Network Rail object... Options

[Lee]

So, Network Rail object to a climbing wall, yet accepted a housing development 10yrs ago?!
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2013/network...ng-centre-plans

Seems a bit inproprotionate to me, claiming increased traffic yet a housing estate at Kennet Heath was perfectly acceptable?!

Clowns.

These are the same people to accept costs to build a bridge at Ufton Nervert because of history, yet do nothing at Thatcham!?

[blackdog]

These are the same people to accept costs to build a bridge at Ufton Nervert because of history, yet do nothing at Thatcham!?

Fair point about the absurd objection to the climbing wall - but do you really think that they should worry about traffic congestion more than peoples' lives?

[On the edge]

Let's face it, the Ufton proposal was pure politics, playing on emotion. I think Network Rail could be rather aggrieved because the domestic and commercial development of Thatcham over the years should have produced more than enough 106(?) planning gain money to have constructed several bridges at Thatcham. I suspect they are simply taking the p***.

[spartacus]

I don't get it... Are they saying their level crossing isn' t safe enough to cope with the traffic? And what's with the 'increase the potential for weaving around the barriers'? They ARE aware that the barriers are full width and so 'weaving' seems unlikely... don't you think?

This was a 'technician' for Network Rail... Not generally an experienced town planner grade and you wonder whether she is commenting on a location and situation which she hasn't got the expertise to deal with.....

Anyway, this is an application for a climbing wall leisure facility... It's not Alton Towers and isn't going to significantly change traffic volume at this crossing....

[blackdog]

Let's face it, the Ufton proposal was pure politics, playing on emotion. I think Network Rail could be rather aggrieved because the domestic and commercial development of Thatcham over the years should have produced more than enough 106(?) planning gain money to have constructed several bridges at Thatcham. I suspect they are simply taking the p***.

Death at the Ufton Nervet crossing in the last 10 years - 6. Deaths at the Thatcham level crossing in the same period 0.

I'm not convinced that a bridge is the only solution and certainly not the cheapest - but they need do something about it (and should have several years ago) - a bridge will do the job and is a simple engineering solution.

Whereas a bridge at Thatcham will cost much, much more and is full of problems. The two aren't comparable in any way.

[On the edge]

Death is not be the only parameter. Although I agree, its the usual reactionary answer from those responsible for transport improvements for their lethargy, road and rail.

Wholly agree in the Thatcham case, a bridge may not be the answer, but sorting out the local transport infrastructure is. Commercially, we need a through route to Basingstoke and a means of not having to go via Newbury. Of course, commerce and industry aren't very important round here.

It was a pretty dumb decision by our local planners to let the adjacent industrial park be used as major distribution centres employing many HGVs without putting the right infrastructure in place.

[Biker1]

I don't get it... Are they saying their level crossing isn' t safe enough to cope with the traffic?

It's safe enough as long as people use it properly but I would imagine they don't want an addition to the congestion already experienced (and much complained about) at the crossing which may increase the chance of people using it improperly.

And what's with the 'increase the potential for weaving around the barriers'? They ARE aware that the barriers are full width and so 'weaving' seems unlikely... don't you think?

The entry barriers lower before the exit barriers and it is during this time that (stupid) people at tempted to "weave".

[Lee]

It's more the point, that had the Ufton Nervert event happened at Thatcham, I've no doubt that the bridge would be built. I have every sympathy with the families involved, I'm not belittling the event, but it was 10 years ago and could have happened at any crossing.

Are they really suggesting that the crossing is at it's maximum traffic level and a few cars visiting a climbing wall would make it (even) more unbearable than it is now?

[Biker1]

It's more the point, that had the Ufton Nervert event happened at Thatcham, I've no doubt that the bridge would be built. I have every sympathy with the families involved, I'm not belittling the event, but it was 10 years ago and could have happened at any crossing.

Incorrect.
It could not have happened at Thatcham because it is CCTV monitored and controlled by a signaller with interlocking signals.
The train would have been stopped before it got to the crossing.
If you decided to park your car on Thatcham Level Crossing it would not be hit by a train.
(But you would have a rapid visit from the police!!)

(It's Ufton Nervet by the way although the actual name of the crossing is just "Ufton" or "Ufton Crossing".)

[badmummajamma]

The traffic volume argument is an utter nonsense.

If you think about how many vehicles would visit the climing centre (a niche interest activity) in any given time period, the number is a drop in the ocean compared to the normal day-to-day flow of traffic over the crossing.

For argument's sake, let's say that one car went to the climbing centre every minute (60 cars an hour - which is probably more than the capacity of their car park and is a ridiculously unlikely figure)

In that minute, how many cars would pass over the crossing both ways? 30/40 at least at peak times. If the crossing doesn't have enough headroom tolerance for an additional car a minute - I think the finger should be pointed at Network Rail - who are substantially under-investing in their network nationally.

Their objection is a typical default reaction to try and get something for nothing and should be dismissed, in my humble opinion.

We could do with more opportunities for leisure/social activities in the area that don't revolve around drinking coffee or alcohol! So bored of it.

[Biker1]

The traffic volume argument is an utter nonsense.

If you think about how many vehicles would visit the climing centre (a niche interest activity) in any given time period, the number is a drop in the ocean compared to the normal day-to-day flow of traffic over the crossing.

For argument's sake, let's say that one car went to the climbing centre every minute (60 cars an hour - which is probably more than the capacity of their car park and is a ridiculously unlikely figure)

In that minute, how many cars would pass over the crossing both ways? 30/40 at least at peak times. If the crossing doesn't have enough headroom tolerance for an additional car a minute - I think the finger should be pointed at Network Rail - who are substantially under-investing in their network nationally.

Their objection is a typical default reaction to try and get something for nothing and should be dismissed, in my humble opinion.

We could do with more opportunities for leisure/social activities in the area that don't revolve around drinking coffee or alcohol! So bored of it.

Agree with most of your point although due to the constant complaints and bad publicity about the crossing I'm sure Network Rail would not want anything to add to the problem.
I would question the statement "Network Rail - who are substantially under-investing in their network nationally."
We have this from yourself, and then a complaint in another thread of line closures and bus replacement due to massive investment in upgrading the network!
As they say......."You can't please all the people all the time"!

[badmummajamma]

Agree with most of your point although due to the constant complaints and bad publicity about the crossing I'm sure Network Rail would not want anything to add to the problem.
I would question the statement "Network Rail - who are substantially under-investing in their network nationally."
We have this from yourself, and then a complaint in another thread of line closures and bus replacement due to massive investment in upgrading the network!
As they say......."You can't please all the people all the time"!

I agree - you can't please everyone all the time.

We're fortunate enough to be seeing the benefit/short-term consequences of the investment they are making in our neck of the woods particularly at lines into and out of Reading.

But nationally, and over the long term, there has been a substantial underinvestment and lack of modernising compared with other nations. I'm a daily rail commuter and not a day goes by when one of the trains I get on isn't delayed by a "technical problem".

However, I'm patient enough to put up with the inconvienience of the local investment programme because I know it'll make things better in the longer term.

Anyway - certainly don't want to turn this into a thread about the vagaries of rail travel.....

I just want a climbing centre!

I would encourage more people to formally register their support for the application though - it's a sad fact of life that those that object will be more inclined to make a noise about it than those that support.

PS - In no way affiliated with the climbing centre.

[On the edge]

I suspect any traffic generated by a climbing centre will be off peak anyway. Yes, it is very sad that an innovative new facility gets the thumbs down by the 'establishment' but that's pat for the course in West Berkshire.

If national monopoly network rail were really customer centric, they'd be all for this idea, which is also likely to generate even more passenger traffic for their cramped grubby trains at Thatcham - without them having to do anything at all! Oh well, so much for market forces.

[MontyPython]

I suspect any traffic generated by a climbing centre will be off peak anyway. Yes, it is very sad that an innovative new facility gets the thumbs down by the 'establishment' but that's pat for the course in West Berkshire.

If national monopoly network rail were really customer centric, they'd be all for this idea, which is also likely to generate even more passenger traffic for their cramped grubby trains at Thatcham - without them having to do anything at all! Oh well, so much for market forces.

Network rail don't run the trains, that's First Great Western

[spartacus]

...and West Berkshire haven't given it the thumbs down, that was Network Rail...

[spartacus]

The entry barriers lower before the exit barriers and it is during this time that (stupid) people at tempted to "weave".

It's not the sort of abuse that currently happens there and it's highly unlikely that it's the sort of abuse that would start to happen as a result of the two or three cars an hour that might want to go to the climbing facility. If this comment was made by Joe Public as an objection to a planning application then it would be rejected outright as being a nonsensical load of cobblers... Just because it is being made by a supposed 'town planning' expert speaking on behalf of Network Rail doesn't mean this should be given any more credence. It should just be exposed as being an inexpertly lead comment of little worth...

[Biker1]

It's not the sort of abuse that currently happens there

Yes it does!
The comment was "They ARE aware that the barriers are full width and so 'weaving' seems unlikely... don't you think?" and I was pointing out that, at full barrier crossings it is possible to, and people do, "weave".

and it's highly unlikely that it's the sort of abuse that would start to happen as a result of the two or three cars an hour that might want to go to the climbing facility.

It already does happen, but I agree, hardly likely to increase as a result of the climbing centre.
I also think it is hardly likely that the NR objection will stop it going ahead.

[On the edge]

Network rail don't run the trains, that's First Great Western

In theory, but they have a substantial influence. Its generally their poor signalling and signal maintenance that cause delays and their record on delivering upgrades is hardly anything to write home about, again, damaging the customer perception. So they might not be the perpetrator of bad service, but they are certainly an accessory.

[On the edge]

...and West Berkshire haven't given it the thumbs down, that was Network Rail...

I didn't say they had.

[spartacus]

I didn't say they had.

ahhh... right... sorry, when people on here refer to the 'establishment' in West Berkshire they're generally referring to good ol' WBC

Yes, it is very sad that an innovative new facility gets the thumbs down by the 'establishment' but that's pat for the course in West Berkshire.

A silly reflex action on my part.