Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: motormad Jul 17 2013, 08:49 AM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2013/road-layout-change-at-thatcham-level-crossing-will-go-ahead

I agree with Mr Woodhams (surprisingly).

This will not reduce congestion. If people want to go into the sorting office they either go around the one-way system and out infront of everyone or just drive down the wrong side of the road. (there's nothing coming anyway).

I used to live 2 minute walk from Thatcham train station. Infact I grew up there and would go into town on the train regularly before I had a car.

A bridge is the only solution and unless they do that, anything will be a waste of money.
The sheer amount of disruption during the roadworks will cause havoc as well.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 17 2013, 09:30 AM

Absolutely agree MM - it will not reduce congestion which, as you say, only a bridge or alternative route will do.
Total waste of time, resources and money.
I thought things were tight at the moment??

Posted by: MontyPython Jul 17 2013, 10:32 AM

A bridge is not really feasible at this location. Unfortunately it's another case of poor planning by allowing more construction without the proper infrastructure.

The ideal alternatives would have been a spur and bridge either round via the Colthrop estate or where the new housing estate is near the Sorting Office. Both of these opportunities are probably not viable either now.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 17 2013, 11:10 AM

Yes you're right of course.
If the bridge solution were to be undertaken, from what I can see it would also need a new bridge over the canal, together with large earthworks either side.
A similar arrangement exists at Theale station but this bridges the railway only.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 17 2013, 12:50 PM

I think having a right-turn box is a good idea, but is not a solution, but the solution will not happen any time soon. Who ever endorsed the idea of an entrance to the industrial site next to the level crossing was mad. A right turn box would help stop some hold-ups when they occur. What you have at the moment is on-coming traffic sometimes letting people turn right and following traffic stopping on the crossing, which is not good either.

At the end of the day the only option available is the one proposed and not to do it will mean nothing will be done to help. The situation is only going to get worse and I don't see the proposals as a waste. It was an electoral promise.

Posted by: motormad Jul 17 2013, 01:00 PM

So you think that £83k is a good use ("not a waste") of public money?
The promise, if I remember, was to allieviate traffic. Which this will not do. The amount of cars going into and/or out of the Postal office is tiny in the grand scheme of things. As said this will not provide any relief of traffic.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 17 2013, 01:36 PM

IIRC, the promise was to 'do all that they could to find a solution'; if it is a choice of £83k for something, or £0 for nothing, I'd go for the £83k. No it will not stop hold ups, but at the moment when the hold-ups are large (and they will only get bigger), there will almost certainly be one car wanting to turn right. Not only does that hold up the south bound traffic, it can mean cars stopping on the level crossing. I know they shouldn't, but they do. You also get cars wanting to exit the sorting office and turn right, which also can cause a bit of panic! There should be steps to move the industrial estate entrance and exit. While that isn't the main problem, it is a black spot.

Perhaps that is it. Perhaps we 'need' a fatal on the level crossing before they will do something effective.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 17 2013, 01:49 PM

So do I - so much so that I needed to lie down and take two of the red pills!
What's gone wrong!!!

Posted by: motormad Jul 17 2013, 01:49 PM

So basically what you are saying is that anything is better than nothing.

I disagree. I'd rather not waste nearly one hundred thousand quid on a crap solution. Something is not always better than nothing...

A left-turn only could be applied coming out of the post office. Would cost £60 for a sign and a bit of paint.
There is a roundabout literally 50 yards up the road.

I don't recall there being any serious accidents there in the last 10 years so I don't know how it can be called a black spot

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 17 2013, 03:37 PM

I prefer £83k for improvements, than £0 for nothing.


That's your view, just in this case I don't share it.


Of course, but I doubt it would be as cheap as you propose, besides, that doesn't deal with southbound people turning right. It's infuriating sat behind a person waiting to turn right after you have already been waiting, for the barriers to then go down again.


That was my word for it and not necessarily meant to be taken as gospel, but I've seen close run things. Put it this way, I'd rather they spent £83k on this than the same on some more bloody speed humps, chicanes, cycle lanes, etc..

Posted by: MontyPython Jul 17 2013, 05:31 PM

As I am not over familiar with the area so have looked at Google.

How about No Right Turn from Sorting office. Cost Sign & markings £500- £1k

No Right Turn into Post office traffic to circulate via Chamberhouse Mill Lane
Cost work to improve round the island in Chamber house lane and widen the "Throat" of Chamerhouse lane if required to allow lorries to turn. Guess £50k maybe £100k.

This would surely give a major reduction in delays when the barriers are up, and not too much inconvenience to those diverted by this plan.

Views please as I may have misunderstood the geography.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 17 2013, 06:50 PM

How about working up a sensible long term real solution? This should not be considered in isolation. The size of the conurbation means the existing major routes are time expired and overloaded. A bridge, in civil engineering and cost terms is actually quite feasible. That is, if the scheme was designed and planned by civil engineers.

It would be pretty dumb as MM says to spend such a large sum on what is no more than a quick political fix with no gaurentee of success. Shades of Parkway bridge!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 17 2013, 07:00 PM

I don't believe the approved plan is to 'fix' the problem. I believe the idea is to make the junction work better with the limited resources available. Another one would be to have better synchronised barriers. When a fast through-train is approaching, one is only held up for a couple of minutes, but the slow train and the 'gravel train' really do test your patience. The trouble is signalling is out of bounds to the council.

At the end of the day, it is the result of a ridiculous planning decision made many years ago. I remember seeing an ambulance with flashing blue lights stopped at that crossing, and I found myself wondering what poor sod's day was being spoiled by that barrier to A & E (of course in this case, it is the decision of the driver was at fault as much as the crossing being down).

Anecdotes shouldn't on their won determine policy, but that junction is only going to get worse as the south of Newbury gets more and more populated.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 17 2013, 07:31 PM

I Agree.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 17 2013, 09:09 PM

Like it or not Newbury/Thatcham is already a large urban area - in effect a new town has been developed by stealth. Its also rapidly expanding further. The existing infrastructure is no longer viable and we can't get away with the mudge and fudge solutions anymore. We DO have the money to invest in infrastructure projects right now and it's also the sensible time to do that - low interest rates etc. Throwing what is a big chunk of what is really revenue spend on a quick fix as irresponsible as it is wasteful.

Posted by: motormad Jul 17 2013, 09:25 PM

The approved plan won't even make the junction work better. I used to go over that junction every day for 3 years. And the traffic just flowed, if a car was turning into the Post Office, people just let them turn. Those coming out had to wait (which is fine and does not disrupt traffic going across the train tracks).
I agree it is going to get worse but I can't believe you of all people would approve £86k being spent on a "solution" (in whatever way you want to class that as) when it's not going to help

Posted by: spartacus Jul 18 2013, 12:15 AM

ah yes... The old chestnut of Thatcham level crossing... It's a problem, I accept that.....

But it's not even a B Class road...
It has a 7.5t weight limit on it....
It has relatively restricted width....

.....Yet some people still think that the £30m it would take to build a bridge is just lying around under some WBC mattress and should be released to relieve the burden on commuters sitting in their cars getting frustrated..


As this letter dated 14 May 2013 from WBC pointed out:

"Whilst a bridge would completely remove the current queueing issue there are a number of practical, financial, environmental and aesthetic reasons why a bridge would be very difficult to accommodate.

Given the impending electrification, the current minimum clearance over a rail line is 5.2m. Along with the bridge construction this would mean the total structure height would be 7.2m (over 23.5ft). This would have a significant visual impact on the surrounding environment.

The ramps on the approach to the bridge would be substantial and, given the current highway design standards, in order to achieve the required gradient on the approach, the Pipers Lane/Station Road roundabout would have to be raised by approximately 2.9m (almost 10ft). This in turn would have a knock on effect on the surrounding roads and accesses onto them.

The provision of a bridge would inevitably improve the attractiveness of this route to many road users that currently travel through Newbury or Aldermaston. It is considered that this increase could be significant compared to the number of vehicles currently using the route. This gives rise to concerns about additional air and noise pollution through the residential areas of south Thatcham. It also raises the issue of road safety concerns on Thornford Road and Crookham Hill. It is possible that the provision of a bridge would require a complete upgrade of this route to accommodate the additional traffic at further significant expense.

Any bridge at this location would need to span both the River Kennet and the Canal in addition to the rail line. A study undertaken in 2004 estimated the cost of such a structure at £20 miilion. To raise this level of funding the Council would have to apply to the Department for Transport for Major Scheme funding. Given that this road is not on the strategic road network, and although the local benefits are plain to see, the benefits to the strategic 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. The proposal would therefore be given low priority against other improvements on the strategic network.

It is for the above reasons that we feel a bridge is not a viable option"


£20m in 2004 perhaps equates to £30m in 2013/14 or beyond...
Consider the practicalities of raising the roundabout by 10ft. You'd also have approach ramps either side reaching to 20ft+, several hundred feet in length.. The Swan pub would have to go, as would some of the business units on Pipers Lane. And as for the residents on Station Road, I think they would have an opinion on that idea...

It would be more feasible to build a tunnel...!


This latest idea is just someone playing around with their road marking design software and seeing what happens. It will have no material impact on the general peak period flow across the level crossing.


The answer lies with, and always has been with, Network Rail and their intractable position with regard the 'trigger mechanism' for the activation of the barriers. But what incentive is there for Network Rail to change the control to something more intelligent that can identify whether the train crossing the trigger point is a slow gravel train that takes 15 minutes to crawl to Thatcham or a 125 that will whistle through in 3 minutes? None. No incentive at all. In fact while more motorists get frustrated behind the wheel, perhaps more will prefer to jump on the train.

So it's a Win, Win for Network Rail.........

Posted by: On the edge Jul 18 2013, 05:18 AM

Wow and there it is! Nowt will replace the 'orses, not round these parts. The Council response is one of the most limited and parochial I've seen. Of course, the present weight limits on the crossing are low and it isn't presently a major route. That's just the point - it should be. As for the practicalities, there are many other similar crossings, most installed years ago. Again, excuses, excuses. As for the money; huge sums have been paid over by developers even quite recently. What do we want to do, squitter it away on unworkable fixes or do the job properly. Oh, shock horror, installing a bridge might just divert a massive number of unnecessary lorry miles coming down the A4 through Newbury to Basingstoke., Must stop that, after all, who wants jobs and thriving commerce in the area?

Posted by: BMR Jul 18 2013, 07:32 AM

I got bored with all the talk about a bridge while I lived in Thatcham, and that was 20 years ago. At the time, I commented that the problem which needs to be addressed is why the level crossing barriers spend so much time down. The excuse at the time was that the barrier MUST come down when the train is two miles way. I can't believe that this is really the case. This means that the barrier comes down when a slow train is parked at Newbury Racecourse Station. Have a look at what they do in other countries. The one I usually quote is Holland, but Germany and France are also good examples. Rail safety in those countries does not seem to be compromised by having level crossing barriers down for much much shorter times. If Network Rail can't get their act together to sort this out, maybe thy should pay for a tunnel.

Posted by: motormad Jul 18 2013, 07:58 AM

Is it though?
I've seen plenty of lorries go across there.

I would LIKE a bridge built.
Will a bridge be built however in reality? 99.9% not.
Does that mean that this pathetic lane-addition is a good use of money? No it is not.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 18 2013, 08:57 AM

That is because I disagree with you, people driving south turning right is a problem that can be addressed somewhat by the proposal. I therefore think it will help. I presume that the survey identified this as a problem too.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 18 2013, 09:02 AM

Good point and perhaps £70k, or so, would be better spent on paying NR for a trigger system that is fit for the 21st Century.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 18 2013, 09:06 AM

The difference to congestion at this location that the proposed modifications, including a right turn box, will make will be minimal and will not justify the spending of such a large sum of money. That is the point some are trying to make on here.
Obviously it it the crossing itself which is the cause of the problem and, unless this is completely eliminated, the problem will still exist. Playing around with road layouts is not the solution.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 18 2013, 09:14 AM

I know what people are arguing, and I know that this isn't a solution, but after all that I still disagree that the money should not be spent. In my opinion, the proposal will see a benefit to people. not least to the people holding every one up, and the irritate attitude from the drivers behind.

If I could choose anything, but not a bridge, it would be we don't have to spend 5 minutes waiting for slow trains, so I would rather we pay NR to change the timing for the barriers as suggested earlier.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 18 2013, 09:22 AM

Can't be done Andy.
If you knew how the railways worked then you would understand (and I know most will find this hard to believe) that the barriers at Thatcham are down for the minimal possible time that ensures the safety of passengers and road users.
The problem is that both the road and the railway have become busier over the years.

Posted by: spartacus Jul 18 2013, 10:21 AM

We should be thankful that you weren't put in charge of getting a man on the moon in days gone by....

It's surely not beyond the wit of man to devise an intelligent level crossing management system that can identify a train when it's at the current position of the 'trigger' and determine whether it's FAST TRAIN or SLOW TRAIN. Fast activates the barrier, slow train only activates the barrier whe it gets to a secondary 'trigger' located closer to Thatcham crossing... The speed that the slow train comes through at between Woolhampston or Newbury would allow for a much shorter stopping distance if the driver had to hit the brakes for any reason

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 18 2013, 10:42 AM

I think in this case there are many problems and the main one is a lack of uninhibited north/south crossing points in Thatcham. I think 'can't be done' is a little blunt, I suspect the safety issue is down to having the simplest solution. In this instance, that is to have one single trigger that notifies the barriers to drop when a train is at 2 miles from the station. 2 miles being the distance the fastest train currently using that rail line needs to stop. Introducing an intelligent alert would increase the chances of an error. However, that is the main problem in Thatcham: the amount of time the barriers are down for slow trains.

Posted by: MontyPython Jul 18 2013, 12:35 PM

Also there is a combination of signalling and line speed to "control" driver behaviour. There is no reason why one of the local diesels would not go as fast as a HST (I don't think the line speed is above 90 or 100 in this area) and for safety reasons the barrier control would need to allow for the driver forgetting that he was on a stopping service. As for the freight trains they would have a greater stopping distace per mph due to the extra weight.

Once again the problems here are down to increased building without getting the infrastructure in place, and in fact allowing building where some of that infrastructure should be. A lesson sadly still not learned by the planning authorities.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 18 2013, 01:14 PM

Isn't it rather odd that the preferred solution at Ufton, just a few miles up the line is a bridge?

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 18 2013, 01:21 PM

HST 110mph, Turbo (local train) 90mph max.
Also the turbos stop at Thatcham in addition to Newbury Racecourse and Midgham in each direction which curtails them from attaining their max. speed before reaching Thatcham.
Freight around 60mph and you are right about increased stopping distance due to weight.

Posted by: motormad Jul 18 2013, 02:53 PM

From memory ufton has flat roads either side of the crossing. At Thatcham you have the secondary bridge being over the river as well.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jul 18 2013, 03:36 PM

This discussion has been going on for so long that I just had to have a look around . Interesting photos of the area
from Spuduka. Not a bad looking pub from the outside. North South crossings are a nightmare. Take out
Hammersmith Bridge for metal stress related repairs and the whole of S-West London is gridlocked.

I think doubling the bridge is a good option. Just continue the rail bridge over the top of the canal bridge.
Both surfaces looked pretty ropey anyway. Close off exits for Pilgrims way and the Royal mail and make their entrances/exits onto the round-about further south.

As for fiddling around with clever technology has Canada not shown us that error is always possible.
You don't need a key to start most medium diesels.... Press start and off you go. Secure yards? Tell that to the Marines.

Crossings such as Ufton and throughout Anglia are certainly on a "to do" list somewhere. Simple road closures are the real
preferred option.
PC. (plump controller)

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 18 2013, 06:26 PM

Like OtE said, now's actually quite a good time for the public sector to invest in capital works, and the boost to the economy would be welcome now too.

It's not simply a case of building a bridge, the whole Newbury/Thatcham traffic requirement needs taking into account, and it's my guess that an eastern bypass would be the answer - joining the A4 east of the conurbation with the A339 and A34 in the south. That might be best crossing at the current level crossing, or there might be somewhere better to the east. I'd guess the cost of that would be something like £200M, and that's a lot of money, but it would create the infrastructure for fifty years of expansion so spread like that the cost isn't so great, and the alternative of expanding without the infrastructure in place is just awful.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 18 2013, 06:31 PM

Seems to me that you are saying that the by-pass was built on the wrong side of Newbury.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 18 2013, 06:37 PM

I think it is more of a case that it wasn't built in a place that Newbury would most benefit. At the end of the day, the by pass wasn't built for the benefit of Newbury, although we did benefit from it.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 18 2013, 06:41 PM

But could have benefited more, i.e. Thatcham Level Crossing, A339, if it had been built to the East?
Any way, past argument, it's built now, just picking up on Simon's point about an Eastern By-pass.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 18 2013, 07:02 PM

I made a typing error which has been corrected.

Posted by: JeffG Jul 18 2013, 07:22 PM

My opinion is that Newbury/Thatcham now needs an Eastern by-pass as well as the existing Western by-pass. Something like the Oxford ring road.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 18 2013, 07:31 PM

Well, probably, but it was never going to have universal support whatever happened and I can see why the western bypass would have been the best choice all things considered - it delivered the most benefit for the least difficulty. As with all political decisions, democracy doesn't empower our representatives to make the best choices, only the least worst. That's our collective fault and not the failing of our politicians - we might talk about wanting brave visionary politics, but we're all reactionary nimbies at heart.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 18 2013, 07:32 PM

Yes.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 18 2013, 07:47 PM

Why would you need the Western By-pass if you had an Eastern one?

Posted by: motormad Jul 18 2013, 07:52 PM

I like the idea but realistically where can you do that from?
There is no easy way to link the A339 with the A4 (Bath Road) and likewise, the M4 is miles away in the opposite direction.

I think that would be even more difficult than simply sorting a bridge.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 18 2013, 08:04 PM

An eastern by-pass would have handled the A339 better and taken more traffic from going through town, but without the western bypass you'd have the problem of all the traffic coming and going with the western A4 and the cross-town traffic from the west getting onto the bypass.

A full ring road is the best option.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 18 2013, 08:28 PM

It would be hugely more difficult that just building a bridge, but the bridge wouldn't by itself solve very much, because the traffic that is currently avoiding the snarl-fest that is the Thatcham Rail Crossing will start to use the shiny new bridge until the congestion is just as bad because of the limited capacity of the minor roads on either side. And while we vacillate Newbury and Thatcham grows, and it grows across the path of the new roads that we should be building now, so by the time we need all that infrastructure we no longer have anywhere to put it.

I think one answer would be to widen the Crookham Hill and Thornford Road to connect the A4 with the A339, and then push the A339 through along the Enborne to join the Andover Road at Wash Water. It would also help to take the eastern bypass up to the A339/A34 and build a roundabout junction. That's ten times the effort of just building a bridge, but we'll need it soon enough and now's a good time to build it while the ecconomy could do with a boost and the required land is relatively undeveloped.

Posted by: spartacus Jul 18 2013, 09:09 PM

Preferred solution for Network Rail maybe, as long as someone else is picking up the bill. A quote from some bod at Network Rail who knows there's even less chance of that being a site for a bridge. It may have less interference from problems such as the canal, river, building, businesses and pubs... but this is a road that's used by about 10 cars an hour at peak times... A bridge is still going to cost several million due to the height required to clear the electrification and who is seriously going to release that amount of capital on such a minor, minor road?

Posted by: spartacus Jul 18 2013, 09:13 PM

I'll lay money on there being an endangered mollusc the size of a fingernail somewhere along that route.....

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jul 18 2013, 09:14 PM

I notice that the Cllr concerned bemoans traffic crossing the double white lines to pass stationary traffic to turn right into Royal Mail.

This is perfectly legal.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 18 2013, 09:19 PM

Then why has an apparently responsible public service organisation made the recommendation?

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 18 2013, 10:50 PM

If only every town in Britain had one of those.
There are many towns that have a level crossing right in the High Street and they put up with that.
There are many major roads across the country that also have them, causing severe hold ups.
I think maybe Thatcham may be well down the list.
Still, concrete and tarmac and be damned eh?

Posted by: spartacus Jul 18 2013, 11:54 PM

It's the way business works when there's a significant piece of work that needs doing but you don't want your company to pay for it and have your shareholders baying for your blood..... You point to the solution, make sure you've been heard, then look away and start whistling tunelessly..... Especially if there's a chance of the Finger of Blame being pointed when nothing ever actually materialises so you can at least say you came up with a solution...

Posted by: spartacus Jul 19 2013, 12:01 AM

I think you need to reconsider your definition of the word 'many'.... We're talking about a rail link through a town that's High Speed as well as the clunky old Low Speed wagons?

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 19 2013, 05:12 AM

I won't bother to start to list them but there are "many".
What difference does it make what speed the trains pass through the crossing?
They still cause hold ups to road traffic when closed.

Posted by: motormad Jul 19 2013, 11:02 AM

What major roads is that?
There's only one other I've come across which is over towards Petersfield near the VW Dealer.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 19 2013, 07:20 PM

I won't bother to list them but there are plenty.
http://www.royston-crow.co.uk/news/foxton_level_crossing_in_top_ten_riskiest_in_the_country_1_2244141 one for example.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 19 2013, 07:58 PM

I don't see the existing traffic hold-ups at the crossing as the major problem here, what I think is the more significant issue is the lack of the eastern bypass. If we don't put the by-pass in while we still can we'll never get the chance again and Newcham will slowly strangle itself as it grows. Put the by-pass in now and we can actually benefit from the growth with jobs and leisure.

It's not that I'm in love with concrete and tarmac, it's more that I'm not afraid of them - as it happens I probably enjoy the greenery of our countryside more than most. Point is that well planned infrastructure and a quality built environment actually creates much more greenery and wildlife habitat and makes for a much better place to live than somewhere that's repressed about its traffic and growth and consequently makes a half-arsed job of accommodating it.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 21 2013, 06:40 AM

Quite agree and all we need is a cohesive plan - which surely can't be that difficult.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 21 2013, 08:06 AM

I think we need a lot more than a plan - some money and the will to carry out the plan would help.

Chances of this happening - pretty close to zero.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 21 2013, 11:39 AM

With (Local) Government finance you have to have the plan before you can get the money. How much should the Council spend on scoping something that will 'obviously' be unaffordable through local funding, and which does not fit any criteria for central support?
It may be on a wish list (or maybe not!) but I doubt it will move to a next stage without some other hope/need for funding on the horizon.
(And I think the bridge should've been built way back, before the industrial & housing estates went in)

Posted by: Cognosco Jul 21 2013, 12:44 PM

WBC don't do Proactive only Reactive. Like "Supreme Leader we have a problem"

I would have thought it obvious when the bypass was built that it would not be too long before all land was built over up to it and yet there has never been any mention of new roads or other infrastructure!
Newbury and Thatcham will have to grow so the problems of infrastructure need to be planned now and the problem of railways and canals need to be planned for not left as usual until they find out we have no land left to build roads and bridges across them as has happened so often in the past.

Sorry I forgot myself for a moment there and forgot we are dealing with WBC so no chance of this happening is there?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 21 2013, 01:00 PM

That is my point - it is difficult for Councils to spend on future planning unless they have a very robust and visionary long-term strategic plan that has central Government support - which falls in any case if the government changes. All the time BCC/WBC were pushing for a by-pass, any plan that would've warped that study would have put the by-pass plan on hold again.
Not an apology for WBC, just pointing out they (and other Councils) are rather hog-tied by 'procedure'.

If further housing goes on east of Floral Way the situation will doubtless get worse as Basingstoke is a major employment hub.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 21 2013, 02:14 PM

Deleted duplicate

Posted by: On the edge Jul 21 2013, 02:19 PM

We have rather a lot of money, the development bribes for a start. What was the money they got for letting the massive building development on the MOD site pished away on? Capital spend as infrastructure investment is a far far better use of public money than say flags, derelict building refurbishment and so forth.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 21 2013, 04:19 PM

One problem with a brave visionary plan is that we, the voting public, would likely oppose it. Think Sandleford - it's an ideal site for development with good road infrastructure and room for all the additional services a large estate will need, it will bring the houses that we need in West Berkshire, and designed well it would open up the green and pleasant Berkshire border country for the townspeople to enjoy, and create a fantastic wildlife habitat, all out of what is currently an agro-industrial wasteland crossed by a footpath that's walked by less than half a dozen people each day. And yet I seem to be the only person in West Berkshire who actually thinks it's a good thing, while every other house in Wash Common displays a campaign poster protesting the development.

Newcham is going to grow whether we like it or not, so the smart thing to do is embrace the change and ensure that we create a top-class built environment with well-planned zones and routes and all the infrastructure that a modern town needs, and then we can attract jobs and investment to pay for it.

The problem then is us, because the man in the street doesn't believe that local politics is any of his business except when it's going to impact on him directly and negatively, so the only voices that are ever heard are the voices of opposition. This is the Big Fat State - we have no personal responsibility for our community because there is no community, only the individual - it's the allegory of the long-handled spoons.

And it's our politicos who are in large part to blame for our abrogation of our social responsibility. The state discourages us from taking a personal responsibility and doesn't particularly like us involving ourselves in their business, and so we only ever take an interest when it's affecting us personally, and because our politicos only ever hear us complaining they try all the harder to keep us out of the loop, and that just disenfranchises us all the more - a viscous circle.

The Big Society was the remedy to this, but even if Dave was sincere, his grass-roots reactionaries hated the idea - they only joined the party for the personal influence it gave them, so why were they ever going to emancipate the proles. So we get timid government that imposes its will without consensus and avoids upsetting its voters by changing as little as it can, and there is no way that politics can ever propose a brave vision, no matter how good that vision might be.

Posted by: user23 Jul 21 2013, 06:57 PM

Isn't the crossing owned by Network Rail?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 21 2013, 07:47 PM

It is, and they have control over any crossing - level, bridge or tunnel - in terms of design and build.
They also have absolute say over the timing of the barrier rise and fall.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 22 2013, 09:54 PM

Yes, and there's a reason for that.
It isn't done for fun!

Posted by: spartacus Jul 23 2013, 12:17 PM

I'm not entirely convinced that someone at Network Rail HQ isn't sniggering up their sleeve every time they get a complaint about level crossings being down for so long... they're everywhere these level crossings.... 1000s of them if you believe Biker1.. too many to mention...

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 4 2013, 08:50 PM

I have just been past the new layout at this location and fails to see how the right turn lane is going to help the waiting at the level crossing one bit!
Can someone explain to me again please what was the point of this, what has been gained through closing the crossing for two weeks and spending all that money.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 4 2013, 08:54 PM

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/level-crossings/
And they have been there for a long time.
Probably closed for a lot longer in the days of manual signalling.
Why so many complaints now?
(By the way if you click on the link "explore the different types of level crossings" there is a link in the top right corner "Have a question or problem? If a level crossing or any other part of the railway is causing a problem, or if you simply want more information, contact our National Helpline" try it!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 4 2013, 09:02 PM

Just before they closed the area, I drove over the crossing while a van waited to turn right in to the post office, holding up the traffic behind it. The crossing had been down for a while and there was quite a queue either side. As I approached the van while going in the opposite direction I heard the alarm warning of the barriers going back down. Perhaps the person immediately behind this van might be able to describe to you in less colourful language of the advantage of a right turning lane than I saw them use at the time!

What I would question though is the width of the right-turn lane. It appears to be too small! I saw a small lorry edging up to this lane holding up the traffic behind because it hadn't got over enough..

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 4 2013, 09:24 PM

OK fair enough I hadn't spotted that and can see that the filter lane will let traffic past a vehicle turning right. I was looking in the wrong area of delay primarily the level crossing itself holding up traffic.
Did the situation you describe above happen very often then to warrant the expenditure?
Surely a motorist coming in the opposite direction would see the problem and let them turn in front of them?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 4 2013, 09:28 PM

I think we all know what is needed, but that is very unlikely. This, while expensive, is something that should have been done when the ridiculous decision was made to put the entrance to the small industrial estate where it is.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 4 2013, 09:35 PM

I think Network Rail would like, in the ideal world, to close as many as possible, if not all, level crossings.
They are doing so in many locations.
An expensive operation and unlikely to be achieved for many years if at all.
We go full circle................is it physically possible to build a bridge at Thatcham, how much will it cost and who will pay for it??

Posted by: blackdog Sep 4 2013, 09:43 PM

Yes it is physically possible to build a bridge, it will cost a huge amount and no one will pay for it.

Posted by: motormad Sep 4 2013, 09:55 PM

Ergo Network Rail should pay for it.
It's their bloody victorian relic causing the problem.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 4 2013, 09:57 PM

Network Rail love splashing the cash around!

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 4 2013, 11:33 PM

It might mean a slight delay to the motorist, but I don't see the trains being held up. No problem for network rail.....


If UK Govts had spent even a quarter of the cash they have spent over the decades on roads on rail travel, you'd be able to enjoy far better motoring.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 5 2013, 07:20 AM

Quite right. No advantage to Network Rail to spend all that money.
That said, as I said before, they are still keen to eliminate as many level crossings as possible.
How this is prioritised I don't know.

Do I read the above correctly?
You are saying that if the government had spent more on rail and less on roads we would enjoy better motoring?

Posted by: motormad Sep 5 2013, 07:54 AM

It's ok, it didn't make sense to me either.

Posted by: JeffG Sep 5 2013, 09:19 AM

I think what is meant is that if rail was subsidised and more places were served, then it might become the preferred mode of transport, thereby freeing up the existing roads for the happy Mr Toads of this world

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 5 2013, 10:20 AM

I understand that it was Tory policy (Mrs T?) to take freight off trains and put it on to road; perhaps she felt compromised by militant rail staff.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 5 2013, 11:18 AM

JeffG got it spot on. Freight on the rails, leaving the roads for, and I could not have put it better myself, the Mr Toads of the world.

I mean - can you imagine being stuck behind this lot on as it makes its way up the A34 to Catterick?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVqDXr9KAU4

Posted by: motormad Sep 5 2013, 11:29 AM

Kind of, but for example it would put much more load onto the rail network which frankly can't take it.

And again back to my point in another thread, not taking you where you actually need to go.
For example Tesco deliveries - Still would need a lorry to get it up to the Retail Park... so you've not really saved anything really.

Moving bulky items from Birmingham to London might work, and again perhaps to coastal regions - where there are cranes in the docks to easily load things onto cargo ships, but I think people use lorries for a reason.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 5 2013, 11:53 AM

With investment it could take it.


MM if you think that tesco being able to shift all they sell mainly by rail instead of by road won't reduces the number of trucks on the road......

people have to use trucks beacuse of woeful under investment in the rail system in this country.

Posted by: motormad Sep 5 2013, 12:06 PM

That was one example and you know it. We all see high street brand lorries almost on a daily basis. Stop being a joffa.

Investment into a victorian relic. What a waste of life.
Why invest into something which is outdated, complete waste of money that could be better invested on the roads.
The beauty of which you can take diversions incase of delay, stop and start when you want and aren't subject to not being able to use a piece of road because there is another car on it..

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 5 2013, 12:11 PM

So if most freight was off the road.......funny, trains seem to use Thatcham level crossing with a frequency far greater than if there was only one train using the track at a time......why does freight need to stop & start when it wants.....you could call the car an edwardian relic.....


anyway, I can see that your love of internal combustion is entrenched, so to continue would be pointless.

Posted by: motormad Sep 5 2013, 01:06 PM

It's not the love of internal combustion. It's the love of freedom of movement.
I want to go from Reading to Thatcham.

I can do that with about 5 different routes in a car, bicycle or motorcycle. I can go when I like at the speed (pretty much) that I like.
On a train all I can do is go from Thatcham TRAIN STATION to Reading TRAIN STATION, not any faster and much more uneconomically than if I were driving. I can only leave and arrive when planned and this is subject to other delays.


You cannot sit there and possibly defend it. Often and regularly trains are delayed due to a train further down the track being delayed.

Yeah, that's progress..

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 5 2013, 01:10 PM

You still don't get it do you.

Read this again & then have a think. If UK Govts had spent even a quarter of the cash they have spent over the decades on roads on rail travel, you'd be able to enjoy far better motoring.

Posted by: motormad Sep 5 2013, 01:19 PM

I'm still thinking about it and can't see it.
And judging by the state of the roads, they've not had any money spent on them at all.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 5 2013, 01:29 PM

At the end of the day, both methods of transport have benefits, but neither can comfortably replace the other. Not until the entire land surface has a tube-like train network.

A compromise would be a car transporter which one could alight and drive the last mile independently. Or reduce the need and desire to travel.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 5 2013, 01:29 PM

If the railways had had some cash actually spent on them much of the freight ( ie , not people ) which currently goes by road would go by rail. Granted for the final delivery road transport would have to be used, but it would still mean 1000s fewer truck movements.

Roads would last longer ( it isn't by chance that the M6 Toll charges what it does for HGVs ) and would be quicker for the private motorist.

Having actually worked in the road haulage industry I can assure you many of the trucks on the roads are running at 50% capacity or less and that due to the rise of 'Logistics' & JIT manufacturing much of the freight is moved needlessly from A to C so as to get to B.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 5 2013, 01:32 PM

...and sourcing thing more locally.

Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 5 2013, 07:18 PM

I rather suspect the chances of anyone seeing, let alone being behind that on the A34 to Catterick are rather slight, and not just because the A34 doesn't go there.......

Posted by: JeffG Sep 5 2013, 07:24 PM

Why?

Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 5 2013, 08:15 PM

Wouldn't you want to get out of Reading?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 5 2013, 08:17 PM

If West Berkshire Council have there way, we 'll have our very own Reading here!

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 5 2013, 08:26 PM

Really. No **** sherlock. But in order to get from Newbury to Yorkshire I'd image most drivers would head on up the A34 to the M40 or M1......and if there was an Army convoy heading back up there also.......you might get stuck behind it.....

but you knew that....

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 5 2013, 08:27 PM

Mega-City One

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 5 2013, 08:50 PM

And diesel locomotives use what sort of engine......

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 5 2013, 08:55 PM

give us a clue

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 6 2013, 05:19 AM

Tesco DO move a lot of their goods by rail!

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 6 2013, 05:21 AM

And when the government wants to spend cash on rail they meet vociferous opposition!!

HS2???

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 6 2013, 07:49 AM

People to entrenched in the 'I'm I'll Right Jack' mentality.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 6 2013, 07:51 AM

Yeah, Oddly Tesco are quite forward thinking when it comes to transport. They use canals ( well a canal ) too.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 6 2013, 08:07 AM

You get an explosion which forces a piston to rotate a crank.


I don't think so. The arguments I have seen is for that money to be used on other transport initiatives, including rail, rather than one expensive exclusive one.

All this is a big distraction from the nuisance at Thatcham, which is only going to get worse as the south of Newbury increases its population.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 6 2013, 08:13 AM

Problem is we have been doing that for the last 50 years by promoting road transport above all else. People are in love with their cars & the right to drive them, anytime anyplace anywhere. Now of course the huge amounts of indirect taxation generated by vehicles & driving them is also part of the equation.

TRaffic queues are a part of modern driving. At Thatcham the level crossing just gives drivers a focus for them to vent their frustration over. Look at the A4 every day from the Hambridge Rd Lights to the Robin Hood - just as bad.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 6 2013, 08:18 AM

Well now you have stated the 'bleedin' obvious', what is your point? A part of the Thatcham crossing issue is a blunt method of gate control where a train pulling into Newbury delays people in Thatcham.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 6 2013, 08:23 AM

seems even stating the bleedin' obvious leaves many behind on here.

point - None really, can't go out for a ride, bit early to go to the pub, nowt on the telly that I have not seen umpteen times already.......

..but the few mins delay at Thatcham isn't actually that much of a problem in the bigger picture. It is peobable left as it is to divert drivers attention away from any other road issues in the area.

Posted by: MontyPython Sep 6 2013, 08:26 AM

Obviously you don't have one!

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 6 2013, 08:29 AM

seems even stating the bleedin' obvious leaves many behind on here.



see what I mean......

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 6 2013, 08:56 AM

A few minutes isn't usually an issue, but knowing why is annoying; however, it is a nuisance when it is 10 or more minutes delay. And this will only get worse as we get more people homed in south Newbury AND train journeys become more frequent (allegedly).

I remember some time ago coming up to the crossing and an ambulance was sat there with its blue lights on, waiting for the gate to rise. I wonder who's day was ruined on that occasion.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 6 2013, 09:07 AM

Yes it will get worse.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 6 2013, 03:40 PM

Not technically an explosion.
Rapid burning causing an expansion of gas that forces the piston down in the cylinder!

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 6 2013, 03:45 PM

Nevertheless, it is still internal combustion...

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 6 2013, 04:03 PM

ex·plo·sion
/ikˈsplōZHən/
Noun
A violent and destructive shattering or blowing apart of something, as is caused by a bomb.
A violent expansion in which energy is transmitted outward as a shock wave.

It'll do!

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 6 2013, 10:34 PM

who cares - trains don't have to be Diesel, and that one in the vid was doing the job of about 150 trucks.........

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 6 2013, 10:49 PM

And cars don't have to have combustion engines either. Indeed, make a car as powerful as the the vehicle in the video and a car can do the same thing too. I'm still trying to workout what your argument is. Mind you, I suspect you are dong the same thing to.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 7 2013, 05:59 AM

Yea OK!
Just repeating what I was taught in school physics lessons!!

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 7 2013, 06:07 AM

I suppose most of our energy comes from combustion.
Apart from wind and solar (although that involves combustion in the Sun! )
Nuclear is combustion isn't it, although no gases are put into the atmosphere?

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 7 2013, 08:22 AM

I'd like to see it get around a roundabout.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 7 2013, 08:48 AM

I'd like to see a train do the same thing too.

Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 7 2013, 08:57 AM

Perfectly possible, just a matter of size.....

Posted by: JeffG Sep 7 2013, 12:44 PM

Whether you're talking fission (as in the bomb or a power station) or fusion (as in the sun), I'm pretty sure neither could be called combustion. As I understand it, the definition of combustion is burning in the presence of oxygen to form a compound.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 8 2013, 07:45 AM

Thanks for that.
Very educational sometimes, this forum!!

Posted by: JeffG Sep 8 2013, 09:25 AM

I just checked on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion:

So there you have it. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 8 2013, 09:45 AM

So its an explosive combustion in the engine, or the combustion fuelled by coal or gas to create the electricity to power engines.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 8 2013, 02:51 PM

As roundabouts don't generally feature on the rail network, I'd like to see that too.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 8 2013, 02:59 PM

And thus they lack the flexibility modern life 'demands'.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 8 2013, 03:00 PM

Modern life demands roundabouts? Have you been to America?

Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 8 2013, 05:31 PM

They could...... Would take a load of space, but they really could

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 8 2013, 10:32 PM

No, trains you troll.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 9 2013, 03:52 PM

I have no idea what you are on about now.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 9 2013, 03:58 PM

It really doesn't matter.

Posted by: motormad Sep 10 2013, 09:18 AM

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 10 2013, 04:24 PM

Well I have just got home after sitting at Thatcham level crossing as usual.

The new right turn lane makes not a blind bit of difference to the queuing as it can only be used by the first few vehicles (although I did see a vehicle go deliberately - and illegally - the wrong side of the Keep Left island to get to the new lane to turn right)

Perhaps it has made it more dangerous...

What I do see when the traffic is moving over the crossing - especially after it has queued is that far fewer Thatcham-bound drivers are letting traffic turn right across them: perhaps those entering the PO office now have to wait longer!

So following practical observation, I still think that this scheme is a total waste of money.

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 10 2013, 04:28 PM

Those entering the PO will wait longer - but they won't be holding up the vehicles behind them in the process.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 10 2013, 06:36 PM

That happened before the new layout, so I doubt it.


Does this suggest then , that more cars can cross before the barriers come down?


That is your prerogative, however, the junction now is as it should have been when the industrial estate was first built.

Posted by: motormad Sep 10 2013, 07:01 PM

If a vehicle was waiting to turn into the Post Office generally vehicles would cotton onto this and let it go - Ergo the problem is by and large self-healing.

For the amount of cars that do turn into the post office it is a complete waste of money and no-one can possibly say it is worthwhile.

Also completed when road works on Hambridge Road were under way.. top marks to which ever bright spark at NTC thought up that one.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 10 2013, 11:15 PM

That's where you are wrong.

This was never meant to be a solution, it was a redesign of the junction that should have been put there in the first place, or even better, a junction that should never have been approved of installed in the first place. I think this was better use of money than other things the council have in my view wasted money on (li.e. Thatcham's speed-hump cancer). Anyway, this is the best the junction is going to get, so I would imagine it will be quite some time until there is any more money spent of this area.

Posted by: Lee Sep 11 2013, 12:18 PM

Has it improved the junction? IMHO, No.
Therefore, it's a waste of money in my view.

I'm yet to speak to anyone who thinks the money has been well spent.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 11 2013, 12:47 PM

IMHO it has improved the junction because fewer vehicles will be held up.

Posted by: motormad Sep 11 2013, 02:25 PM

I'd have rather had the council spent 85k sorting potholes or resurfacing some poor parts of the road network in our local area than do this.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 11 2013, 04:53 PM

Perhaps so would I, but the cash would cover many and they come back pretty soon.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 12 2013, 07:56 PM

US states are starting to install more and more 'traffic circles'

Posted by: JeffG Sep 12 2013, 08:45 PM

I thought they called them rotaries.

Posted by: spartacus Sep 16 2013, 06:06 PM

Had another look at this construction today.

The central filter lane will offer marginal improvement, as it at least provides those one or two vehicles vehicles a day turning into the PO Depot an area to wait without holding up traffic wanting to cross (assuming the traffic coming over from the football club side are not being kind enough to wave a car across)

But it's a lot of money to spend for just those one or two cars a day..........


However in my view the big cockup with this build is the fact that the 'layby' is now only about just over half a car's width. You can't use it to wait for someone coming off the train as you'd block the road for northbound traffic. It's been built as a bus stop as there are Kassel kerbs in place (raised kerbs) ........but if a bus actually had to pull in and pick up passengers it would block the northbound carriageway completely!

And then, instead of having a queue of irate drivers on the southbound getting worked up about not being able to cross because of someone wanting to turn right into the Depot, you could now instead have a line of stationary cars lined up across the level crossing between the barriers as they wait for the bus driver to do his business....


.....and then the warning lights start to flash..... and the alarm sounds ......and drivers start to panic.....

They've possibly made a bad situation worse...! (IMHO )

Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 16 2013, 07:13 PM

http://www.levelx.info

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 16 2013, 07:21 PM

NO!
Don't ask me why not as there are far too many reasons, some rail connected and some road connected but NO!
In fact it could possibly make the situation worse!

Posted by: JeffG Sep 16 2013, 07:44 PM

Where are people going to/from? Is there not another route that avoids the level crossing?

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 16 2013, 07:48 PM

I think most are either going to/from the Basingstoke Road via Thornford Road to avoid Newbury or going along Burys Bank Road to avoid Newbury and the A4 through Thatcham?
It's being used as a by-pass but it isn't one!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 16 2013, 08:30 PM

We'll unofficially it is. And once the racecourse is fully populated and Sandleford is done, it will be even busier.

Posted by: blackdog Sep 16 2013, 08:56 PM

Once the racecourse bridge is built there will be an alternative by-pass.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 16 2013, 09:32 PM

I don't see where, we will will have more traffic on Hambridge Road and at A4 traffic lights than we do now, so even more reason to 'seek alternative routes'.

Posted by: spartacus Sep 16 2013, 09:41 PM

If you live in Thatcham (eastern half) and want to go to Basingstoke, or the Tesco/Retail Park, or Crookham golf club then this would be the obvious route to head for. When the barriers are up it avoids you having to take a far longer route. When the barriers are down there are other routes to use, but chances are by the time you've found yourself in a queue it's too late or awkward to turn around and get out of the queue, so you sit there and fume and hope the wait isn't too long..

From the Crookham Hill side it's virtually impossible to turn around and get out of the line of waiting vehicles. It's a decent route when the route's clear, but when the barriers are down they can be down for a LONG time and that gets the blood boiling over why you've made such a stupid decision....

Although it does give you time to think of 100 different ways to wring someone's neck if they're wearing a Network Rail blazer...

Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 17 2013, 07:00 AM

You foresee the racecourse housing becoming a rat-run?

Posted by: blackdog Sep 17 2013, 08:08 AM

Yes, surely it will offer an improvement over Boundary Road.

If WBC were switched on they would have made sure the new route was capable of carrying serious traffic.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 17 2013, 09:25 AM

You still have the same pinch spots at either end of Hambridge Road, and that will only get worse. Has anyone been down there at rush hour? It's a nightmare. This is why I anticipate Burys Bank Road becoming busier if traffic from that area is able to exit south through or from the racecourse estate.

This seems to be what happens when you leave it to the 'professionals'.

Posted by: JeffG Sep 17 2013, 11:42 AM

Surely they will have run exhaustive what-if computer traffic simulations to decide what needs to be done?

(Yes, I have my cynic's hat on )

Posted by: motormad Sep 17 2013, 12:36 PM

Ha!

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 17 2013, 02:49 PM

Well if folks are using it "unoficially" as a by-pass when it wasn't designed as one then they should fullwell expect the delays at the level crossing which they know is there!
Until it is either bridged or an alternative route built then the problem will not go away (even with a high tech warning system! ) end of story!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 17 2013, 02:59 PM

Hambridge Road is not a by-pass either, so using your logic they should expect delays there too if they are 'misusing' the road!

It is not officially a by-pass but it is a road which you may drive on. A high tech warning and switch system would help a lot. If people know roughly how long they are going to have to wait that removes some of the frustration; that and removing the need for the gates to go down when a slow train pulls into Newbury.

Posted by: motormad Sep 17 2013, 04:28 PM

I go to Reading, problem solved.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 17 2013, 09:22 PM

I go to Basingstoke, also problem solved!

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 18 2013, 05:15 AM

Yes but it hasn't got a busy level crossing on it that everybody knows is there.
I didn't say that anyone was 'misusing' the road just that it wasn't designed to take that much traffic who are using it as a by-pass.
Use it if they want but don't moan about the delays which they know happen.

No it won't but by all means folks give it a try!

How?

They don't!!
When a fast train leaves Newbury they are lowered.
When a slow train leaves the Racecourse they are lowered.

Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 18 2013, 05:27 AM

Why so soon?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 18 2013, 09:46 AM

Yes and this is exactly the same problem in Hamberidge Road!


You would reduce the barrier down time.


Quite simply, if you know how long you will be waiting, you can make a decision to wait ot not, but just simply knowing is better than the relative unknown we have now. It is a psychological thing.


Then what is all this bull about stopping distance then? In that the trigger points are there to enable the train to stop in time? The slow train could stop on a bloody sixpence at the speed its going.

Posted by: spartacus Sep 19 2013, 06:44 PM

Anyway, back on topic about the recent works at the level crossing. Here's the views of Bob Morgan, Thatcham Town Councillor (lifted from the KennetHeath Forum website)

Thus proving how easy it is to snipe from the sidelines when in opposition.. Presumably Thatcham Town Council's, or should I say the LibDem's, preferred option would have been to do absolutely nothing.

If Bob Morgan was in charge his solution would be that there is no solution and therefore you just ignore it....

Posted by: Strafin Sep 19 2013, 06:49 PM

Well then good for him! Why spend £83k to do virtually nothing when actually doing nothing would have been free?

Posted by: spartacus Sep 19 2013, 07:24 PM

Politicians (even if we're talking about town or parish councillors of small towns) cant help playing politics.

If nothing had been done and Bob Morgan was still the Ward Member you'd instead have Boeck and Croft sniping from the sidelines demanding he DID SOMETHING!! (and then he might have found himself backed into a position of agreeing to this waste of money like those hapless two have )


The central filter lane may have been an expensive black tarmac white elephant but there has been some (extremely limited) benefit from it's introduction and at least 'something' (something crap and something ineffectual, but what the heck...) has been 'DONE'

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 19 2013, 07:38 PM

Bull??
OK lets go through it, I have time.

The line through Newbury & Thatcham uses the track circuit absolute block Multiple Aspect Signalling System (MAS) on a 3 aspect system (red, yellow, green).
Obviously red means stop and trains cannot pass this signal.
Yellow means proceed with caution (approx. 30 mph) and be prepared to stop at the next signal which my be red.
Green means line clear.
There is a signal at the end of the platform at Newbury on both the platform line and the through line.
There is another just past the Racecourse station and another on Thatcham Moors. This is the one that protects and is interlocked with Thatcham Crossing barriers meaning that if they are not lowered it will be red.
If it is red then the signal at the Racecourse will therefore be yellow and the one at Newbury will then be green.
So you see that the train will set off from Newbury on a green but, unless the barriers at Thatcham are lowered some time while the train is between there and the Racecourse, then the driver will get a yellow at the Racecourse signal.
If this happens then the train will have to travel "under caution" to the next signal (the one protecting the crossing remember, keep up!) at around 30 -40 mph in preparedness to stop at that signal should it still be red.
(All to do with stopping distances yeah Andy?)
So can you see that if the barriers are not lowered at the point of leaving Newbury the train will take EVEN LONGER to get to the crossing and the barriers will be down EVEN LONGER!.
With an HST doing 110mph through Newbury the signaller at Colthrop has just a few seconds to get the barriers down at Thatcham before the train is bearing down on the Racecourse and getting a yellow which would slow the train down making the barriers be down EVEN LONGER.
The slow train you talk of Andy will get a green at Newbury, but a yellow at the Racecourse (where it stops) because the barriers are not down yet as Network Rail (the ones you want to murder Spartacus!) are holding the barriers up as long as possible as it is a stopping train.

Believe me once and for all the barriers at Thatcham are down for the minimum amount of time to allow all the traffic on a busy railway to pass safely.
Let me know folks if you want me to go into more detail such as signal interlocking, spacing and sighting.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 19 2013, 08:09 PM

No Andy, as I said before, Hambridge doesn't have a busy level crossing

Sorry, how?
see previous post you cannot reduce any more the barrier down time until possibly, possibly, a new type of signalling is introduced on the line called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Rail_Traffic_Management_System
Won't be for some while yet and then you are talking seconds difference!!

Posted by: spartacus Sep 19 2013, 09:44 PM

Well if you wouldn't mind, could you provide some commentary for this powerful video on the ZSB 2000 signal interlocking system. Such wonderful imagery yet all it has is background 'lift muzak' instead of some geek explaining the technical bits....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGrKOEvI_48

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 19 2013, 10:04 PM

But it is being used beyond it is design spec, which was what your argument was.


There you go answered your own question or argument.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 20 2013, 07:27 AM

So are many roads are they not? A34, M25?

Is Pedantry your middle name Andy.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 20 2013, 10:56 AM

So other words, your argument about the (miss)use of Crookham Hill/Chamberhouse Mill Lane is meaningless?


Err.. and you are pedant free? There's no need to get personal is there? We are only having debate. This isn't life or death, or anything

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 20 2013, 05:34 PM

No, yours is because you are comparing Hambridge which is a road unimpeded by a level crossing and Thatcham which is.
Many, many roads are handling traffic at levels more that they were designed for but do not draw the complaints that Thatcham does. Obviously this is because of the level crossing.


No, I'm probably not Andy, I know you enjoy a good debate but it seems that you will rarely make a concession.
But anyway, sorry Andy I didn't mean to offend hence the "wink" and you are quite right, no need to make it personal.
Lets face it, we can debate this issue 'till the cows come home but we all know the only solution is a bridge (somewhere).

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 20 2013, 06:51 PM

Your joking aren't you! Boundry Road, Hambridge Road and A4 crossroads traffic is the reason why many people 'gamble' on Thatcham crossing!


Perhaps you can point me to yours?

...concessions, that is!


Of course, but why should that mean we dismiss all other attempts to mitigate its nuisance? A case of a bridge won't happen so what next?

In truth, this is simply a case of 'never the twain shall meet'.

Posted by: spartacus Sep 20 2013, 07:32 PM

....now hang on... let's not be so hasty in dropping the TUNNEL option......

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 20 2013, 08:44 PM

I was under the impression that they were doing exactly the opposite. There is to be a pedestrian pinch point or bus gate to stop through traffic

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 20 2013, 10:35 PM

That's what I understand too.

Posted by: blackdog Sep 21 2013, 07:15 AM

So they are going to increase traffic in Boundary Road? Residents in Boundary Road must be delighted, not only do they get a block of flats built at the end of their garden but they get even more traffic blight outside their front door.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 21 2013, 08:33 AM

Concessions?..................I'va had a few!!

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 21 2013, 08:35 AM

What, under the canal & river too??
I think I'll dismiss it!!

Posted by: spartacus Sep 22 2013, 12:33 PM

A tunnel is about as realistic as a bridge though.... If we wait a few more years we'll be able to teleport and so the level crossing will no longer be a problem...

Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 22 2013, 01:15 PM

Personal jet packs?

Posted by: Lee Sep 23 2013, 11:40 AM

So we keep being told it's too expensive to put a bridge in the same location as the level crossing, so why not close the level crossing for good and resite the bridge?



Should have made it a condition of the planning permission at Rainsford Farm for example to help reduce the cost.

2 options for siting the bridge(s)

Posted by: On the edge Sep 23 2013, 12:01 PM

Simple reason, logic and common sense aren't factors in the decision making process.

Posted by: motormad Sep 23 2013, 12:40 PM

Because the industrial estate does not have the capacity for the amount of traffic
Besides Colthrop Way's road is one of the worst there is in the area.

Posted by: Lee Sep 23 2013, 01:07 PM

Both are routes that "could work"

If you look at them in isolation, then yes, neither road is perfect, but **** the current road is far from perfect, even after 80k worth of work.

It's the fact that they refuse to talk about an existing location for bridge but don't seem to have considered other options like road rerouting.

Posted by: Lee Sep 23 2013, 01:08 PM

Why is h-ell a banned word!?

Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 23 2013, 02:08 PM

If anyone answered that they would have to be shot
ce

Posted by: JeffG Sep 24 2013, 09:01 AM

Because it uses the original American bad word dictionary, which the mods can't be bothered to edit. The Americans have strange ideas as to what constitutes a bad word. You can't say d-amn either. But strangely enough you can say damned.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 26 2013, 12:28 PM

Not sure if this viewpoint has been raised before but, is the crossing actually a good thing?
In so much as - what will / would the traffic levels be on the approaching and serving roads if a bridge was built?
Maybe too much for the infrastructure to cope with?
Maybe the crossing is keeping traffic down to a manageable level?
Just a thought!

Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2013, 12:44 PM

I suspect that's been a hidden agenda here for quite some time. I know that in the past, even the mere mention of a bridge horrified certain local parties who lived in country cottages on the other side! The road the other side isn't good until you get to the spur that takes you to the roundabout. This is why we need a properly integrated traffic plan. Let's face it, even a little relief here could significantly reduce the A4 overload. The planners belief that routing heavy lorries destined for Basingstoke through Newbury is irresponsible

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2013, 01:13 PM

You have a point. One of the reasons more investment can't be made is that the road is considered a minor route. If it had no weight limit, then there would be a potential for more heavy goods vehicles to use it and a justification in an investment; however, what Newbury and Thatcham really could do with is an inner distribution road system.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 27 2013, 08:07 AM

I've said said it many times before but will repeat it, parrot fashion.
Consequence of the by-pass being built on the "wrong" side of Newbury?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 08:21 AM

The BP wasn't built on the wrong side because the BP wasn't built for the benefit of Newbury, although coincidentaly, we did benefit from it.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 27 2013, 08:25 AM

You are quite right of course, but that doesn't negate the fact that we now appear to need an Eastern by-pass as well.

Posted by: motormad Sep 27 2013, 09:01 AM

Being built on the only side for which it was VIABLE?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 09:08 AM

I quite agree, and if buildings come before roads, as it were, it will only become more of a problem.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 27 2013, 09:20 AM

Cheapest (financially, not environmentally).
Lets not get into a by-pass debate.
Been there, done that!

Posted by: JeffG Sep 27 2013, 09:43 AM

Shades of SPEWBY

Posted by: Scorpio Oct 17 2013, 07:56 PM

Yes what an absolute waste of money that is, still the same long delays. What are Road Planners playing at they could not plan anything to ease traffic at al. Next thing we know they will be conducting Traffic Surveys in centre of Newbury during Rush Hour (LOL!!!)

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 17 2013, 08:41 PM

The last time I looked, the problem wasn't with road planners but the trains that cut across them!

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 17 2013, 08:55 PM

but not if you are turning into the little industrial estate.....which was the point of the roadworks.....

Posted by: motormad Oct 17 2013, 11:14 PM

To be fair if there is a queue of traffic already formed from the train, which has already reached the roundabout (about 10 cars will do that) then you can't get INTO the industrial estate anyway....

The little junction is only of use

- if the barriers are up and are turning right
- if the barriers are down and you happen to be the first few cars to reach the crossing


It was not and can never be called a good use of taxpayers money. Pathetic.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 18 2013, 07:29 AM

Unless of course you happen to work there.

Any right filter lane is only of use if you are

A.) wanting to turn right

B.) stuck behind a vehicle wanting to turn right where there is no filter lane.

in this location B is of some importance as due to the frequency of trains, you could find yourself stuck behind a vehicle whilst the barriers are up & then stuck for a longer period when the barriers drop. The lane will remove this senario. Possibly one of the few R filters which is of some importance to the traffic not turning right.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 18 2013, 07:44 AM

I refer you to post 70 where the reasoning behind the work is explained?

Posted by: motormad Oct 18 2013, 08:09 AM

You miss my point.

The point behind if you are stuck in the queue for the train and further back then you have to drive on the wrong side of the road (the wrong way around a bollard/central crossing which has arrows on it saying "ONLY PASS ON THE LEFT" to get to it. Ergo you're in the same position as before.

Waste of time and money.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 18 2013, 08:21 AM

No, I got it first time.

The lane was put in, not to aid those turning R, but to stop those turning R impeeding the flow of traffic behind them.

Pretty simple really.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 18 2013, 09:22 AM

I've said before, the junction is now laid out how it should have been in the first place. It is whether it represents is good value that is the issue. It does seem expensive, but in the scheme of things, I suspect it isn't the worst use of money. Not when you realise West Berks spent £2,000,000.00 resurfacing Newbury town centre because it in effect 'looks nicer' than the previous and on only recently resurfaced roads.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 18 2013, 09:31 AM

I see that's sinking again on the River Bridge.
Bet it's out of warranty!

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 28 2014, 09:19 AM

Well, it seems the op was correct as on South Today news this morning it was admitted that the works had made no difference!

Posted by: Lee Jan 28 2014, 09:23 AM

I was invited to speak on BBC Radio Berks today, also to that effect.

I still believe it was a complete waste of money, the filter lane has made it a nightmare for exiting the station now. No one is willing let to you out just in case they miss the barriers opening... At least you had a chance when someone turning into the postoffice/pub held up the traffic for you.

Posted by: motormad Jan 28 2014, 09:38 AM

Funny that... that's exactly what I said before this went ahead....

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 28 2014, 10:08 AM

One man's meat is another man's murder. People should not be letting people out at that junction anyway. As it is, giving way there is a hazard.

I don't see it as a complete waste of money, they have only made the junction as it should have been. The stupid thing is to have the industrial estate entrance there in the first place, but those who endorsed that are long dead I suspect. The other one is to have a single lane road to the station car park of course. It makes you wonder who plans these things, or not, as the case may be.