Council admit election pledge is unworkable Options

[Richard Garvie]

During the election campaign, residents in Thatcham were promised by the Conservative Party that the council would "look far and wide" to come up with a solution to fix congestion around Thatcham Station. They haven't looked that far as they still don't know how much it would cost, but they apparently know enough to say that it will never be resolved.

From the council:

"There is nothing that the Highway Authority can do to resolve this problem whilst there is a level crossing at this location. The only way that the problem could be resolved would be to build a bridge over the railway thus removing the need for the level crossing. However this would be extremely expensive and there is unfortunately no likelihood in the foreseeable future of the Council being able to fund such an expensive proposal. The cost of providing this structure at present is unknown. Given the vertical alignment at the level crossing it is likely that any such structure would also need to continuously span the Kennet and Avon Canal and the River Kennet, which would considerably add to the cost.

There is very little funding for transport schemes being provided from central government in the current economic climate but where it is this is only provided for projects of high strategic importance. It is highly unlikely that this location in Thatcham would ever be deemed to have significant strategic importance to the highway network even if central government funds were to become more widely available at some point in the future."

[On the edge]

It just seems to be the usual dismissal - without any degree of thought. A bridge does not need to be in exactly the same place as the level crossing, would be fairly expensive granted, but not unaffordable. Particularly if contributions had / were collected from the residential and industrial developments that have been put up over the years. There are many examples of where bridges cross rail and canal all over UK.

As to the barrier timings. I've never understood why the crossings on the old Southern lines through town centres are so much slicker. Today's technology means that the 'dwell time' could be made to suit the train. Timing them to suit 125mph trains is simplistic and frankly arrogance on the railway's part.

Yes, I know trains take a long time to stop - even the wretched clapped out filthy local ones we have. However, arguably the railway authority ought to have thought of that before running 125mph trains through Thatcham on a line designed to take 50mph at most! What would they have said if the Highways Agency redeveloped the road and made it a dual carriage way - and a 70mph limit? Whats sauce for the goose etc.

Will it really be that long before we can start properly developing the national infastructure for groth again? No, not if we reversed the Barnet formula.

Must admit, having business interests in the area I feel pretty angry about this failure and did think the Conservatives would at least do a proper analysis. Sadly no.

[Biker1]

As to the barrier timings. I've never understood why the crossings on the old Southern lines through town centres are so much slicker. Today's technology means that the 'dwell time' could be made to suit the train. Timing them to suit 125mph trains is simplistic and frankly arrogance on the railway's part.

Most of the lines on the "Southern" are much slower than those through Thatcham.
The lines through Thatcham are 110mph.
The signalling has to be designed to cater for this speed which means they also have to handle the 90mph "clapped out" ones and the many freights. Signals are at a fixed distance.

Yes, I know trains take a long time to stop - even the wretched clapped out filthy local ones we have. However, arguably the railway authority ought to have thought of that before running 125mph trains through Thatcham on a line designed to take 50mph at most! What would they have said if the Highways Agency redeveloped the road and made it a dual carriage way - and a 70mph limit? Whats sauce for the goose etc.

The line is designed to take 110mph trains.
I don't know of any 70mph dual carriageways with a level crossing!

[On the edge]

Most of the lines on the "Southern" are much slower than those through Thatcham.
The lines through Thatcham are 110mph.
The signalling has to be designed to cater for this speed which means they also have to handle the 90mph "clapped out" ones and the many freights. Signals are at a fixed distance.

The line is designed to take 110mph trains.
I don't know of any 70mph dual carriageways with a level crossing!

So there is no reason why trains through Thatcham shouldn't go slower. The line was designed in the 1850's when speeds were very much slower - nothing much has changed in infrastructure terms. You are quite right about dual carriageways, so why weren't they eliminated when the higher speed trains were introduced? Please don't tell me that the railways actually need such speed. Like it or not, the roads are our commercial arteries and these are becoming blocked locally. Is that what we want a slow economic death?

Appreciate if a bridge was built, that would put pressure on doing something about the road network beyond - big picture again.

Have said it before, will say it again, this wouldn't be tolerated 'oop North' so why here - where we actually generate the wealth?