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.

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.

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

Build a bridge.

where ? how ?

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?

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?

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

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...

'Council admit election pledge is unworkable' linky thing
Newbury Weekly News Article

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 Dominic Boeck and Roger Croft!!

Take the applause......

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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....

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.

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.

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....

Thatcham Vision linky thing

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).

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.....

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."

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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....

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......

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!

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.

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.

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.

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 Class 319)
The ONLY solution is a bridge and I don't need £12,000 to tell you that!

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

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?

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.

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!!!

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.

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?

Now that would be a waste of money.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.