Thatcham Chaos Options

[Lee]

This morning demonstrated our over reliance on the level crossing again, with it's failure, traffic chaos ensued.

But hey, it's only a minor crossing right, not worth expenditure.

[Washwaterman]

This morning demonstrated our over reliance on the level crossing again, with it's failure, traffic chaos ensued.

But hey, it's only a minor crossing right, not worth expenditure.

“We appreciate this would have caused some disruption to traffic in Thatcham and apologise,” said Mr Denham

No S**t Sherlock

[On the edge]

...but the plans for a bridge to replace the minor little used crossing at Ufton continues.

[Lee]

...but the plans for a bridge to replace the minor little used crossing at Ufton continues.

My point entirely.

[blackdog]

...but the plans for a bridge to replace the minor little used crossing at Ufton continues.

So what? The two are not linked - why persist in this irrelevance?

[Andy Capp]

...but the plans for a bridge to replace the minor little used crossing at Ufton continues.

So what? The two are not linked - why persist in this irrelevance?

Yes, I would imagine that FGW have a duty of care for its customers and environment and have had a H&S risk assessment that has compelled them. Thatcham by comparison is just a nuisance.

[Biker1]

Yes, I would imagine that FGW have a duty of care for its customers and environment and have had a H&S risk assessment that has compelled them. Thatcham by comparison is just a nuisance.

NR not FGW

[On the edge]

Yes, I would imagine that FGW have a duty of care for its customers and environment and have had a H&S risk assessment that has compelled them. Thatcham by comparison is just a nuisance.

I wholly agree, Thatcham is a nuisance only to road users not FGW, who don't give two hoots, or Network Rail who similarly have no interest. Indeed, it is in their interest to cause delays and disruption to other (competitive) modes of transport!

[On the edge]

So what? The two are not linked - why persist in this irrelevance?

Blinkers on again Blackdog!

This proves the argument always put forward that a bridge at Thatcham is technically impossible to be wholly spurious.

[Andy Capp]

NR not FGW

The argument applies to both. NR are obliged to provide a minimum standard for its customer; FGW.

[Andy Capp]

Blinkers on again Blackdog!

This proves the argument always put forward that a bridge at Thatcham is technically impossible to be wholly spurious.

To be fair, I have never heard this as an excuse.

[On the edge]

About 15 years ago I went to a public meeting on this very subject. Much was made about the technical issues, which arise because it was impossible to purchase extra land, would need all sorts of different remedies to deal with access, etc. etc.

In reality technical was being used as a cover for cost, since then we've squittered away huge sums of planning gain monies which could have been used.

Let's face it, the real reason the politicos don't want a bridge is because they know that Thatcham will then develop south of the railway...to the perceived detriment of existing property prices that side. So we stifle economic growth and potential jobs all to protect the interests of a few.

[dannyboy]

About 15 years ago I went to a public meeting on this very subject. Much was made about the technical issues, which arise because it was impossible to purchase extra land, would need all sorts of different remedies to deal with access, etc. etc.

In reality technical was being used as a cover for cost, since then we've squittered away huge sums of planning gain monies which could have been used.

Let's face it, the real reason the politicos don't want a bridge is because they know that Thatcham will then develop south of the railway...to the perceived detriment of existing property prices that side. So we stifle economic growth and potential jobs all to protect the interests of a few.

LOL< remind me again what the difference per acre is between agricultural land & development land....

[On the edge]

If the Ufton bridge proposal is really because of HSE issues, then against the proposed cost and disruption, these issues must be significant and severe. That being the case, why are there no special measures in place to address these on a temporary basis right now; the massive issue must be present until the bridge us open. I'd expect a manual operation, on site, of the barriers until then at the very least.

[Biker1]

I wholly agree, Thatcham is a nuisance only to road users not FGW, who don't give two hoots, or Network Rail who similarly have no interest. Indeed, it is in their interest to cause delays and disruption to other (competitive) modes of transport!

I repeat, FGW has nothing to do with the functioning or replacement of Thatcham Level Crossing.
Where did you get the information that FGW "don't give two hoots" about it?
The malfunction of the crossing caused delays to at least 5 trains this morning so the claim "is a nuisance only to road users not FGW" is untrue, yes?
I am sure NR would love to remove ALL it's level crossings given the trouble they cause but where is the money to come from and how would they prioritise?
Ufton has proved it is a danger due to misuse and I would think that NR would like to remove as many AHB crossings as possible as a priority as the pose the greatest potential dangers.
Saving life and limb takes priority over delays I would imagine.
However, OTE and many others, I would also imagine that no matter what the railway comapnies do they will not please you so I will give up trying to put an balanced point of view and let you continue with your points of view.
I am not trying to defend the system which, I agree is heavily flawed, just trying to give a counter viewpoint.
Despite it's many issues remember that a passenger has not been killed travelling on a train in this country for nearly 7 years.
Safety at this level costs money and sometimes delays. Personally I would like to arrive at my destination late than not al all!
If there were a bottomless pit of money to spend on the network then maybe we would move toward a perfect system where there were no level crossings, no "clapped out" trains, a seat for everyone and spotlessly clean interors.
The Fench have done it, the Japanese have done it, but when we want to do it there are howls of "no HS2"!
The railways MUST have a future but how much do we want to pay, either through taxation or fares?
The answer is neither so we end up with what we have got.
The railways are expensive to run but trends show that we need them more than ever, with more travelling by rail since the 2nd World War. Trains on many lines are running to maximum capacity making the infrastructure creak at the seams.
Hence the delays caused by infrastructure failures and level crossings.
The railways then employ more staff to try and reduce fare evasion and to improve the environment for those that do pay. They are then accused of "bullying" and "harassment".
The railways are on a hiding to nowhere no matter what they do so I presume threads and editorials like this will continue ad-infinitum.
Examples such as the multi million pound improvement at Kings Cross resulted in complaints that passengers had "to walk further".
Anti-suicide fencing installed at Pangbourne was labelled "unsightly" and "obstructive".

Any solutions, apart from a limitless stream of money, on a fag paper please.

[Biker1]

Double Post!! .

[spartacus]

Despite it's many issues remember that a passenger has not been killed travelling on a train in this country for nearly 7 years.

That's quite some claim... no doubt appended with some spurious definition of what 'been killed' and 'travelling on a train' means in this context. Statistics say nobody has been killed so that must be true.



..but who'da thunk it... nearly 7 years since the Grayrigg derailment.



...although there was one 16yr old girl killed in Liverpool in 2011 and the guard was given 5 years for manslaughter... I guess as she was leaning against the train in a pi$$ed up state when it moved off and she fell under the wheels that technically doesn't count as she wasn't 'travelling on'..?

[blackdog]

Blinkers on again Blackdog!

This proves the argument always put forward that a bridge at Thatcham is technically impossible to be wholly spurious.

How does it prove anything?

Network rail are worried enough about the Ufton Nervet crossing to propose a bridge. Whereas the traffic issues at Thatcham are of little concern to them - that's a WBC problem.

Two different funding sources, two different issues - it is not and will never be a case of one or the other.

The engineering issues indeed hugely different - making an Ufton bridge a fraction of the price of one at Thatcham - but it is obviously possible to build either bridge if the funds are made available. The real problem at Thatcham is that WBC will never be able to afford it - one of the penalties of living in a tiny unitary council area.

[On the edge]

How does it prove anything?

Network rail are worried enough about the Ufton Nervet crossing to propose a bridge. Whereas the traffic issues at Thatcham are of little concern to them - that's a WBC problem.

......... The real problem at Thatcham is that WBC will never be able to afford it - one of the penalties of living in a tiny unitary council area.

Don't get your thinking. If Ufton really did worry Network Rail so much they would have emergency processes in place today; they haven't. If a bridge is so unaffordable at Thatcham, it's even more unaffordable at Ufton! Yes the geography is different, but not sufficient to affect the design / cost of a bridge.

WBC may be a small authority but it can, like any other authority, secure funds from many sources, including Europe.

Again, the real reason there is no bridge at Thatcham is because certain senior elements in WBC don't want one.

[motormad]

Blinkers on again Blackdog!

This proves the argument always put forward that a bridge at Thatcham is technically impossible to be wholly spurious.

It's not technically impossible.
Structurally it's very easy.
It just costs a lot of money.

Hence why we have the problem.