Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 27 2011, 03:32 PM

Congrats to the two ward councillors for securing £12,000 of funding for a traffic survey at Thatcham Station. I'm not sure in all honesty what it will achieve though when the council have already ruled out a bridge and / or any measures that require investment but I guess it's a step in the right direction. The £12,000 has been taken out of the members pot which is used for projects in individual members wards.

I was pretty scathing of both members when I asked the council about this previously to find they had done nothing, and it's only fair that I should give them some credit for starting to do something about it (better late than never). They have a long way to go, their pledge was to look far and wide to resolve the issue, and I for one hope they can sort it out.

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 27 2011, 04:03 PM

What's the point of doing a survey if they won't do anything? It'd be better to throw the £12000 out of the window of a train while it's in Thatcham station.

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 27 2011, 04:07 PM

Ok, what would you do about the problem, go on, enlighten us.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 27 2011, 04:15 PM

Build a bridge.

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 27 2011, 04:30 PM

where ? how ?

Posted by: betsy Oct 27 2011, 04:47 PM

Across the line at Thatcham Station of course!!
We've known for years that a bridge was needed so why waste another £12k on a pointless exercise?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 27 2011, 05:01 PM

What the officers told me:


Dear Mr Garvie,




In response to your question:



Could you please advise what work the council has undertaken with regards to identifying a solution to the congestion at Thatcham station, most notably:



What solutions have been identified

The feasability of these projects

Estimated costs.




In response I can advise that this is an important railway line and consequently the level crossing barriers are in the down position blocking the road on numerous occasions throughout the day. Peak time commuter traffic movements also coincide with peak time commuter rail movements and consequently delays can be lengthy at these times resulting in queuing traffic in the general area of the station.



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



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



If you are unhappy with the way that the Council has handled your request please contact me and I will arrange for a review to be undertaken.



Yours sincerely,




David Lowe

Scrutiny and Partnerships Manager

West Berkshire Council

Market Street

Newbury

Berkshire

RG14 5LD

So as has been raised here, what will they do with the study results if they can't do the only solution identified? Does that mean the £12,000 will be wasted on a study that cannot influence the outcomes or potential outcomes?

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 27 2011, 05:29 PM

Give it to SLI the same as they seem to have given every other spare £ if the rumours are true?

Posted by: spartacus Oct 27 2011, 07:00 PM

This has been covered numerous times locally in the press and on this forum.

The letter you quote from is the same letter from David Lowe that you copied onto here on 28 June to start off the 'Council admits election pledge is unworkable' thread...

http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=1375&hl=bridge
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=17241

There's seven pages of t'internet argument on why there's no realistic chance of some relief at this level crossing. (Let's not drag it up again... if you're interested betsy, read the thread)

There's two options - A bridge or a tunnel. (Well THREE if you include the one where the railways stop running......) NEITHER of these are realistic and as far as the bridge is concerned, no bridge could be built in this location due to the expanse it would have to cover. The Councillors at the time (Owen Jeffrey and Terry Port) pushed through the weight restriction for this road (Crookham Hill) There's no money in the local pot to pay for a bridge (got a spare £5 million anyone? )and there's no chance of central government splashing cash on a (massive structure of a) bridge that will not even be allowed to take HGVs.... Rules it out as a 'Strategic Route'.


So, I may be being a bit thick here, but given the above..... WHY is it that you think the ward councillors should be 'congratulated' on being awarded £12,000 to waste on a study that will just regurgitate information that's already known and suggest a solution that can never be delivered?!

Bonkers!!

Stand up Councillors http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=590 and http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=591!!

Take the applause......

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 27 2011, 07:04 PM

A bridge would be difficult, the span needed to clear the line would be such that you would need to cros the canal and possibly the river as well, this would mean an equally long ramp on the thatcham side, cutting of the swan PH and possibly some of the business area as well. not really feasable.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 27 2011, 08:33 PM

Tongue. In. Cheek. It's a total waste of money, but who am I to argue. I'm just glad that we have such competent people representing us on the council who know better than me. Why didn't I think of asking for a traffic study?

At the end of the day, this is nothing short of a £12k PR stunt for the elected members identified.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 27 2011, 08:48 PM

So.... If they 'do nothing', they are letting the voters down.
If they do something, likewise as they are wasting the cost of the action?

Posted by: user23 Oct 27 2011, 08:53 PM

Is this the same Mr Garvie who's been complaining about a lack of consultation and study before other decisions were made, yet in this case he's moaning that a study is being carried out.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 27 2011, 08:57 PM

No. They are wasting money from the members projects fund when the council recently admitted that it is unlikely a scheme would ever be in place to solve the problem. A traffic survey will deliver little, if they were going to do anything, it should be looking into how much a bridge will cost. Somebody on here said £5m, I reckon you are looking at more than that and some people have quoted £20m on other threads. Let's find out what it would cost and then look at ways to raise the money.

Before you shoot me down, the council have already said that the only solution has been identified. Why spend £12k on a traffic survey, then more trying to find a solution, only to arrive at where we are now?

Posted by: spartacus Oct 27 2011, 08:58 PM

Thought so.... Is there any way to confirm this? (Not the 'tongue on cheek' bit, but the study thing...)

User, £12k is a significant amount to just waste on some glossy paper and some photos. It's pointless....

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 27 2011, 09:03 PM

It's in today's paper. Basically a study will say what amount of traffic is using the road, and for that price you'd want to know where that traffic is going, so is the traffic going up the hill and turning right to head up to Greenham or is it traffic heading to Basingstoke etc.? But none of that will help build a bridge.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 27 2011, 09:12 PM

This is not a consultation though, it's basically a survey of the number of cars using the crossing etc. How will that help when it comes to building a bridge? If they said they were going to spend a few hundred quid on leaflets to canvass public opinion and go out and listen to people, I'd support that fully. I'd volunteer to help them. But a £12k car counting excercise will do little to help the situation. Like I said, we spend £12k on the traffic survey. Then another £30k on translating that data into potential outcomes. Then we get the bombshell, the only solution is a bridge.

Let's cut the bull. How much is a bridge going to cost? That's what I want to know. That's what the people of Thatcham West (who were promised a bridge by the Tories on the doorstep) want to know. Just get on with it and tell us, and stop chucking good money after bad on pointless political point scoring excercises and do what residents want.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 27 2011, 10:16 PM

See page 9 of the Thatcham Vision Action Plan. Published in January 2007 it already quoted a £12m minimum price tag for a bridge. (Granted, not at this location) What with inflation and general 'add-ons' after tenders are won then a conservative estimate would probably be more in line with a £20m minimum figure....

http://thatchamonline.net/system/files/groups/thatcham_vision/part_2_topic-specific_reports/2009/pdf/transport121206.pdf

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 27 2011, 10:21 PM

I take your point, but David Lowe has said the cost is "unknown". Let's find out, not guessing or doing figures in ones head. If we knew the cost, we could then try and establish what the funding options are (if any).

Posted by: spartacus Oct 27 2011, 11:02 PM

You could go round in endless circles on this type of thing.

Who would pick up the tab for the engineer charged with dreaming up such a figure? How many days/weeks would he be allocated to cost up such a scheme (assuming the back of a fag packet scribbles aren't going to meet your exacting standards). Should he be tasked with costing up a 'Fantasy Bridge' at this entirely unsuitable location (like the concept cars you see at motor shows but never see on the road), or should he be charged with costing up a realistic alternative at a more appropriate location?

And this is assuming it would be a Council Highways Planner given the task... If it was some Traffic or Civil Engineering Consultancy doing the work then you'd need more than the £12,000 upfront to get a sensible figure.... You would however get several pretty binders to go with the reams of glossy paper and pretty pictures for that money.. The result would be the same though....


Or should we just perhaps allow the engineers to get on with their proper day jobs and not ask them to waste their valuable time on 'Engineering in La-La Land' concept projects....

I know, you know and most people with an ounce of grey matter swishing between their ears know that whatever the figure is, it's going to be too much.....

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 27 2011, 11:14 PM

I take your point. The only way it could be paid for is if Sandleford was scrapped and houses were built at Siege Cross, with significant development contribution going to the bridge. But if we're looking at £20m, then it's never going to happen in a month of Sunday's.

The whole point in this is that the two Tory candidates (at the time) promised people on the door step that they would fix it if they got it. They slagged off the Lib Dems for not sorting it, and the end result of them getting elected will not change things. What should happen is that the two councillors should admit they had not researched the idea of a bridge, and now they have it's unfeasible. Spending £12,000 (half the cost of the Victoria Park fencing or a third of the cost of replacing the Thatcham skate park) is like Xjay said:

"What's the point of doing a survey if they won't do anything? It'd be better to throw the £12000 out of the window of a train while it's in Thatcham station."

Posted by: Alice Oct 28 2011, 08:12 AM

As a cheaper solution to help ease the congestion, perhaps someone could review the timings of the barriers. Last week I was stuck for 20 minutes and watched three trains go by. There was more than enough time for the barriers to rise and let some cars through between each train passing. I think that the barriers come down far too early before the train reaches the station.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 28 2011, 08:18 AM

Oh No! Here we go again!!
Please don't make these comments unless you fully understand how a railway works.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 28 2011, 09:24 AM

I agree, I was held up for ages recently, with nothing happening. When it did go past there were about 10 people on board!

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 28 2011, 12:31 PM

So you think the railway purposely holds up traffic at the crossing just for the fun of it?
Or possibly is it done for everyone's safety, - passengers, road users and pedestrians?

Posted by: Strafin Oct 28 2011, 01:11 PM

I didn't think they were timed, I thought they were manned, which in a way probably makes it worse. I can understand erring on the side of caution, but sometimes you can be sat for ten minutes plus which does seem ridiculous.

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 28 2011, 01:17 PM

Biker, I don't think anyone is questioning the safety purpose of barriers; no-ones disputing them. They are questioning the amount of time barriers are down for.

Sometimes, I've been at the front of the queue and in less than 2 or 3 minutes, a train has come past, barriers go up and we're on the way. Othertimes I have been waiting 10 minutes for a single train.

Now, what is the purpose of a huge delay, over say, 210 seconds (so about 3 and a half minutes) between barriers going down and train passing? How much time do you need to realise *shoot, I'm stuck on a railway* and get out of your car and dial 999?

Talking of "how railways work" unless you're incredibly dull, most likely with a tweed hat and a beard, and read "train monthly" then you wouldn't know how the sensors are activated. I don't! Are there sensors at fixed distances either side of the station which trip the barriers or is it done on an "time to station" basis? After all, sensors 2 miles either side of a station would mean that a Intercity Train traveling at, say 90mph, would take 1 minute 30 seconds (I think?) to cover the distance, where as a commuter train doing 50mph, plus the constant reduction in speed to come to a stop, could take over 5 minutes!!

To be fair if you got caught between the barriers anyway you'd be a bit of a plank. Probably would deserve it.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 28 2011, 04:21 PM

Well XJ even the railway company admit that the crossing sensors were cheap and take no account of the speed, or breaking distance of the train. So, simply to cope with the odd few very fast trains, hundreds of people are inconvenienced whilst the clapped out old junk running the local services limp along the line.

NB - not really surprised that FGW don't want to slow these things down; it takes them so long to get any speed up at all.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 28 2011, 05:02 PM

PLEASE.... Can I suggest you give the earlier link a read if you want to know the reasoning behind the barriers being down.... To dredge it all up again would just be wrist-slashingly bad....... From reading the thread I would suggest that Biker1 is a font of knowledge on all things train related so I bow to his superior knowledge....

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 28 2011, 06:06 PM

Because, I suspect, depending on the survey methodology there is a whole range of information that can be gleaned. Saying that, I hope one of the more 'intelligence-gathering' methods is used and not just tapes across the road. Origin, Purpose and Destination being one such......

Posted by: Bofem Oct 29 2011, 05:59 AM

RG. When New Greenham Park was created, the Trust agreed a £1m developer contribution with WBC. This was never used, and eventually they used it for the bus subsidy. All gone now!

So there was a time, but they were throwing money at the Shaw House project at the time, so no political will.


All this does remind me though that those two Lib Dem councillors played a part in causing the pollution by Burger King by pursuing the pointless lorry ban on Crookham Hill.

Think of the Lib Dems next time you're choking on exhaust fumes!

Posted by: user23 Oct 29 2011, 07:23 AM

In one thread Richard is moaning about the lack of consultation or studies before a decision was made.

In this he's moaning that a consultation or study is taking place perhaps as a precursor to a decision about improvements being carried out.

I wish he'd be a bit more consistent.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2011, 08:45 AM

You might think so, but others don't. Perhaps if some lorry drivers did so with more consideration for other road users, it wouldn't have been felt to be necessary.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 29 2011, 09:02 AM

Not getting into that one again OTE!
You have your opinion - live with it!
P.S. The trains, although being in a poor state in your opinion, don't usually break.
They do often brake though!

Network Rail control the crossing - not FGW.
It is manually controlled from the signal box at Colthrop.
The raising of the barriers IS automatic and happens AS SOON AS the line is clear.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 29 2011, 09:27 AM

You can have the argument about crossing times 'till you are blue in the face.
The crossing has become busier due to an increase in traffic mainly trying to get to the Basingstoke road without going through Newbury because the by-pass was built on the wrong side of the town.
Rail traffic can only get busier if anything especially with electrification.
(When that comes OTE you will be getting even older trains! See "Future Plans" in this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_319)
The ONLY solution is a bridge and I don't need £12,000 to tell you that!

Posted by: user23 Oct 29 2011, 10:16 AM

Surely a formal study would be the first step in any process that involved building a bridge?

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 29 2011, 10:26 AM

But a bit pointless until you have the cash to build it? The way the council are giving cash away at the moment it will be some time before we have the cash to build a bridge and as stated by you on another thread the data collected will be useless by the time we do have the cash! I suppose it would be out of order to ask SLI to donate a bridge seeing as we will be in hock to them for years to come?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2011, 11:00 AM

I don't think it is a waste of money if the study is a good one. It might be able to suggest ideas that mitigate all this last century public transport system.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2011, 11:27 AM

For £12k, they should be providing exactly that, but I won't hold my breathe. I may ask David Betts to let me know when it's taking place so I can monitor what methods they use and report back. This survey will not provide ay outcomes though, which is why I would rather they had used the money to cost a bridge. I'm sure one of our local architects would have costed it up at a discount, based on the amount of work they get from Mr Carter!!!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2011, 11:29 AM

Soon to be transferred to the Didcot Control Centre, which will result in slightly longer durations of the barriers being down as it will be automatic.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2011, 11:31 AM

Rubbish. The council claim they have already identified the only available solution - a bridge!!! What will a traffic survey contribute? If any work was to be carried out, they should establish the cost of the bridge. How can they say it's unaffordable if it's not even been costed up?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2011, 11:32 AM

Now that would be a waste of money.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2011, 11:32 AM

But when the only available solution has been identified, what will this survey contribute to the process?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2011, 11:34 AM

You don't have to be developer/engineer to know that it will cost more than several million pounds, which already writes it off as an idea. You're barking up a wrong one here.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2011, 11:38 AM

The only solution to any hold-up is a bridge, but a survey might bring about data that might mean better traffic management, or maybe show how pressure could be applied to the rail company to partner an idea to mitigate the delay.

Just because something can't be fixed, doesn't mean things couldn't be done to help reduce the nuisance.

Another big problem at that junction is the right turn to the post office. That could do with some thought.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2011, 11:40 AM

All I'm saying is that a £12k traffic survey is pretty much worthless. It will provide no value to delivering a solution, I fear that the council will simply use it to say that the number of cars using the hill does not justify a bridge and that's the end of the matter. The officers have already said nothing could be done, this survey is all about the elected members responding to criticism that they promised the world and won't be able to deliver.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2011, 11:42 AM

I fear that your myopia might in truth be only exposing your eagerness to cause mischief for your political opponents. They said they would search far and wide for a solution, in my view they are doing all they can, so you are being disingenuous with your view.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2011, 11:44 AM

I'll repeat:

The only solution to any hold-up is a bridge, but a survey might bring about data that might mean better traffic management, or maybe show how pressure could be applied to the rail company to partner an idea to mitigate the delay.

Just because something can't be fixed, doesn't mean things couldn't be done to help reduce the nuisance.

Another big problem at that junction is the right turn to the post office depot; that could do with some thought.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 29 2011, 12:11 PM

Nope, will still be manually controlled but yes, as you say, from Didcot.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 29 2011, 06:29 PM

What a shame - yet more missed opportunity. I thought we were supposed to be investing in modernising the railway.

When this line was built, it was designed for steam trains travelling at 50mph max. On the roads, horses and carts. since then, the roads have been metalled, straightened and made much safer for higher speed traffic. What's happened on the railway? Very little. Where there are significant dangers such as level crossings, why should rail speeds not be restricted? Yes, would hold up a few rail passengers a few minutes - so what?

Note, dear Biker1, how about getting Didcot to sponsor saving one of the Turbo trains? Would be one less we'd have to put up with and they could do with a new lavatory.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 30 2011, 10:39 AM

One minute you are complaining about "the clapped out old junk running the local services limp along the line" and then in this post you are suggesting that trains are slowed down to reduce inconvenience to road users!

Are you suggesting that this is imposed at the 7000 level crossings in Britain or just make Thatcham a special case?

P.S. How slowing down trains reduces the waiting time at level crossings is a mystery to me.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 30 2011, 03:12 PM

Well you are always claiming that trains need a massive distance to stop - presumably, less fast, less distance. Or is that another example of where the railways have bent the laws of physics to satisfy commercial ends?

Why not slow the whole railway? Or is the alternative of finding a better way to stop trains too hard to even consider. We can get a man on the moon these days you know!

The speed of the train has nothing to do with the comfort on board.

The 'Turbo' trains were apparently designed using bus technology. I would love to meet the designer / manager / technocrat who actually thought that the passenger accommodation was anywhere suitable. Or indeed, the people who believe that it is still acceptable in customer service terms to keep these design errors in operation. Frankly, the mindsets that do are clearly troubled! I wonder how they travel to work or indeed how they live at home?

Painful though it may be, this is again evidence that the 'age of the train' is well passed its sell by date.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 30 2011, 03:24 PM

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 30 2011, 03:33 PM

So one shouldn't complain if they don't have a solution?

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 30 2011, 03:54 PM

That is not what I said:
No problem with being unhappy with what is provided, but please have an alternative to offer.

Sweeping generalisation about what is wrong doesn't enable even a willing service provider to deliver a solution that addresses the problem....

Say what is wrong, even better, offer a solution. Not necessarily to Blueprint standard, but set out 'the problem'. The seats are uncomfortable? Not enough luggage space? Not enough legroom? Not enough seats?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 30 2011, 04:10 PM

Perhaps OTE would clarify?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 30 2011, 05:36 PM

Of course I'll clarify. If you've bothered to read previous threads on this issue, its all been explained.

First, the traffic issue. The barriers are down for far too long causing major congestion and delay to road users in an area serving a major commercial zone, an acknowledged fact.

There have been half hearted attempts to solve the problem with a bridge. In spite of how it may seem to the layman, this is quite feasible and economic and has been done elsewhere.

However, if the issue was solved, this would disturb a few residents the other side of the track as the route would become the obvious path to Basingstoke and the M3 - so sharing the burden the majority suffer when the delays occasioned by the crossing mean routing via Newbury is seen as more economic.

However, there is no reason why a solution could not come from the railway itself. The Rail Authorities admit that the equipment controlling the Thatcham crossing is set to cope with the few non stopping high speed trains using the line and not the local trains.

These local trains, employing an outdated design based on bus technology do not travel at anywhere near the speed and have trouble accelerating anyway. The train sets are themselves life expired and from a passenger view noisy and dirty. So:-

1. Install better control equipment that is available 'off the shelf' as Transport for London use it. This is able to recognise the type and characteristics of the trains concerned and so should reduce the gate close time significantly.

2. Replace the time expired train sets with modern and more effective units. Siemens and Bombadier are both willing and able to provide trains with far more effective acceleration and breaking.

In both cases, in accounting terms, the equipment would have been written off - so any new investment commercially viable. Locally SW Trains have managed to re-equip their fleet - no reason why it shouldn't happen in Thames Valley. Electrification is too far off to wait.

To see just how to run a clean and efficient train service, take a trip to Glasgow, where a division of the same Company, using the self same units can run a clean and efficient service. However, although in Scotland the trains are much. much cleaner and carpeted, they are still

lacking leg room
cramped seating even in 1st class
very noisy
badly ventilated
difficult for for standing passengers

Hope the above is sufficient; and not simply sweeping generalisations. And before you think otherwise, yes, I do complain, in writing, by phone and in person. So then, there are the problems and some easily achievable solutions.

Have to say, in my opinion, Newbury people will often grumble, but then are generally willing to simply accept the status quo - which is often second best. i.e. a hospital without a maternity unit, a one way bridge over the Kennet....

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 30 2011, 05:58 PM

1. TFL have NO level crossings.
You cannot automatically control a fully gated, busy crossing.
The signaller DOES recognise the type and characteristics of the trains concerned to reduce the gate close time significantly
2. This is down to the government. As was with SWT who had to replace their slam door 1960's stock to comply with modern safety regulations.
These units only operate in the Thames Valley. They do not exist in Scotland.
Agree with some of your points on the units but as we choose not to invest sufficiently in the railways we get second best.
There was an experiment to replace the old 1st generation units with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_210 which had a separate engine and not underfloor but cost prevailed and we got the Turbos which will remain until electrification. Maybe even after on the Bedwyn service.
Personally I think your criticism of them is a bit over the top but I am finished with that argument.
Noisy - yes
Clapped out - No
Slow - they do 90mph.
Poor leg room and cramped - yes
Can't see an increased problem for standing passengers compared with any other train.
Dirty - often but that is not the train's fault.
They are deep cleaned every night.

I'll leave it there as the same points seem to being raised time again.
As you can see I don't totally disagree with you just trying to provide a balancing view.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 30 2011, 06:13 PM

agreed. Can't beat a good moan.....

Posted by: user23 Oct 30 2011, 06:34 PM

Perhaps the next step is to then establish evidence to support one's theory.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 30 2011, 07:04 PM

Rather than replay, simply adding a few facts to the balance.

1. I have it from FGW and can remember seeing a press report some time back where the reason for the delay at Thatcham Crossing is because the system is set to cope with 125mph express trains. I'm going to enjoy going back and suggesting that this response is being economic - because it appears that human signalmen excercise the control and can, therefore, use some intelligence.

2. Speed. Well, a mate of mine was given a speeding ticket for riding a 125cc BSA Bantam at 90mph. Going down hill and took him a good 15 minutes to get there.

3. Deep cleaned!! I'll try and get some photo's. Whoever has the contract is having a laugh - run your fingers along the top of the window frame. And, are we really saying that the people in West Berkshire are more yobbish and dirty than people from Glasgow? That's a sociological change I've missed somewhere.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 30 2011, 09:29 PM

yeah......... but nobody's been bothered to set foot on the place since 1972...

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 30 2011, 09:43 PM

Or that's what they'd like us to believe!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 30 2011, 10:11 PM

Are you nuts? If the council have identified a bridge as the only solution, surely traffic surveys and everything else have been done? How else would they have identified a bridge "as the only option"?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 30 2011, 10:16 PM

I would imagine a developer friend has told them!

Posted by: user23 Oct 30 2011, 10:18 PM

Have they?

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 30 2011, 10:21 PM

I may be mistaken, but as best my brain cell remembers the last detailed work on the 'south route' solution was a good few years ago. Much has happened since then in terms of development and traffic flows. Whether £12k is value-for-money I don't know, but as an on-going issue I think it wise to update the data.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 31 2011, 04:52 AM

So they say. You tell me to take them at their word, now you are questioning what they say. Do keep up, User.

Posted by: blackdog Oct 31 2011, 06:01 PM

When did Bantams shrink? Mine was 175cc - but I never got close to 90.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 31 2011, 06:12 PM

They didn't shrink, they grew....
The early ones - many MOD green - were 125cc.....

Posted by: Lee Nov 3 2011, 10:02 PM

Why not think differently....

You could reroute the road...

i.e. follow the black line in the image below...


This way you don't have the logistics of Royal Mail, The Swan, The Station etc etc.

There was planning permission requested for houses at rainers farm (where the blank line passes), so why not make it a condition of planning for example? Or compulsory purchase...

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 3 2011, 10:15 PM

Good to see a suggestion, but the feasibility would have to be tested via a survey. The south end of Pipers Lane would require a great deal of redevelopment, and there would be a slab of demolition too.
The corner will not work and such a road would risk opening up the south side of the canal for even more development - something that has been resisted by all representative bodies for a good number of years.

Certainly the sort of alternative solution that could develop into 'something', if only more options.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 3 2011, 10:16 PM

You're still talking of millions for the road (~£8million per mile), before any land purchase.

Posted by: Lee Nov 3 2011, 10:18 PM

I guess it's just a case of showing it's not just about "the current position" of the crossing.

But you're right... a survey would need to be completed

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 4 2011, 08:25 AM

It's still good that you are thinking outside of the box. Surely the council must have looked at other options when they identified the bridge at the station as the only option? I guess we will never know.

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 4 2011, 08:59 AM

So what is actually going to happen? Another £12k survey when no action will be taken as a result..?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 4 2011, 09:32 AM

The council promised to do all they could; this is it.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 09:51 AM

What the should have been said was - there will never be a bridge, live with it.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 4 2011, 10:48 AM

Mr Garvie (Not wishing to be perceived as rude)

You may not know,but the debate over the level crossing/bridge has been going on since before you were born. The discussions, as previously mentioned, include the management (or avoidance) of development south of the canal. I remember the fuss when the Football club moved and when Chamberhouse Farm was to build flats. Sadly the barn burned down.......

One option floated was advance interactive signing to tell people (on the A4, for example) when the crossing was closing.

It is a serious problem- including for Emergency Services, but 'build a bridge' will bring other matters to the fore. Sometimes it has to be better to live with the problem you have - maybe mitigated by better control processes - than let in another that you really don't want!!

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 11:00 AM

Trains, I believe, operate to a timetable. It isn't rocket science to get to know when a train is going to be due.

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 4 2011, 11:11 AM

And how often is a train on-time, not delayed due to light drizzle, or cancelled due to leaves?

Posted by: Lee Nov 4 2011, 11:11 AM

Apart from Worst Late Western can't even stick to a timetable.
Also, when you factor in random goods trains etc.

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 4 2011, 11:28 AM

http://www.google.co.uk/url?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DGfO-0f8cjwk&rct=j&sa=U&ei=YcyzTuCGDtCt8QPd_JibBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QtwIwAA&q=lee+tenacious+d&usg=AFQjCNFCmGod7Q56MGdTZ6JZUA1FZMRHFA&cad=rja

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 11:31 AM

12.5% of trains are not 'on time'.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 4 2011, 11:55 AM

Think we are also forgetting Newbury / West Berkshire isn't a sleepy old market town anymore. Population size says otherwise. The infrastructure needs are now very different and against this growth - costs of a bridge are reasonable. So, in the words of an earlier response - West Berkshire is now a big urban area - live with it!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 4 2011, 12:07 PM

I never promised a bridge. I'm only asking questions of those who did. The council officers have told be a bridge would be the only way to fix the problem, and that will never be taken forward due to high costs and low priority of the road. I accept what the council have said to a point, but my point on this thread is that if the council are to spend any further money on looking for a solution, we should establish the costings of a bridge. Guess work is not good enough. Rather than blowing £12k on a study of the number of cars using the level crossing, would it not be better to have a proper costing so that residents understand the reasons why a bridge is unlikely to be built?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 12:17 PM

Have you ever considered, that the way to get the cash to do a 'proper costing' might be to prove the need for a bridge with a traffic survey?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 4 2011, 12:23 PM

Yes. But apparently this has already been done. The council have stated that they have identified a bridge as the only solution. If you have already identified "the only solution", do you investigate the proposed solution or simply start the process to establish a solution again?

My fear is that the "traffic surevy" will be a car counting excercise to rule out a bridge as a viable option. If we knew the cost of a bridge, that may achieve the same result, but would also show the viability to one and all.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 12:26 PM

What else is a traffic survey other than a car counting exercise? If the volume of traffic precludes the building of a bridge then why should one be built? It is the use, not the cost which should be paramount.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 4 2011, 01:31 PM

Newbury/Thatcham is a big urban area and Tilehurst/Holybrook etc are part of a bigger one - but West Berkshire is still mostly rural.

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 4 2011, 01:40 PM

Aside from Newbury and Thatcham where 70% of the populus reside

Posted by: On the edge Nov 4 2011, 02:33 PM

Quite - but I was trying to find a collective name for the Newbury / Thatcham / Greenham / Shaw urban area. This has moved far beyond 'parish council' ethos. It is quite an issue and in my view, our local fetish with the parishes has cost 'greater Newbury' a great deal in lost facilities. Retail minds in a wholesale environment.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 4 2011, 02:33 PM

Quite - but I was trying to find a collective name for the Newbury / Thatcham / Greenham / Shaw urban area. This has moved far beyond 'parish council' ethos. It is quite an issue and in my view, our local fetish with the parishes has cost 'greater Newbury' a great deal in lost facilities. Retail minds in a wholesale environment.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 4 2011, 03:57 PM

So you are saying that when the council decided that a bridge was the only solution, they had not done a similar study?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 04:04 PM

You don't need to do a traffic survey of any kind to know that a bridge is the only way to avoid traffic having to wait at this busy level crossing.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 4 2011, 04:21 PM

Just a thought, but I would it not be even more of a problem with 25KV electric wires going over it?
High vehicle etc.??

I know other crossings in the country have them but surely not a desirable thing to have?

Posted by: blackdog Nov 4 2011, 07:33 PM

More like 50% or just under - roughly 70,000 out of 145,000.