Thank you Network rail and Thatcham level crossing Options

[Washwaterman]

Seriously.... you sat in a queue for 1 hour 5 minutes over that short a distance when there are numerous junctions and turning areas you could have used to get yourself out of that queue and find a different way around.. With a 'Washwaterman' username you're not an out-of-townie so should have been able to work out how to get to where you needed to get to avoiding the queue. I can only assume you were getting paid and were using it as an excuse not to get to work

Yes as I was not going to be beaten by the level crossing I was going to see it out to the bitter end along with many other people. And I was on my own time just trying to get home

[x2lls]

Something not yet , as far as I can see, is a propsal to have a subway UNDER the line..

[Rdg]

Something not yet , as far as I can see, is a propsal to have a subway UNDER the line..

A Subway under a canalised river and on a gravel floodplain - yep sounds cheap and sensible to me

[Andy Capp]

What we 'need' is some suicides and major train accidents.

[x2lls]

A Subway under a canalised river and on a gravel floodplain - yep sounds cheap and sensible to me

If a dirty great tunnel can be built under the English Channel, then why not?

[On the edge]

If a dirty great tunnel can be built under the English Channel, then why not?

Quite.

You are forgetting x2ls, we don't do imagination or innovation round here!

[spartacus]

If a dirty great tunnel can be built under the English Channel, then why not?

...yeah but we'll get all those blanket wearing immigrants from Hampshire sneaking in through the tunnel at night attracted by the bright lights of Thatcham (or the other way around)

[spartacus]

Yes as I was not going to be beaten by the level crossing I was going to see it out to the bitter end along with many other people. And I was on my own time just trying to get home

That's the spirit! It's what made Britain Great. I hope you were sat behind the wheel chewing on a stiff upper lip and 'harumphing'? (It's bad form to rustle your copy of The Times even if you're in stationary traffic)

What we 'need' is some suicides and major train accidents.

Perhaps a half barrier configuration would sort out these delays?.... eventually..... ...if enough fed up motorists without the iron resolve of Washwaterman jumped the reds and weaved through..... ....and were 'tapped' by a 125....

[spartacus]

Something not yet , as far as I can see, is a propsal to have a subway UNDER the line..

Innovation, imagination and thinking outside the box will provide the answers, like wot UKIP did....

What about Network Rail changing the lines to a sort of corkscrew arrangement like you see at Alton Towers, so that actually the TRAIN is upside-down and below the surface of the level crossing at the point of the crossing?


<thinks> ...hmmm..... might only work on the 125. The gravel train may have a problem...


[EDIT] Magnetic tracks!! That's the answer....!! (and obviously some sort of cover on the gravel train carriages to keep the gravel in....)

[x2lls]

Quite.

You are forgetting x2ls, we don't do imagination or innovation round here!

Wash my keyboard with soap and water!

[x2lls]

Innovation, imagination and thinking outside the box will provide the answers, like wot UKIP did....

What about Network Rail changing the lines to a sort of corkscrew arrangement like you see at Alton Towers, so that actually the TRAIN is upside-down and below the surface of the level crossing at the point of the crossing?


<thinks> ...hmmm..... might only work on the 125. The gravel train may have a problem...


[EDIT] Magnetic tracks!! That's the answer....!!

Obviously the meds supply is out

[spartacus]

Obviously the meds supply is out

I think we probably go to the same clinic?


Anyway, it's about as realistic as your tunnel idea....

Tunnel under the railtrack, canal and river indeed.... what were you thinking of?

You're probably too young to have enjoyed whiling away hours of your life in a smoke filled room listening to the 'Revolver' album on repeat back in the day... but I reckon you've just had a psychedelic event nonetheless...

[x2lls]

I think we probably go to the same clinic?


Anyway, it's about as realistic as your tunnel idea....

Tunnel under the railtrack, canal and river indeed.... what were you thinking of?

You're probably too young to have enjoyed whiling away hours of your life in a smoke filled room listening to the 'Revolver' album on repeat back in the day... but I reckon you've just had a psychedelic event nonetheless...

The beatles were never my favorite band, Frank Zappa, Hot Rats, with Willy the Pimp were more in my line. before that, the lemon Pipers. That said, I did have given as a christmas present, a badly made plastic beatles wig.
TBH, your reply makes some stupid assumptions in that the older you are the more intelligent your are. FAIL.

I can also recall many events from way back. Kennedy being shot, Marilyn Monroe killing herself(?). I also recall going through London to get the steam train from Victoria station to Brighton in the fifties and seeing the destruction from WW2 .

So stop being a stupid kid...

[Rdg]

ok then to be a bit more scientific about it

Where do you think the 2 ends of the tunnel could be then, taking into account a sensible down gradient and 3m min height differential between top of tunnel (of bore large enough to take a lorry) and riverbed (that is a guess so if you have real figures use them) - the cross rail TBM's have an outside diameter of 7.1m which is too narrow for a standard 2 way road once you allow for wall thickness (modern roads standards set 7.5m verge to verge for a 2 way road). So assuming you do not want traffic lights and single direction travel in your tunnel you are looking at 2 parallel bores. So assuming you use cross rail TBM's you are now looking at over 15m of width for your tunnel (I don't know min separation between bores and guess my .8m is woefully inadequate so feel free to rework accordingly. The roadway could be up to about 2m over the base of the tunnel I guess to allow for services whilst still allowing the min 4m clearance for lorries required for uk tunnels.

So you need to drop to river bed depth + 3m (clearance) + 7.1m (tunnel diameter) - 2m (height of roadway above tunnel bottom) - so 8m below riverbed depth. Max gradient allowed is 5% and <4% is preferred so minimum ramp lengths of 200m + 25m for each m of vertical difference between road level at start of ramp and bottom of riverbed. And the bottom of the gradient has to be before you reach the line of the river/can from the South and the railway line form the North (I know that is higher than canal riverbed but I am guessing network rail would want max support for their railway line so lets assume it works out same as the riverbed equiv.

Now do me a red pen and crayon sketch of where the tunnel will go to allow it to interface with local roads and using min sensible tunnel length (tunnels cost a lot). All my figures are back of a fag packet using google resources to find uk figures for road width etc so feel free to find your own figures if you feel i am wrong

[Andy Capp]

ok then to be a bit more scientific about it

Where do you think the 2 ends of the tunnel could be then, taking into account a sensible down gradient and 3m min height differential between top of tunnel (of bore large enough to take a lorry) and riverbed (that is a guess so if you have real figures use them) - the cross rail TBM's have an outside diameter of 7.1m which is too narrow for a standard 2 way road once you allow for wall thickness (modern roads standards set 7.5m verge to verge for a 2 way road). So assuming you do not want traffic lights and single direction travel in your tunnel you are looking at 2 parallel bores. So assuming you use cross rail TBM's you are now looking at over 15m of width for your tunnel (I don't know min separation between bores and guess my .8m is woefully inadequate so feel free to rework accordingly. The roadway could be up to about 2m over the base of the tunnel I guess to allow for services whilst still allowing the min 4m clearance for lorries required for uk tunnels.

So you need to drop to river bed depth + 3m (clearance) + 7.1m (tunnel diameter) - 2m (height of roadway above tunnel bottom) - so 8m below riverbed depth. Max gradient allowed is 5% and <4% is preferred so minimum ramp lengths of 200m + 25m for each m of vertical difference between road level at start of ramp and bottom of riverbed. And the bottom of the gradient has to be before you reach the line of the river/can from the South and the railway line form the North (I know that is higher than canal riverbed but I am guessing network rail would want max support for their railway line so lets assume it works out same as the riverbed equiv.

Now do me a red pen and crayon sketch of where the tunnel will go to allow it to interface with local roads and using min sensible tunnel length (tunnels cost a lot). All my figures are back of a fag packet using google resources to find uk figures for road width etc so feel free to find your own figures if you feel i am wrong

You've too much spare time!

[Rdg]

took <5mins to research and write that - it was obvious a tunnel would take more space longitudinally than a bridge when there is a river that a 4m lorry would have to fit under, gradient of ramp already listed for why a bridge won't work so just required 2 google searches for the numbers to show why a tunnel is madder

[Andy Capp]

took <5mins to research and write that - it was obvious a tunnel would take more space longitudinally than a bridge when there is a river that a 4m lorry would have to fit under, gradient of ramp already listed for why a bridge won't work so just required 2 google searches for the numbers to show why a tunnel is madder

Yeah right.

[On the edge]

Oh, that's it then, nothing at all can be done; computer says no.

Good job those idiots who are building Crossrail, or those clowns who built the Shard etc. etc. etc. endlessly don't live round here!

Not to worry, they have an even better excuse now. Apparently WBC haven't even got the cash to fit cameras to the Robin Hood lights; so no chance for a real project. It also makes much better economic sense, they don't need to employ expensive engineers, just a few clerks.

Still, never mind, why does a dormitory town need a strong and thriving local economy?

[Cognosco]

Oh, that's it then, nothing at all can be done; computer says no.

Good job those idiots who are building Crossrail, or those clowns who built the Shard etc. etc. etc. endlessly don't live round here!

Not to worry, they have an even better excuse now. Apparently WBC haven't even got the cash to fit cameras to the Robin Hood lights; so no chance for a real project. It also makes much better economic sense, they don't need to employ expensive engineers, just a few clerks.

Still, never mind, why does a dormitory town need a strong and thriving local economy?

But with all the proposed new development how long will it be before we get total gridlock.......instead of gridlock most of the day?
I took time off work the other day to enable me to get some chores done before the winter. I needed to get to the recycle centre with some bits and pieces...total waste of the day as it took 1 hour 45 minutes of travel time that should have took at most 10 minutes I suspect. I always wondered why the wife was always moaning about the time it took to get anywhere in Newbury.........I thought it was only the weekends that it took an hour or more to travel a couple of miles? Understand why people say they always avoid going into Newbury town centre unless absolutely vital now!

[Rdg]

start from the other end then - how much money do you believe it is worth spending to relieve the grid lock then lets see what can be be delivered for the money.