Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Boundary bridge closure
Posted by: Exhausted Jan 30 2015, 09:15 PM
It seems that Boundary Road will be closed to traffic for eighteen to twentyfour months when the railway bridge is being replaced, starting some time later this year. There will be a temporary footbridge but no vehicle access.
When the bridge was closed for a couple of weeks a few months ago, the repercussions on traffic flow then was pretty grim. I wonder if WBC highways will be able to give us any relief and have a master plan.
Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 30 2015, 09:38 PM
As if they give a sh..
Posted by: JeffG Jan 31 2015, 10:30 AM
I use it myself, but apart from residents, it's really only a rat run. There are other routes.
Posted by: Biker1 Jan 31 2015, 10:38 AM
You'd think that maybe they could open the Racecourse bridge for the duration?
Is it privately owned?
Posted by: On the edge Jan 31 2015, 11:24 AM
I love the term 'rat run'. Are all those people trying to get to work / business / patients all rats? Trouble is, the calendar at WBC has stuck on 1950. I'd love to see some of our more voiciferous councillors try to exist round here, ideally in the outer suburbs with young kids and a standard 9-5 job where there is no subsidised parking. Can't do everything on a bike.
As for planning? Remember the big house to house survey they did in South Newbury, not too long ago, at great expense? Oh, yes, some pre printed postcards to hand out to bus drivers asking them to do their job!!
Yes, Biker, the answer is pretty obvious, but then what's the point, it's only for us rats
and we don't count.
Posted by: Exhausted Jan 31 2015, 12:31 PM
'Rat Run' has got to be one of the more tiresome titles used when discussing routes that drivers take to get to work. If we had reasonably open and direct routes which flowed then the drivers trying to get from A to B to arrive on time wouldn't need to navigate through the back streets. Getting to work on time has to be foremost in one's mind and if a driver can find a regular way through using legitimate roads and streets then that's his/her entitlement. The judgement is can I keep moving at a reasonable pace rather than sitting in a queue of vehicles, engines running and crawling along at less than walking pace.?
Posted by: Biker1 Feb 1 2015, 10:38 AM
Apparently not.
Paul Walter who lives (ed) in Stanley Road led a vociferous campaign some years ago using the local media to highlighting the use of his road as a "rat run".
The result was that the one way system around that area was revised to stop through traffic from using Stanley or Railway Road.
I'm sure the residents of Boundary Road would like to do the same.
Has anyone seen the design of the new bridge?
Will it be wider in order to accommodate more traffic, or will it still be of restrictive width, thus continuing the current congestion? (A sort of replay of the Parkway Bridge saga where an opportunity to improve things was lost!
)
Posted by: JeffG Feb 1 2015, 11:13 AM
I can't imagine that Railtrack (or whoever it is these days) would replace it with a single lane bridge. This isn't WBC, after all.
Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 1 2015, 11:50 AM
It would require buying land. A previous land owner, Mr Ainsworth, was a blocker but he is no-longer with us. I wonder if the bridge will be higher as it is already too tall to see over comfortably.
Posted by: JeffG Feb 1 2015, 05:25 PM
Isn't the rebuild required because it needs to be higher to accommodate the wires?
Posted by: Biker1 Feb 1 2015, 05:43 PM
That's correct.
Doesn't need to be that much higher though. One of the reasons that these bridges have to be replaced is that they are metal which doesn't mix too well with 25KV in close proximity!
They are normally replaced with a concrete structure.
On the plus side is that the footbridge at Newbury station is also to be replaced for the same reason, complete with lifts!!
Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 1 2015, 05:56 PM
Being higher means having more clearance, but that doesn't men the surface has to be higher, but like I said, it is already too high.
Posted by: On the edge Feb 1 2015, 08:59 PM
Some real forward thinking and co-ordination between infrastructure providers going on here isn't there...
It's just that we don't do bridges in West Berkshire; Parkway, Bartholomew Street, Thatcham level crossing. now this one. All too hard to do properly or competently.
Posted by: spartacus Feb 1 2015, 09:19 PM
Will it be wider in order to accommodate more traffic, or will it still be of restrictive width, thus continuing the current congestion? (A sort of replay of the Parkway Bridge saga where an opportunity to improve things was lost!
)I expected better from you Biker1... trying to make out that the bridge replacement would be determined by the local council and that it's another stupid decision by them...
it's not something that a local authority can influence greatly and WBC couldn't support the additional costs that would be needed for a wider bridge of this span and age.. especially when the existing structure is balanced precariously on crumbling earthworks and brickworks - which is the reason for the 3t weight limit (the current iron contraption would probably groan quite a bit if two Land Rover Discoveries were to try crossing at the same time, seeing as they can weigh in at 3.2t each...) Could be interesting if there was to be a bridge collapse with a couple of Chelsea Tractors and their yummy mummies tumbling onto the tracks... You know full well that it's a NR decision and in this location they will only replace 'like for like'. Their definition of 'like for like' will be a bridge that still allows road traffic to cross their lines in the same way. It will be an 'improved bridge' in that it will be better able to accommodate their rail infrastructure and new power cabling and it will be higher to allow their traffic to keep on trundling underneath unhindered..
You're Mr Network Rail on this forum so should know that it's a NR project and much like the whole 'Thatcham level crossing saga' they have no reason to provide a wider bridge.
By 'wider bridge' everyone means a two way bridge. Twice the size then, so a significant increase in cost. A bigger project. A longer project. A project with engineering challenges that don't need to be considered if it's just a like for like single width bridge.
A wider bridge would require additional widening of bridge supports, would require significant engineering and strengthening of ancient embankments and would require land purchase to make it two way on both approaches.
A wider bridge, with the additional necessary engineering, would extend the length of time this bridge replacement project will take. That would impact on their network and timetables.
Why would NR voluntarily take on additional costs in order to improve the lot of people that aren't even their customers?
The fact that traffic is held up for a bit going across it is not their concern as it only affects car users....
Posted by: JeffG Feb 2 2015, 09:01 AM
It's just that we don't do bridges in West Berkshire; Parkway, Bartholomew Street, Thatcham level crossing. now this one. All too hard to do properly or competently.
What's wrong with the Bartholomew Street bridge? As long as you have a rope and grappling hook it's fine.
Posted by: On the edge Feb 2 2015, 11:07 AM
Exactly! The usual 's**d the public' design, they are just paying for it.
Posted by: motormad Feb 2 2015, 03:18 PM
The fact that traffic is held up for a bit going across it is not their concern as it only affects car users....
Because they should have a duty to their area.
Posted by: Exhausted Feb 2 2015, 05:06 PM
Fairly sure that Network Rail will be replacing like for like. When the high level Bart Street bridge was replaced it was a traffic black spot until WBC added the Pound Street traffic lights. The southbound vehicle vision was badly impaired due to the added height putting the mums and kids crossing the road at risk. Somehow, I doubt the railway company funded that. The design for pedestrians walking over the bridge is dreadful and I wonder where our council was when it was installed.
The owner of the Sterling Estate did offer some of the land alongside Boundary Road for improvement to the road width within his development application but not sure where that got to but there isn't. as far as I know, any council money available to put into a bridge widening scheme. What makes the whole Boundary Rd thing a problem waiting to happen is that within the application for the houses on the racecourse estate WBC should have insisted on an Eastern relief road between Racecourse Road and the Hambridge Lane roundabout. As it is, it is to be bollarded half way to prevent it being used as a through route. So Boundary Road will continue to be required even if the Scats to Kings road new road happens.
Be interesting to know what WBC will do for us. They may, once we've got used to it being closed, keep it that way as of course, they did with Marsh Lane and the Parkway bridge.
Posted by: spartacus Feb 2 2015, 07:42 PM
....well I guess Network Rail's area is national, so good luck with getting them to zero in on our patch...
Posted by: Biker1 Feb 2 2015, 10:01 PM
it's not something that a local authority can influence greatly and WBC couldn't support the additional costs that would be needed for a wider bridge of this span and age.. especially when the existing structure is balanced precariously on crumbling earthworks and brickworks - which is the reason for the 3t weight limit (the current iron contraption would probably groan quite a bit if two Land Rover Discoveries were to try crossing at the same time, seeing as they can weigh in at 3.2t each...) Could be interesting if there was to be a bridge collapse with a couple of Chelsea Tractors and their yummy mummies tumbling onto the tracks... You know full well that it's a NR decision and in this location they will only replace 'like for like'. Their definition of 'like for like' will be a bridge that still allows road traffic to cross their lines in the same way. It will be an 'improved bridge' in that it will be better able to accommodate their rail infrastructure and new power cabling and it will be higher to allow their traffic to keep on trundling underneath unhindered..
You're Mr Network Rail on this forum so should know that it's a NR project and much like the whole 'Thatcham level crossing saga' they have no reason to provide a wider bridge.
By 'wider bridge' everyone means a two way bridge. Twice the size then, so a significant increase in cost. A bigger project. A longer project. A project with engineering challenges that don't need to be considered if it's just a like for like single width bridge.
A wider bridge would require additional widening of bridge supports, would require significant engineering and strengthening of ancient embankments and would require land purchase to make it two way on both approaches.
A wider bridge, with the additional necessary engineering, would extend the length of time this bridge replacement project will take. That would impact on their network and timetables.
Why would NR voluntarily take on additional costs in order to improve the lot of people that aren't even their customers?
The fact that traffic is held up for a bit going across it is not their concern as it only affects car users....
Wow!
I consider myself truly
"Mr. Network Rail"? I don't think so.
I know NR have no interest in making the bridge any wider but I just wondered if our local authority may grasp the chance to work with NR to jointly make the improvement?
The chance will not re-occur for some time!
Posted by: spartacus Feb 3 2015, 12:29 AM
I consider myself truly
"Mr. Network Rail"? I don't think so.
Well, you do come across as the NR apologist on here when it comes to complaints over level crossings and hold-ups due to NR signalling incompetence...
The chance will not re-occur for some time!
Agreed that the chance is a one-off. The reality though is that sometimes the money just isn't there to achieve the ideal solution.
I've no idea how much a wider bridge of this span might be over and above the cost of a single width replacement, especially when you factor in the necessary engineering works on embankments etc etc, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ran into seven figures a couple of times. Even with S106 contributions from the Racecourse development I doubt that sort of funding could be found by WBC. From looking on Google Earth it seems that the railtrack configuration at this location is quite different from the Blackboys Bridge area where it squeezes down to allow a fairly narrow span bridge to cross the gap, so it's a lot different as far as bridge type for Boundary Road.
And I think I'm right in saying that our local authority HAVE grasped the chance to jointly make an improvement - of sorts. The bridge WILL be wider. It's just that the extra width is only going to be sufficient to provide a better, wider pedestrian facility and better crossing for cyclists. (all part of their sustainable travel provision commitments which are dictated by central govt). What the improved width can't provide though is a wider footway, a cycle path AND two way traffic....
Posted by: Biker1 Feb 3 2015, 06:01 AM
I am NOT a "NR apologist!" Far from it!
I simply try to correct wrong assumptions and accusations made by some with regard to the subject.
In fact I agree that the majority of delays on the railway are caused by issues with the NR infrastructure. (With the TOC usually getting the blame!)
On the bridge subject - I'm sure I read somewhere that the bridge is to be of a shorter span than the existing one?
Posted by: JeffG Feb 3 2015, 09:11 AM
I agree - some assumptions here about how level crossings work seem pretty uninformed. (Not talking about when they are apparently broken, as reported earlier.)
That brings a whole new meaning to "Mind the gap"! It will be fun watching cars leaping over, Evel Knievel style...
Posted by: On the edge Feb 3 2015, 03:07 PM
Like it or not WBC are the strategic planning authority as such, we their electorate could reasonably expected them to have a coherent and reasonably detailed plan / strategy for communications in the area.
We know there is an issue with traffic flows round the town, because of the bottle necks caused by a strictly limited number of crossings over the railway. We can also reasonably deduce that planned developments both sides will necessarily add to the problem.
So then, WBC have a logical solution; anyone care to let us know what it is?
Posted by: Cognosco Feb 3 2015, 04:34 PM
We know there is an issue with traffic flows round the town, because of the bottle necks caused by a strictly limited number of crossings over the railway. We can also reasonably deduce that planned developments both sides will necessarily add to the problem.
So then, WBC have a logical solution; anyone care to let us know what it is?
WBC won't be able to inform us until the developers have informed them will they?
Posted by: spartacus Feb 3 2015, 06:54 PM
Could be interesting...
I simply try to correct wrong assumptions and accusations made by some with regard to the subject.
I'm sure user (well maybe not user
) and a few others think the same on here when we come in to correct some of the assumptions when there's a thread discussing highways and how the armchair engineers tapping at their keyboards always seem to have a simple solution to all congestion problems in the town...
Posted by: Cognosco Feb 3 2015, 07:24 PM
I'm sure user (well maybe not user
) and a few others think the same on here when we come in to correct some of the assumptions when there's a thread discussing highways and how the armchair engineers tapping at their keyboards always seem to have a simple solution to all congestion problems in the town...Well at least some are trying to come up with some solutions to Newburys' dire traffic problems.....unlike our local Authorities it would seem?
They only seem to say build build build and shove the infrastructure problems under the proverbial carpet.
Posted by: MontyPython Feb 3 2015, 10:06 PM
They only seem to say build build build and shove the infrastructure problems under the proverbial carpet.
Infrastructure costs money whereas new properties mean more council tax paid which funds the t*ssers in Market Street. Hence the club gives planning permission for more properties and anything that will be benefit to themselves and stuff the public.
Posted by: On the edge Feb 3 2015, 10:31 PM
I'm sure user (well maybe not user
) and a few others think the same on here when we come in to correct some of the assumptions when there's a thread discussing highways and how the armchair engineers tapping at their keyboards always seem to have a simple solution to all congestion problems in the town...That's part of the issue, but simply listing issues isn't a solution! Strange that other localities can do far more and far better - after all, armchair engineers would only get their understanding from seeing what has already been done elsewhere, as you imply, they wouldn't have any knowledge or ideas themselves. However, it does add further evidence to the view that WBC is too small a management unit to attract and retain the highest quality resource.
Posted by: spartacus Feb 5 2015, 08:57 PM
Well, it seems we're plainly ill-informed on here and have been fussing over nothing as according to the article in the NWN the bridge IS going to be two way WITH a footway (although it does say 'anticipated')
A small bottleneck will still be in place for a short period on the north side of the bridge until the new Sterling Cables estate is complete and brings a new junction into that area. But once that is sorted we'll have a proper two way crossing over the railway and therefore the current problems of whether you'll be able to see from one side to the other because of the increased hump of the new bridge, will be redundant.
Hooray.....
Posted by: On the edge Feb 5 2015, 09:31 PM
A small bottleneck will still be in place for a short period on the north side of the bridge until the new Sterling Cables estate is complete and brings a new junction into that area. But once that is sorted we'll have a proper two way crossing over the railway and therefore the current problems of whether you'll be able to see from one side to the other because of the increased hump of the new bridge, will be redundant.
Hooray.....
Hooray...seconded!
Perhaps the use of the word 'anticipated' opens up a new approach to planning. 'Yeah I know what the approved apolication said, but the size just turned out to be bigger than anticipated...'
Posted by: Biker1 Feb 6 2015, 08:30 AM
Well that sort of negates most of your comments in post 14 then?
Posted by: spartacus Feb 6 2015, 08:38 AM
It does kinda negate that dig at NR I made... which you so admirably defended
....But let's wait and see shall we.... I have a feeling that due to 'unforeseen circumstances' the 'anticipated' two way bridge may be somewhat narrower than we might hope for.. Happy to be proved wrong.
But then how long before residents of that area start to complain over the increased traffic volume using their roads to access this marvellous feat of engineering and demand some sort of control is introduced
Posted by: On the edge Feb 6 2015, 09:14 AM
....But let's wait and see shall we.... I have a feeling that due to 'unforeseen circumstances' the 'anticipated' two way bridge may be somewhat narrower than we might hope for.. Happy to be proved wrong.
But then how long before residents of that area start to complain over the increased traffic volume using their roads to access this marvellous feat of engineering and demand some sort of control is introduced
Sorry about mixing threads, but again images of Fawlty Towers keep coming to mind. Remember the episode where Basil shows Sybil the new doorway Mr Riley had just installed. It looked perfect.....
Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 6 2015, 01:31 PM
....But let's wait and see shall we.... I have a feeling that due to 'unforeseen circumstances' the 'anticipated' two way bridge may be somewhat narrower than we might hope for.. Happy to be proved wrong.
But then how long before residents of that area start to complain over the increased traffic volume using their roads to access this marvellous feat of engineering and demand some sort of control is introduced
I reckon it'll go one-way!
How funny would that be! A single lane bridge in town that is two way, blocked for normal use, and a two lane bridge that is one-way!
Posted by: On the edge Feb 6 2015, 04:00 PM
How funny would that be! A single lane bridge in town that is two way, blocked for normal use, and a two lane bridge that is one-way!
(Do you have access to confidential info?!!)
Posted by: The Hatter Feb 6 2015, 08:10 PM
Why didn't they just publish the design drawings? There wouldn't have been any argument then.
Posted by: spartacus Feb 7 2015, 11:25 AM
There's a fair amount of dead space on the north side by the look of it just after the central bridge support. Presumably that will be built up so that the new bridge is better able to take weight over 3t
Posted by: Exhausted Feb 7 2015, 04:33 PM
There's a fair amount of dead space on the north side by the look of it just after the central bridge support. Presumably that will be built up so that the new bridge is better able to take weight over 3tThat's the space that was used by the Didcot branch, a Beeching casualty.
I'm still not convinced the replacement will be wide enough for two way vehicles though as Network Rail did say that the replacement would be a like for like. Perhaps things have changed although they are not known for their generosity.
Posted by: motormad Feb 11 2015, 01:42 PM
Funny...I felt it was "NR" Newbury rail.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)