Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Newbury News
Boundary bridge closure |
|
|
|
Jan 31 2015, 11:24 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98
|
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.
--------------------
Know your place!
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 31 2015, 12:31 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320
|
QUOTE (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. '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.?
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 1 2015, 10:38 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103
|
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Jan 31 2015, 02:31 PM) 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. 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! )
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 1 2015, 05:43 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103
|
QUOTE (JeffG @ Feb 1 2015, 07:25 PM) Isn't the rebuild required because it needs to be higher to accommodate the wires? 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!!
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 1 2015, 09:19 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,840
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221
|
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Feb 1 2015, 10:38 AM) 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! ) 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....
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 2 2015, 09:01 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56
|
QUOTE (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. What's wrong with the Bartholomew Street bridge? As long as you have a rope and grappling hook it's fine.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 2 2015, 11:07 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98
|
QUOTE (JeffG @ Feb 2 2015, 09:01 AM) What's wrong with the Bartholomew Street bridge? As long as you have a rope and grappling hook it's fine. Exactly! The usual 's**d the public' design, they are just paying for it.
--------------------
Know your place!
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 2 2015, 03:18 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592
|
QUOTE (spartacus @ Feb 1 2015, 09:19 PM) 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.... Because they should have a duty to their area.
--------------------
:p Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 2 2015, 07:42 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,840
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221
|
QUOTE (motormad @ Feb 2 2015, 03:18 PM) Because they should have a duty to their area. ....well I guess Network Rail's area is national, so good luck with getting them to zero in on our patch...
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 2 2015, 10:01 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103
|
QUOTE (spartacus @ Feb 1 2015, 11:19 PM) 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.... Wow! I consider myself truly bollocked admonished! "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!
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|