Great Western Coffee Shop

From the Wokingham Times (http://www.getwokingham.co.uk/news/s/2081923_plaque_marks_place_in_history_for_1880s_listed_footbridge):

Even when that was posted, there was talk about the bridge being in a poor state - not painted for ages, so rusting away, as well as other disintegrations. Yesterday I passed a huddle of NR staff talking about doing things to the bridge, though coudn't overhear what things.

Well, it seems I missed the fact that NR put in a planning application (actually for listed building consent) for work to restore the bridge, as long ago as 23rd July. That was in the local papers, but only this week - from the "Wokingham" News (https://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/news/18706159.national-rail-applies-repair-wokingham-station-footbridge/):

The consultation period ended today, and the application is number 2018130 (https://planning.wokingham.gov.uk/FastWebPL/detail.asp?AltRef=201830&ApplicationNumber=201830&AddressPrefix=&Postcode=&KeywordSearch=&Submit=Search). The work proposed is to generally repair and replace the steel, wood, and masonry, and repaint in the "original colour" - though no-one knows what that was.

I had not realised that when it was last repaired in the 1980s some of the rails were replaced with new old ones. In the documentation there are a couple of old SER drawings, showing that it was originally either put up on the other side of the road, or that was intended but changed before erection. . And if you were wondering how that would fit in with the signal box, the current one had not been built - there was one on the station corner of the road, and another by the junction. There was also a gatekeeper''s cottage further from the road.

It's also clear that the impression often given - that it was knocked up by a couple of workmen out of rails they found lying about - is untrue. It was drawn up in the engineering office, and the curved rails would have been bent to radius using machined in the workshops.

Let's hope it fares better than Taplow's. At least the line is already electrified.

The inspection report (really just a few annotated diagrams) notes "100% section loss to a former cable service duct" - which is a bit mysterious. Is it a former cable - so the hole in the duct hardly matters - or a former duct, in which case "100% section loss" means it's not there any more?

Also "existing service trunking is in good condition". I should hope so too: it was only put there in 2016 to carry all the cables to the traffic lights on the south-east side. That's not a railway matter, of course, but you can see why running cables under the line is not desirable. That raises a further question: what services do sometimes run under the line at a level crossing? At this one, I know there is a Victorian foul sewer - they don't like to take long detours, and uninverted syphons are not much use for street drains. What else might there be?

The planning application was refused, based on an officer's report, and without going to committee. The officer's assessment report complains about lack of details of the work (I suspect the answer to that is "it depends what we find when we take bits off") and citing an out of date version of the NPPF. And of course there's the plastic wood for the treads and decking - "inappropriate", and in any case the inspection report said they were in "fair condition". They even want to keep the soot, as "potential[ly] of
historic significance both physically and visually"!

So the ball's back in NR's park. And the councillors are bickering about why it wasn't called into committee (though obviously that would not have changed the decision).

Oh dear - the future shape of the country we live in is shaped by the planning system that produces decisions like this. And don't pin any hopes on the reforms the government is currently consulting on either. I recently viewed one of the top advisers on a video conference telling his audience that the "beauty" agenda is not concerned with external appearance........

Of the politicians?

Well, Network Rail have taken some bits off to see what's there. I don't think this is called non-destructive testing.

This morning I got another of those "dear neighbour" letters from Network Rail, saying they were starting work today on the footbridge. Now, I already knew there was a further planning application, as there was a notice on the station, but that only went in a few days ago. And when I went out this afternoon, the bridge was closed and scaffolding was going up.

On the WBC site there is indeed a new application (and why, I ask myself, is there no linkage at all between related applications listed on there?). It says received 7/12/20 but registered only on 5/1/21 (for some reason), with a consultation open 6/1/21 to 4/2/21.  And the work runs 14/1/21 to 23/3/21 - how come?

Well, the work described looks pretty identical to what was proposed before, with just one big change - steps and decking in real hardwood rather than plastic imitation wood. As that was the only reason given for rejection, and the changes were done in consultation with the planners (and notably the heritage officer), I'm sure they are confident it will pass. But still ...

I did find what looks like an attempted explanation of this timing overlap, but I have no idea what it means. What do you think?

Incidentally, the contractors are (from the letter reference) Nationwide Engineering, STB, and "RAM Structures" (sic). Nationwide (of Amesbury) have just started a new framework contract for small works, and presumably are in charge. Ram Services Ltd (of Burnley) will I suspect be doing the paint - er, sorry, coatings. STB I'm not sure about, but someone is doing the scaffolding. However the only STB scaffolders I can find are in Singapore, which is a bit far even for NR's contracts people to go.

In plain English, I think that means "we don't think we need planning permission because there is an old private act of parliament allowing us to do the work and we simply need the authority to see and approve the plans (as a simple approval, not a planning approval). In case we are wrong we are making a planning application anyway".

I would guess the private act of parliament was whatever act permitted the line to be built in the 19th century. If it is very cold and wet tomorrow I might go on line to try to find it!

I won't have any pictures taken from the footbridge for a while - nor any of the fettlers at work on it either. It's been entirely Christoed! But not hermetically - there are holes you can see in through, so no doubt some of the paint dust will be able to get out. The wrappers were EnviroWrap, who also did both Tamar bridges (among other large objects). I'm not sure what competitors they have in this business (which I think is called environment protection and containment), but they could be in line to do the screens at Bristol Temple Meads.

All that means workers in full PPE, who will need somewhere to change and shower. So down by the car park two big grey cabins have appeared. One is from Welfare Hire (their Eco10 design), containing an office, kitchen and crew room, WC, and drying room. It's autonomous - no mains services at all. The other is anonymous, and it does have mains and water supplied - so that is presumably for taking off the PPE and cleaning up (the row of big red Biffa megabins too).

But the only drainage I can see for it is a pipe from the height of a basin drain to a surface water drain. So - assuming there are showers in there - I wonder what happens to that water; does go into a tank as it has to be carted away for decontamination?

I suspect that water from showers would be considered low risk, and fit to be discharged into a sewer without any special treatment.

But, as in most car parks, there is no foul sewer to attach to - and on-one has been digging holes. Even a basin drain isn't meant to discharge as surface water, though I suspect it would be tolerated for a case like this.

Does Wokingham have a dual sewerage system (foul and storm)?

I do not know, but in some areas foul sewage and less dirty surface water go into the same system. This has the merit of simplicity with only one system of drains to maintain. The drawback is greater sewage treatment capacity needed.
In such circumstances shower water could be discharged into a surface water drain with little concern.

In other places, foul and surface water have seperated systems. Foul water is thoroughly treated before being discharged to a river or the sea.
Surface water is treated only basicly, or not at all, before discharge to sea or river.
Surface water in such cases should be regarded with some suspicion since it may contain a little foul matter. The odd WC may have been incorrectly connected to a surface water drain. And of course dogs, horses, and exceptionaly humans, relieve themselves in the street with the waste ending up in the surface water.
Shower water should not be discharged to a surface water drain such circumstances, though it MIGHT be considered acceptable in the short term.

Thames Water do have big surface water sewers, mainly for the roads, and one runs close to the car park. Where that leads I don't know - there is another one that does the obvious, and runs down the main road, but this one goes cross-country and actually runs right under those cabins.

So that end of the new road, and the car park (before and after up-storeying), drain into that 975 mm SW sewer. There are no houses along Station Approach (aka Link Road), so it has no foul sewer along it - the station has its own drain going the other way, to Station Road.

The terminology is a bit confusing - are there really some places with surface water sewers separate from road drainage? And practice varies a lot too.  Whether a surface water sewer discharges to a watercourse (the Emm Brook would be the nearest here) or into a foul sewer is another question altogether.

Some definitions

A sewer intended to transport both foul sewage and surface water is a combined sewer. 
A sewer intended to transport only foul sewage is a foul sewer
A sewer intended to transport only surface water is a surface water sewer
A pipe transporting only surface water from roads is technical a highway drain and is not a sewer at all. 

I could go on, as I could write a whole book on it - well I have written a whole chapter of a book on it. 

The confusion goes further. Over the decades the responsibility for sewers has changed hands. One upon a time it was the old borough, rural and urban districts. After the 1974 local government reorganisation it passed to the new second tier authorities before being transferred to the new privatised water and sewer companies under the Water Industry Act 1991.

The old local authorities had varying standards of record keeping and supervision of drainage works. An extreme example was when much of Caversham passed from Henley Rural District Council to the County Borough of Reading in the 1920s there were almost no records kept to pass over, so even in the 1980s Reading Borough Council did not know where many of Caversham's sewers ran. Prior to 1974 the highways and sewerage authority were often the same, so the distinction between surface water sewers and highway drains seems to have not been something that many councils saw as important.

In the vicinity of railways there are also drains constructed as accommodation works when the railways were built too. Who know what has been connected into them since the nineteenth century.

The categories set out by Ellendune is I think clear. The problem is finding out what the sewers actually do if they are old, rather than modern sewers laid out under agreements with the sewer undertakers.

Perhaps this subject and the new siding could be merged, called interesting things at Wokingham. yes drains and sidings, with the re instatement of existing mechanical signalling from the levers in the signal box IS good to learn about, if that is what is afoot?

I can't see why - it's not as if either board is particularly full of threads. However, it does look a bit odd that they are not on the same board. I guess that just happens if boards are labelled for services, and two run through Wokingham station.

Incidentally, the crew support module has disappeared, as have all the crews. Presumably it was for the scaffolders and wrappers. The next step is I think to wait for listed building consent - all that's been done so far is a little light dismantling, perhaps to facilitate scaffolding and wrapping.

Following the revised planning application (no. 203386), and that burst of on-site activity, we expected a decision after the end of the consultation on 4th February. It came the next day, but that urgency was not matched by the work: nothing for four weeks. Then the grit-blasters (Tighe) arrived, for four days of blasting, then today it was on to painting.

The blasters turned up with loads of mysterious machinery, heaps of grit, and their own generator, plus a Very Big Hose. The wrapping (plus all the extraction and containment kit) did appear to keep the paint dust inside the wrappings, but not the noise they were making. I can't believe it's a remotely pleasant way to spend your day. There was more stuff in their work site, on the nearer car park, and an employee welfare van. So, not using the plumbed-in shed in the other car park? No, because my guess about its purpose was wrong. I've now been able to get to its front door, and seen the SWR sign saying it provides extra staff accommodation to conform with Covid-19 rules.

The footbridge was allowed out of housetent arrest last weekend. I'm not sure why some bits had not been given the full blasting and coating treatment - most likely the scaffolding and wrapping got in the way. There wasn't a full possession today, so maybe it will be done next time there is one - nothing much was done this week, anyway. So I still have to watch the time when I zoom out for my daily walk; I keep getting caught by the barriers.

The final colour is to be Maunsell Green, though I'm not sure that was ever used for structures or buildings. So is that what's already been applied to most of it? I'd been expecting a protective coating and then a final finish coat done heritage-fashion. But maybe not.

But the good news is that there does seem to be a lot of metal left.

At long last the footbridge reopened yesterday - no ceremony, and we'll have to wait and see if the council's heritage officer has any quibbles. It's been closed since 3/12/20, which is more than 24 weeks. I don't think that actual work on the bridge can have occupied more than eight weeks. There's been a lot of waiting - for planning decisions, for wood, for other bits and pieces, and mainly for scheduling the several contractors' teams to turn up.

The old bridge has been fully coated in this famous Maunsell green, but the new bits have come in approved colours for NR footbridges. So the tread edges are white, with yellow at the top and bottom of a flight; the handrails are yellow, and already seem to have bits missing (but may have been fitted like that), and those big fixing bolts are au naturel. There were arguments about what they were going to do to fix the masonry, but seem to have ended up doing very little.

In the first picture you can see how the one of the three supporting rails curves out of the platform face towards the track. This was far from evident before the painting. According to the original drawings, those three "verticals" are bolted to a big slab (of concrete, I guess) just below track level.