intended life when first built? Who will pay for new kit? I've travelled on them, and like trains in various areas and don't find them wanting in terms of acceleration. Luckily I've never experienced one breaking, but from my experience of their braking I am comfortable they would stop safely if one did break.

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 Within the constraints of how long a carriage can be, the amount of legroom can only be amended by moving the seats around. there was a right fuss when the 'express' trains had more seats installed as that meant nearly all the tables were removed.....
cramped seating even in 1st class never having experienced First Class except on the expresses, i cannot comment
very noisy the carriages with engines are noisier than ones without, but I don't find the noise too bad. Would a more powerful engine (to accelerate faster) be quieter? Just asking.
badly ventilated Some agreement, but often the problems are down to passengers fiddling with windows, defeating air conditioning.....
difficult for for standing passengers Fewer seats would mean more standing passengers. Not sure how to accommodate standing passengers...... Grab handles a la London Underground?

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. I'd welcome an insight to the responses you receive

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....

agreed. Can't beat a good moan.....

[user23]

Rubbish. The council claim they have already identified the only available solution - a bridge!!! What will a traffic survey contribute? If any work was to be carried out, they should establish the cost of the bridge. How can they say it's unaffordable if it's not even been costed up?

Perhaps the next step is to then establish evidence to support one's theory.