Boundary bridge closure Options

[spartacus]

Wow!
I consider myself truly bollocked admonished!
"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...

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!

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....

[Biker1]

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...

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?

[JeffG]

I am NOT a "NR apologist!" Far from it!

I agree - some assumptions here about how level crossings work seem pretty uninformed. (Not talking about when they are apparently broken, as reported earlier.)

On the bridge subject - I'm sure I read somewhere that the bridge is to be of a shorter span than the existing one?

That brings a whole new meaning to "Mind the gap"! It will be fun watching cars leaping over, Evel Knievel style...

[On the edge]

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?

[Cognosco]

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?

WBC won't be able to inform us until the developers have informed them will they?

[spartacus]

On the bridge subject - I'm sure I read somewhere that the bridge is to be of a shorter span than the existing one?

Could be interesting...

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.

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...

[Cognosco]

Could be interesting...



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.

[MontyPython]

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.

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.

[On the edge]

Could be interesting...



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.

[spartacus]

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.....

[On the edge]

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.....

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...'

[Biker1]

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')

Well that sort of negates most of your comments in post 14 then?

[spartacus]

Well that sort of negates most of your comments in post 14 then?

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

[On the edge]

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

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.....

[Andy Capp]

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

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!

[On the edge]

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!

(Do you have access to confidential info?!!)

[The Hatter]

Why didn't they just publish the design drawings? There wouldn't have been any argument then.

[spartacus]

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

[Exhausted]

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

That'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.

[motormad]

....well I guess Network Rail's area is national, so good luck with getting them to zero in on our patch...

Funny...I felt it was "NR" Newbury rail.