Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 28 2011, 08:11 AM

During the election campaign, residents in Thatcham were promised by the Conservative Party that the council would "look far and wide" to come up with a solution to fix congestion around Thatcham Station. They haven't looked that far as they still don't know how much it would cost, but they apparently know enough to say that it will never be resolved.

From the council:

"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."

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2011, 08:18 AM

I could have told everyone that without it being in a manifesto pledge. It's why we haven't got one already. The level crossing is a blight on Thatcham (and Newbury) life though.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 28 2011, 08:41 AM

I just thought that to dismiss an idea, you at least need to know how much it would cost.

Posted by: Bloggo Jun 28 2011, 08:56 AM

The problem is that it would cost the tax payer money to determin the cost of building the bridge when it is pretty much agreed that in the present climate there won't be that funds available anyway.
What the lack of a solution to this traffic pinch point wont do is limit further possible house building in the surrounding area effectively compounding the problem.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2011, 10:07 AM

Even the simplest engineer would tell you the bridge alone would cost millions. Where would the money come to fund a bridge like that on a country road?

Posted by: BMR Jun 28 2011, 10:37 AM

I think it is agreed that with all the water courses, and the lie of the land, building a bridge would be prohibitively expensive.

The real problem is the length of time the level crossing barriers come down before a train passes, and after the train has passed. Traffic is stopped minutes before a train apprears, and if a train stops at the station, before or after passing the level crossing, the barriers remain down until the train is out of sight, and the result is that traffic can be stopped for up to 15 minutes.

In comparison, in Holland, there is a station in Hilversum, Hilversum Parkway, which looks quite similar to Thatcham, in that the station in adjacent to a fairly busy road, with slow and fast trains using the station, some stopping, some not stopping. What is remarkable to a Brit who is used to the way things work in Thatcham, is just how short a time the barriers need to be down for. In Hilversum, it is very rarely more than 30 seconds from the lights warning of an approaching train, to the barriers descending, the train passing, and the barriers ascending. While a train is stopped at the station (before or after passing the level crossing), traffic is allowed to cross the road.

If the rail companies could improve their huge inefficiencies relating to level crossings, there would be no need for a bridge at Thatcham station.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 28 2011, 11:52 AM

Unfortunately barriers will be down longer now the control is being removed from signal boxes to Didcot control. My point really is that it it was always known that nothing can really be done to improve the congestion, why did the Conservatives make such a big thing about it on the doorstep?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2011, 11:53 AM

How long and far does it take a train to stop?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2011, 11:56 AM

Things can be done about the congestion; it just won't mean a bridge. As for why did they make such a big thing about it: you are in politics, I'm sure you know, hence this mischievous thread.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 28 2011, 12:49 PM

The debate has been going on so long there is no sense in running to the expense of a current costing when it is well known from that past work the cost would be too great. Network Rail have no wish to contribute.
It makes sense to not let the matter rest, as some small contributions may be possible and it has to stay on the table for when the pigs fly past and the money does become available for the bridge 'solution'. A solution which, by making the route more usable - will lead to an increase in traffic on the route and subsequent clamoring for restrictions....

One element that has always furrowed my brow is that the barriers come down just after a train leaves Newbury. I appreciate the 125s etc take a long time to stop, but a train moving off from standstill?

I doubt the location of the control centre will make any difference as the system is probably semi-automatic.

I think you are stirring, Mr G, but your lack of knowledge of the background has let you down.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 28 2011, 03:41 PM

The reason they did is was that it would be an amazing delivery if they pulled it off. By promising something you can't deliver, it is bound to bite you on the bum and now it has. I would love to watch the councillors in question go back to those doorsteps and telling residents that nothing can be done, and that has been the Conservative administrations position for years.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 28 2011, 04:41 PM

They looked & there is no solution , seems they have done exactly what they said they would. No-one ever said 'we will sort the problem out'. Classic electioneering.
A bit like offering to look at sorting out the Robin Hood.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2011, 05:03 PM

As if anyone really votes purely on what the manifesto says anyway.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 28 2011, 05:05 PM

The problem is, some people in South Thatcham are actually expecting the bridge to be built based on what they thought they were voting for!!! Even at the station, people say how great it will be once the bridge is built, and when you ask what bridge they say that the council are going to sort out the level crossing by building a bridge!!!

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 28 2011, 05:13 PM

Based on what they thought they were voting for? More fool them then. In that case it is a **** good job Labour didn't win - their mainfesto was full of unrealisable dreams.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 28 2011, 05:31 PM

Deflect, deflect, deflect!!!

EDIT: Where's User???

Posted by: On the edge Jun 28 2011, 05:33 PM

It just seems to be the usual dismissal - without any degree of thought. A bridge does not need to be in exactly the same place as the level crossing, would be fairly expensive granted, but not unaffordable. Particularly if contributions had / were collected from the residential and industrial developments that have been put up over the years. There are many examples of where bridges cross rail and canal all over UK.

As to the barrier timings. I've never understood why the crossings on the old Southern lines through town centres are so much slicker. Today's technology means that the 'dwell time' could be made to suit the train. Timing them to suit 125mph trains is simplistic and frankly arrogance on the railway's part.

Yes, I know trains take a long time to stop - even the wretched clapped out filthy local ones we have. However, arguably the railway authority ought to have thought of that before running 125mph trains through Thatcham on a line designed to take 50mph at most! What would they have said if the Highways Agency redeveloped the road and made it a dual carriage way - and a 70mph limit? Whats sauce for the goose etc.

Will it really be that long before we can start properly developing the national infastructure for groth again? No, not if we reversed the Barnet formula.

Must admit, having business interests in the area I feel pretty angry about this failure and did think the Conservatives would at least do a proper analysis. Sadly no.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2011, 06:02 PM

I grant you the Tories have exploited people's gullibility, but as the road is of low strategic importance, a bridge is never going to happen.

If we never got a bridge in the 'decade of decadence', it ain't going to happen in the 'age of austerity'.

I suppose to be fair, it is reasonable to scrutinise the winning party's manifesto, so that you can hold them to account, but just be careful what you wish for.

Posted by: spartacus Jun 28 2011, 06:37 PM

Having 815 homes now squeezed into the nearby Kennet Heath estate, which was originally given planning permission for 469, doesn't exactly help matters when it comes to 'reasons for local congestion'.

There is I'm sure, a technology solution to this if Network Rail could be persuaded to alter the detection systems which trip the switch to activate the barriers. But as they couldn't care less if drivers had to wait at the crossing for two minutes or twenty (and I've waited at this crossing on more than one occasion for over 25 until I actually managed to get over the lines - I joined the queue at the top of Burys Bank Road!!!!) then there's no reason for them to make the change. Their thoughts and underlying strategy may even revolve around so completely frustrating the average motorist that they consider rail travel as a viable alternative....

They've a long way to go before that happens mind you.


The bridge isn't going to happen in my lifetime. And to make it an even more expensive structure a new bridge (if positioned here outside The Swan pub) would also have to accommodate future plans for higher train carriages. The approach ramps for something that would span the canal, the river and provide clearance over the rail-lines and also allow access into the pub/post office depot would start a few hundred feet back. At the end of the day it's not even an A class road....

Posted by: user23 Jun 28 2011, 06:49 PM

Didn't Labour promise us a referendum on a Mayor for West Berkshire?

They don't need any councillors to make this happen so why hasn't it?

Posted by: On the edge Jun 28 2011, 07:16 PM

It might not be an A road today but tomorrow? Aren't there many many complaints about conjestion and heavy lorries on A4? Isn't the south supposed to be the engine room of the economy? Don't we want employment in Newbury? You really think that investment in leasure centres and road bridges in Shetland good use of your money? Economics of the madhouse.
No wonder its a manisfesto pledge - Newbury doesn't care anyway. Doubles all round!

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 28 2011, 07:38 PM

What deflection?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2011, 07:50 PM

Rightly or wrongly, the UK works on a method of 'wait until something is needed' mentality. Haulage is discouraged from using the Thatcham rail crossing, so there's little sympathy from that group. Sadly.

Perhaps Richard Garvie could organise a sit-in demo on the rail track crossing?

Posted by: user23 Jun 28 2011, 08:04 PM

Unfortunately Richard's points rarely stand up to scrutiny so this is what he has to fall back on.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 28 2011, 08:23 PM

I think that's right locally. In some other places (not many granted) a degree of planning and forsight is applied. Has happened very little in Newbury over many years which is why its 'surprised' that the town has grown so big. Complacent or incompetent, don't know what - just worry about the future.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2011, 08:29 PM

It is the big problem with politics and finance. The people who are on the executives of those activities do-not have to bear the brunt of any problems they might have presided over. It is all too short term. To be fair, there is a Newbury vision, but it is debatable as to the real benefits of that.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 28 2011, 08:38 PM

Richard has a strange style (still).... The original statement he made is flawed, and his chosen caption is not accurate. However, that doesn't matter, as he ignores any attempt to steer him towards anything like truth or accuracy and bangs on about the remnants of his threadbare claim, or berates anyone who dares point out he is mistaken
The case for a bridge over the Kennet is made and will, sometime, be delivered. I doubt it will be for a good few years. It is not a political decision, it is a practical one. Newbury/Thatcham is strangled by the lack of appropriate river crossings. No additional crossings have been built since around 1967 (I don't count the by-pass, as that is a different strategic case).

The engineering to get a span over the railway and the canal, with enough clearance for a train to pass under, involves massive works and huge expense. If not done at the current site the land take (and cost) will be an added cost.

So, fine to say 'something will be done' to keep the idea going. I'm sure any candidate - if asked - would say the same thing.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2011, 09:36 PM

While that might be true, it is also true, in my view (and Richard's), that the Tories were disingenuous with their manifesto comment.

Posted by: user23 Jun 28 2011, 09:41 PM

I can't see anything about it in http://westberksconservatives.yourcllr.com/files/2011/04/WEST-BERKSHIRE-COUNCIL-CONSERVATIVES-MANIFESTO-20112.pdf, can you?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2011, 11:02 PM

You are right.

Richard: if it ain't in the manifesto, then no dice, it ain't a promise.

So we can all go home now.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 29 2011, 08:13 AM

Maybe they have edited their manifesto like the Lib Dems did after originally launching it online??? I have the leaflet for Thatcham West sitting in front of me.

Anyway, the quoted section put in the OP is from a council FOI response, so that is the official council line. They are saying it, I simply asked what they had done to look at the project and what the viability and cost would be.

The fact is, the council have said that the bridge is unlikely to ever be built. Very different to the promises made on the doorstep and in election materials throughout Thatcham.

Posted by: Bloggo Jun 29 2011, 08:25 AM

Of course Labour has never reneged on a promise has it.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 29 2011, 08:32 AM

They looked far & wide - which was the 'pledge' - & there is no likely or probable solution.

What would you rather be told - that it was still work in progress?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 29 2011, 09:52 AM

There has been no such work since the election. What we know now is what the council knew way before the election. In other words, the Conservative Party must have known before the election that the project was a dead duck, yet their candidates were talking it up prior to the election.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 29 2011, 10:02 AM

You know this as fact?

Posted by: James_Trinder Jun 29 2011, 11:49 AM

Well, you'd have to be an idiot not to know in advance that nothing could practically be done about this so the Conservative candidate who pledged to look into this is either an idiot or a liar. The people who voted for him/her on the basis of this pledge should also display a bit more common sense.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 29 2011, 12:14 PM

I was remarking on RG's rather sweeping claim that he knew they had been no such work sin ce the election.

Politicians make all kinds of claims prior to elections.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 29 2011, 01:09 PM

And we should simply accept that and move on?

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 29 2011, 01:17 PM

LOL - are you for real?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 29 2011, 02:40 PM

Are you really accepting that politicians should make promises and break them? Isn't this why politics is already in the gutter?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 29 2011, 02:56 PM

You are at best naive Richard if you don't realise that most voters are aware that ALL politicians are compulsive liars. You would not stand a chance of getting elected if you told the truth. The average Joe Thicko could not handle it.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 29 2011, 03:19 PM

I just find it rather hilarious that someone who was making rather a lot of pre election promises which would never have been kept has the temerity to berate another party for doing the same.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 29 2011, 03:26 PM

We could have delivered our manifesto, we knew what we had to do to achieve each goal. The fact is, we worked with members and the public to come up with a document that represented what the people of the district wanted. Anything that was not deliverable was left out of scaled back.

Back to the Tories, a bridge could have been built if the developers of Kennet Heath and Colthrop had been asked to contribute as part of their planning conditions. Once again, just another example of the council failing to have any foresight or carry out proper impact studies.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 29 2011, 03:26 PM

Rubbish - If a train stops at the station AFTER it has passed the crossing the barriers raise.
If they remain down another train is coming.

So you think that a 100 ton train approaching a level crossing should have vehicles and pedestrians allowed across in front of it?
As above, after a train has passed, the barriers raise immediately UNLESS another train is coming.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 29 2011, 03:31 PM

We'll never ever know will we?




LOL, even more daft ideas. Which one are you - Pisthetairos or Euelpides

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 29 2011, 03:39 PM

Most of the lines on the "Southern" are much slower than those through Thatcham.
The lines through Thatcham are 110mph.
The signalling has to be designed to cater for this speed which means they also have to handle the 90mph "clapped out" ones and the many freights. Signals are at a fixed distance.

The line is designed to take 110mph trains.
I don't know of any 70mph dual carriageways with a level crossing!

Posted by: user23 Jun 29 2011, 04:32 PM

Richard, where's the Mayoral Election that Labour promised us?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 29 2011, 05:01 PM

We promised a referendum, and we will deliver one.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 29 2011, 05:03 PM

Maybe daft to you and the powers that be here, but we should be planning ahead and delivering infrastructure funded by developers as part of new developments like other local authorities do.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 29 2011, 05:31 PM

Planning ahead is one thing, expecting developers to fund multimillon pound road projects is another.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 29 2011, 05:38 PM

I'd suggest that getting industry to fund a bridge would also make them stake holders in the route. A route many see as a dangerous short-cut exploited by heavy goods vehicles.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 29 2011, 05:59 PM

Could the route between Thatcham Station and Greenham Park not be upgraded then?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 29 2011, 06:00 PM

Happens elsewhere.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 29 2011, 06:23 PM

Anything is possible, but now we have mission creep.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 29 2011, 06:32 PM

So there is no reason why trains through Thatcham shouldn't go slower. The line was designed in the 1850's when speeds were very much slower - nothing much has changed in infrastructure terms. You are quite right about dual carriageways, so why weren't they eliminated when the higher speed trains were introduced? Please don't tell me that the railways actually need such speed. Like it or not, the roads are our commercial arteries and these are becoming blocked locally. Is that what we want a slow economic death?

Appreciate if a bridge was built, that would put pressure on doing something about the road network beyond - big picture again.

Have said it before, will say it again, this wouldn't be tolerated 'oop North' so why here - where we actually generate the wealth?

Posted by: user23 Jun 29 2011, 06:53 PM

Go on then, name a date or you're as guilty of what you accuse the Conservatives of.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 29 2011, 07:01 PM

Examples please.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 29 2011, 07:03 PM

You mean remove the 7.5 tonne weight limit on Thornford Rd. That is what is stopping HGVs using the route you suggest as a rat run.

Posted by: spartacus Jun 29 2011, 07:55 PM

That weight limit was spawned from the loins of Owen Jefferey and Terry Port.... (what a thought..) Terry went yonks ago and now Owen has been ousted... What are the thoughts of the new Tory incumbents Dominic Boeck and Roger Croft?

Dominic and Roger are virtually neighbours and live off Agricola Way so should have a good idea of the impact on traffic in the immediate area....

Posted by: spartacus Jun 29 2011, 08:02 PM

As McEnroe might say........... You CANNOT be serious....!!

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 29 2011, 08:40 PM

Ha!! Richard, you really must research the history of south Thatcham highway matters. Ask about T4. Investigate the opinions of the residents about the increased traffic an upgraded road would bring. Look at the extensive research into the engineering and costing of the bridge over many, many years.
Coming in with a fresh mind can be good. Coming in spouting claptrap and ignoring things that have already been done makes you look like someone who will promise/say anything for a bit of publicity...

Posted by: On the edge Jun 29 2011, 08:53 PM

The opinions of residents Ha! don't seem to count for much on other road improvements. Extensive research into engineering and costings over many many years. Really? Where? nothing in library and nothing ever mentioned in press? Spouting claptrap - do pots recognise kettles?!!!

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 29 2011, 09:12 PM

So, so wrong......


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

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 29 2011, 09:41 PM

I'm only asking questions. The Tories promised a solution, I'm simply speculating now. It's clear that nothing will be done under this council, and it would appear we missed the only option we had when Kennet Heath and Colthrop were built.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 29 2011, 09:48 PM

Actually, you were making statements. The candidates did not, according to your words, promise a solution; only to investigate finding one.

The cost of the bridge far exceeded any 106 money possibly available, and would not gain central government (Labour, then) approval because of various criteria failings.

The local community have fought against increased use of Crookham Hill over the years. People do not want to wait at the crossing, but they don't want the downsides a bridge would bring either.

The matter should remain on the horizon, but not the current agenda, IMHO.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 29 2011, 09:49 PM

No, they promised they'd look into a solution. You seem to assume this solution would be a bridge.


Yes you are speculating. You're very good at that.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 29 2011, 09:55 PM

I ask them what solutions they had looked at, and posted their response.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 29 2011, 10:01 PM

The scraping sound is the goalposts moving as RG struggles to maintain a case where none exists......

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 29 2011, 10:06 PM

What are you on about? It's the council who have said nothing can be done, I'm just publishing what they said!!!

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 29 2011, 10:07 PM

The candidates said they would look far and wide for a solution?

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 29 2011, 10:07 PM

No - you are trying to accuse the Tory council of reneging on an election pledge. They haven't.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 29 2011, 10:39 PM

Richard: what are Labour in Thatcham doing about Thatcham level crossing congestion?

I think you are right to bring discrepancies like this to the fore. But if you are going to do this, you have to look at your own party's stance on the subject, and also not fall into the trap of making promises in publications that you cannot keep either.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 29 2011, 10:49 PM

Our view is that a bridge is the only solution, but it would have to be funded by development contributions. If those contributions cannot be found, then we simply can't have the bridge. We didn't promise people on the doorstep, our big election pledge for that ward was to work with residents to get insurance costs down by bringing insurers to the flood defenses and drains to show that the risk of flooding is significantly less than before, and to see what additional work is required to satisfy them.

Residents do want the congestion resolved, but it's not the only big issue in that ward / part of town.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 29 2011, 11:12 PM

I suggest the first thing to do would be to get data on waiting times compared to train movement times and see if the waiting time could be reduced. It might be worth while having an expected waiting time display, a bit like the tube in London has. Some of the frustration is the waiting without knowing what the expect wait will be. Although this doesn't actually help residents who are blighted by the crossing.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jun 30 2011, 07:14 AM

I think the best idea so far is to optimise crossing barriers to type of train if it can be done. I know it happens in europe, but whether Network Rail would invest in this for a standalone crossing is unlikely, let alone the whole line.

What would you do with the sign, put it by the roundabout or closer to the crossing gates? Problem with this idea is the road layout. If the signs were at the barriers, most of traffic stuck at peak times wouldn't see them, so do you then have multiple signs?

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 30 2011, 08:11 AM

Why don't you make a pledge to the residents of Thatcham to 'look far & wide' into this & then report your findings?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 30 2011, 09:10 AM

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 30 2011, 09:13 AM

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 30 2011, 09:38 AM

I'm sure there could be an 'app for that'!

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 30 2011, 02:48 PM

Yes, I had to laugh at that statement!!

Don't understand OTE's logic - if the trains went slower then surely the barriers would be down longer?

I'd like to see the reaction from the Kennet Valley commuters - "Sorry but the trains are going to go slower to help the people on the road at the crossing in Thatcham so we will be taking much longer to get you to London."

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 30 2011, 03:16 PM

slower trains take less time to stop, so you can leave the barriers up longer.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 30 2011, 03:21 PM

Not my logic but yours!

You mentioned that the Southern trains (Egham and places) didn't have such big issues because they went slower. However, to sopell it out in technical terms, if the trains went slower, the time it takes them to stop would be far less and therefore the barriers would not need to be down so long. Unless, of course, railway engineers found adjusting the sensors 'too hard'.

Would there really be an outcry from the rail passengers? After all, they seem quite content to travel in dirty, clapped out, over crowded trains day after day without making too much fuss. Even the rail Regulator isn't that bothered. They didn't even squeak when the fares when up well above inflation recently.

Presumably its quite OK to slow slow down road traffic with additional roundabouts and bus turnings etc. etc etc. so just applying same logic to rail passengers.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 30 2011, 05:45 PM

You would have to re-signal the line so that they were closer to the crossing and more frequent. This would mean that ALL trains would be slower. It's nothing to do with "sensors" it's to do with braking distance. (Thatcham level crossing is controlled manually - not with sensors.)
The crossing barriers are kept down for the minimum time possible taking into consideration the speed and signalling of the line.

I find it unbelievable that we have a suggestion to make our railway slower just for the sake of a bridge, and yes there would be very loud remonstrations from passengers if it were to be even suggested by Network Rail.

The problem is that the road has become increasingly busy as Thatcham has grown. It is only a C - class road carrying A - road traffic.
When the railway was built the road was probably a dirt cart track.
Nothing has been done about a replacement for the level crossing (mainly because of the arguments as to who should pay for it), and the by-pass was built on the wrong side of Newbury.
Having said that people wait at level crossings all over the country. They are a fact of life.
Waiting times vary but on high speed lines all are as long as Thatcham and some are on "A" roads.

OTE, according to the http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/research/nps/content.asp?dsid=2913 you are in a minority with the opinion of "dirty" and "clapped out"
Notwithstanding that I do not dispute that the quality of rail travel needs improvement but we seem to have settled for a profit - making private industry suffering from lack of investment.
The trains are getting older but they are not "clapped out".
As for cleanliness - blame the habits of some of those that use them.
FGW has a rigorous cleaning regime at its depots but it is a losing battle against dirt and graffiti often caused by those on late night trains.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 30 2011, 05:52 PM

you got it.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 30 2011, 08:14 PM

Given that there are no more than minor grumbles about the state of the railway and its rip off fares, I hardly think that adding to the journey times would cause any more disturbance.

Perhaps my personal standards are higher than train users. However, the fact remains the trains are filthy and clapped out. Anyone with a basic engineering knowledge can hear the engines strain as they pull away from every station. Been in any of the lavatories lately? Seen the state of the seats recently? Then try looking under them? Ugggh. Don't know about you, but its not how I'd like to be. And I don't blame really blame the customers - after all even McDonalds manages to keep very clean on a low profit margin.


As to the NPS survey - who did they contact? Was it the lady who was on a train, canvassing passengers to 'answer a few questions - then quickly departing - without taking notes when the going got heavy Oooh we can only collect answers to the questions we ask! Question 1 - Was your train journey Excellent, Very good, Quite acceptable, Adequate? Where was intolerable!!!

Granted the passengers can't go anywhere else. I don't blame FGW - they are simply trying to extract as much cash as they can, straightforward capitalisim. However, its unacceptable and wrong in a monopoly situation. I blame the Regulator - who is extracting a large sum claiming to represent the passengers - which demonstrably he doesn't

The fact is, the crossing barriers should be dropped dependent on the train and its speed NOT just where its passed a fixed point. Those devices were out of date in 1930s.

Posted by: Strafin Jul 1 2011, 06:43 AM

When are we gwtting the mayoral referendum that you promised Richard?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jul 1 2011, 07:17 AM

Hopefully in May. The target date for handing in the petition is September if we want a May referendum.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 1 2011, 07:22 AM

The engines were designed to run this type of train up to 90mph and could go above. They have always sounded the same since new. It is probably the hydraulic transmission they use to maximise revs. & power that makes them sound as if they are straining.

Yes, disgusting - like the people who use them.


Recently re-covered.

I do!


I am not going to argue any more over the ludicrous suggestion that the nations' trains should be slowed to save drivers a few seconds at level crossings.
To implement this would be cost prohibitive - far cheaper to bridge over the crossings.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jul 1 2011, 07:32 AM

As pointed out before, the signalling could be upgraded but it's unlikely that Thatcham or the Kennet line would be a priority. For trains, the arrangement already works well and unless somebody give Network Rail money to upgrade the crossing and signalling to reduce the time barriers are down, the only other option is a bridge.

Posted by: blackdog Jul 1 2011, 07:42 AM

As they are planning to electrify the line to Newbury won't they update the signalling then?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jul 1 2011, 02:57 PM

You woukld like to think so, but the upgrades needed that were discussed earlier in this thread are not common place on the |UK railway network if they are in the UK at all.

For the railway buffs, is it not possible to insert a new signal between Aldermaston and Thatcham and between Thatcham and Racecourse so that Turbo's have a trigger point for the barriers and 125's have the existing trigger point?

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 1 2011, 06:46 PM

As the track is owned by one company, the rolling stock by another & the trains run by a third, I doubt this is possible......

Unless we go back to accepting that national transportation based around the railway is a system which can only be run at Government level, then rail travel will, in the UK, forever be a third class system run only for the good of sharehloders.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jul 1 2011, 07:05 PM

Yes, TOC's lease rolling stock from the rolling stock providers, but none of this would come into it. Signalling, track and railway infrastructure is all run by Network Rail, and it would be Network Rail who would need to install it. As the rest of the UK didn't even get the ATP system which is on the GWR route, I don't hold out much hope for a level crossing in Thatcham. A bridge is the only real option I would say, but then it comes down to where the money would come from.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 1 2011, 08:21 PM

Yes of course it is. There are also much cheaper and much safer options using relatively inexpensive and fail safe radio control equipment. That costs money and so the 1970s time expired stuff remains. Whilst the railway operators can get away without spending they will - thats basic Adam Smith stuff. So again, a Regulatory fail. I don't think dwell time at crossings is even measured.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 1 2011, 08:39 PM

As our mechanical engineering tutor used to say 'If it sounds wrong it is wrong'. You are probably right about the transmission, but again, running at maximum rather than optimum means under powered or clapped out in my book. Do you know any car driver who has to put their foot flat on the floor simply to keep moving?

So its the passengers fault! Odd that, these are the self same people who go shopping in Newbury, eat in local restaurants, live in the local streets near you, yet when they board a train, they turn into filthy vandals! Ptresumably most of the FGW train staff have reasonable eyes and ears? I'm also trying to work out how some dirty passenger managed to spray a light coating of soot on the window reveals - which on one train has been there for months.

Finally, you must also find road traffic calming measures similarly ludicrous? All those daft speed restrictors on M25 to Keith Woodham's bus diversion on A4.

All I can think is that if you see this as good service, wish I had you as a customer!

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 2 2011, 06:21 AM

No it is not the same people - it is the filthy, drug taking scrotes who travel for nothing.
And yes, there should be staff on trains to prevent this happening.

Yes I do.

I have never aid that the railways always give good service and, I agree, leave a lot to be desired.
All I try to do is put forward the facts when I feel that things are being stated incorrectly and out of perspective.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jul 2 2011, 04:02 PM

We should give the Railways to Virgin to look after, they do a brilliant job. I still can't believe they had cross country taken away.

Posted by: user23 Jul 2 2011, 04:26 PM

We should give the railways to Virgin?

Surely they should pay for the privileged?

Posted by: On the edge Jul 2 2011, 04:50 PM

I have to say, I've never seen any 'filthy drug taking scrotes' and certainly no one without a ticket. Perhaps I'm on the wrong trains. However, as you say, there are staff on these trains, so given the extent of the problem and the time its been like this - what on earth have they been doing? Presumably when trains are taken to the depot for 'maintenance and cleaning' some sort of activity takes place?

You disagree with the barriers to road transport. Then its logical that you'd be against barriers to rail! All I've done is to suggest that both modes of transport should be treated the same way. What incorrect facts have been used and how are things out of perspective?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jul 2 2011, 06:57 PM

Stop being pedantic, you know what I mean. Give them the franchises.

Posted by: On the edge Jul 2 2011, 07:13 PM

Can we have Clause 4 back please Richard - all is forgiven!

Posted by: user23 Jul 3 2011, 07:46 AM

Right, so you were talking about franchises rather than the whole railway network.

If we were going to give one company a monopoly on rail franchises and give them to that company for free wouldn't we be better nationalising the service again? At least then the taxpayer would make money from the service rather than a private company.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 3 2011, 07:56 AM

Yes, you must be

No, I said staff should be on the trains - there are non, apart from AM for a short while.

Yes I am

Too many to mention!

Posted by: On the edge Jul 3 2011, 03:23 PM

Wow. Seriously, I really would love customers like you - two months and I'd have enough to retire!

Posted by: On the edge Jul 3 2011, 04:12 PM

Late breaking news - I've just shown this thread to an old couple I've been sitting with on one of these trains. Simply, because they've been complaining about the smell ever since we left Paddington. I won't repeat their responses - save to say, yet again no 'filthy drug taking scrotes' anywhere in evidence! As one of my fellow passengers said 'What's the point of complaining when the Rail staff get back up like that'. Thanks anyway - good debate.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jul 3 2011, 07:03 PM

Give them a break and move somewhere else then.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 3 2011, 07:40 PM

I can assure you I can be a nasty customer
Yet again IU say - I am not trying to defend the railways as they leave a lot to be desired and I do complain.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 3 2011, 07:41 PM

Like you so correctly said - you are on the wrong trains!

Posted by: On the edge Jul 3 2011, 08:03 PM

Quite so - the old boy was seriously into Tic tac mints if that's what they really were!

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jul 3 2011, 09:31 PM

Perhaps we should, if it would make a profit

(Hint: the railways have always been a drain on the public purse since they were first nationalised)

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 4 2011, 07:14 AM

Quite correct - as have the roads!
They are a public service - like the NHS.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jul 4 2011, 05:36 PM

Virgin deliver a better service than what I remember of British Rail, plus Virgin deliver massive revenue for the Government in franchise payments. Compare the cross country franchise between British Rail and what Virgin delivered = No Contest.

Virgin and Chiltern are the only franchise operators who do a half decent job, and Chiltern has gone to the dogs a bit since DB Shenker took it on. I'd be up for nationalisation, but I'd prefer social enterprise / co-op run railways where revenue is reinvested in infrastructure and rolling stock.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jul 4 2011, 05:41 PM

Clause four is way before my time!!! That being said, clause four was the basis of David Milibands leadership bid: Power, Wealth and opportunity for the many, not the few. That is what Labour should be about.

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 4 2011, 05:56 PM

Franchise payments! LOL. These will be the payments made by Virgin to Network rail, payments they can only make after being given a whacking great Government subsidy.

Far, far better to just cut Virgin etc etc out of the loop entirely.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 4 2011, 06:12 PM

BR was hardly a shining light, with all their strikes.

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 4 2011, 07:55 PM

Oh, but it was so cheap!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jul 4 2011, 10:20 PM

No, TOC's (Virgin / Great Western etc.) pay Network Rail track access charges. They also pay the Government for having the franchise. Some franchises are loss making or have loss making routes, but most pay a premium to the Government coffers. East Coast pays £1bn over the life of it's franchise, and both Virgin and Great Western are up for renewal in the next 18 months or so. Expect similar payments to the Government over the duration of both new franchises.

Wasn't it the Tories who decided to privatise anyway???

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 5 2011, 12:36 AM

Yes I realise this RG - Problem is the tocs can't afford the spiraling costs passed onto them, so the have to go cap in hand & ask for a subsidy. Over the course of the 5 year holding of its franchise Virgin will trouser £1.4bn in state handouts that will be given to Network Rail.

Posted by: dannyboy Jul 5 2011, 12:37 AM

And?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 5 2011, 03:53 AM

Was it? Would it have been?

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 5 2011, 08:27 AM

Yes, blame them.
It was they who designed and built the HST's and "clapped out" trains that we have on our line now!
Come to think of it, it was BR who designed and built the current signalling and delay times at Thatcham level crossing too!

Posted by: CharlieF Jul 8 2011, 12:37 PM

All the railway crossings and bridges are set to be replaced when the line is electrified, this is because the plant required will be unable to access the works area without new access routes in - just look at the hideous 'road' built for access to the construction of the tiny little Monkey Bridge.

The new crossings will not be paid for out of local taxes or even Section 106 money, but will 'unlock' local development, like the Market Street / Station development, Bonemill Lane etc, allowing infill to the areas up to the bypass, that have only escaped development so far because of the inaccessibility..

All of which renders any manifesto pledges on the subject a bit silly.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 8 2011, 05:15 PM

Bridges only where necessary if they are not high enough to take the wires.
The crossings will still be the same in the same place. (except they will be controlled from Didcot rather than local boxes).

The plant required will access the sites, in the main, by rail.

Posted by: CharlieF Jul 8 2011, 06:02 PM

Over a hundred bridges & tunnels are scheduled for demolition and rebuilding on the Great Western Mainline between Maidenhead and Bristol for the electrification project. And crossings are either to be lowered to accommodate the overheads or for new crossings over to support the overheads to be constructed.


You're thinking of the http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8164942.stm of the power lines rather than the facilitation works of the bridges, tunnels and crossings.

That said of course it's all been put on the back burner a bit.

Posted by: Biker1 Jul 8 2011, 06:05 PM

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the line from Reading to Newbury?
No crossings need to be lowered and few bridges need replacing.
(Anglers need to be careful when crossing on foot with their carbon rods though!)

Posted by: CharlieF Jul 8 2011, 07:05 PM

We are talking about the route though Newbury and they are scheduled.

But the electrification goes a wee bit further. Wales has been axed though.

Posted by: spartacus Jul 8 2011, 07:51 PM

We are actually talking (in this thread origin anyway) specifically about the Thatcham level crossing. No tunnel needed there. No 'new bridge' that could be justified as part of the 'electrification project'. Wires will just be strung across the existing crossing point....

What happens east or west of the level crossing may be an entirely different matter.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 8 2011, 08:21 PM

Whatever......
I suspect many of the bridges will be footbridges in any case, so not always a major feat of Brunellian engineering.....

Could be work for travellers, I suppose?

Posted by: CharlieF Jul 9 2011, 12:57 PM

If and when the electrification goes ahead it's my understanding that the Thatcham crossing is scheduled for modification involves making good the approachs on both sides and remodelling the station area. And no-one in their right mind would plan any locally generated alterations (like a new crossing or bridge) without dovetailing into the main electrification project for economies of scale and minimising of distruption.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jul 11 2011, 10:49 AM

We are not on the Bristol line, electrication will only take place between Newbury and Reading on our branch. I think four bridges are going to need alterations.