Thatcham Railway Crossing, £83k wasted! Options

[Andy Capp]

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

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.

[Andy Capp]

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.

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.

[Biker1]

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.

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.

[Andy Capp]

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.

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.

[Biker1]

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.

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.

[spartacus]

Can't be done Andy.

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

[Andy Capp]

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.

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.

[MontyPython]

..... 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.

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.

[On the edge]

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

[Biker1]

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)

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.

[motormad]

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

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

[Nothing Much]

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)

[Simon Kirby]

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.

[Biker1]

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

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

[Andy Capp]

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

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.

[Biker1]

I think it is more of a case that it was 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.

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.

[Andy Capp]

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.

I made a typing error which has been corrected.

[JeffG]

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.

[Simon Kirby]

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

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.

[Simon Kirby]

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.

Yes.