You could still be right about the overhead ties being an afterthought. I checked on their correct name, which is sway bracing - as that's their other main function. It would not be so unusual to add them to a bridge if it was found to sway too much. ("Sway" here means twisting, not moving sideways.) With two tracks over it, the load is always off-centre, which may be relevant.

Most bridges have sides high enough that this bracing goes between them, otherwise it can go on the sides. So ones like this are not, actually, that common. I know I've seen examples, but can't now remember where.

PS: If you look underneath the bridge via Streetview, you can see that there is sway bracing on the sides too. That also looks a bit like an add-on, though it's hard to tell with riveted girders. Do we know when it was built?

I rather doubt that - the ties are there to prevent buckling. Ignore the lattice design and think of it as a square U-shaped channel, made of cardboard if that helps. If the sides fold in or out they stop supporting the deck, and the tie stops that happening. However, there is also a buckling mode where both sides go the same way - one in, one out - and to prevent that the joint of the tie to the sides has to be stiff. And, as you can see using Streetview, they are. In fact it is a pretty common bridge design, especially in the USA.

I know - I did spot a "pre-prepared" in my draft for the previous post. I suspect that it may be that just "being prepared" does not necessarily involve doing much or doing it well in advance, hence a need is felt to show when it does.

I don't think so - planning involves more than just foreseeing. It's more a case of deciding what needs to be done, and when, to achieve a desired result. It will usually involve some conditionality - such as "if we find that needs doing then we will have to get one of those in place earlier".

Obviously this has nothing to do with whatever it is planning departments do. It may relate to what they should do, though, in the sense of deciding how to implement their objectives (adopted policy items) even if there is no immediate prospect of their being affordable.

I have been very critical of Wokingham's planners for not having prepared a route for a new railway crossing in case the level crossing is to be closed. Currently this is an "unfunded aspiration" of both the borough and NR^» (Network Rail - home page), but it might become funded for a number of reasons: e.g. increased rail traffic, increased road traffic, or political pressure after an accident at a similar crossing. The timescale for such a closure would be perhaps a year or two - far quicker that planning a new bridge from scratch!

I had a letter from SWT to the neighbours through my door this morning, promising to keep us awake replacing the footbridge. It says "...some of the works will be carried out during pre-planned midweek and weekend nights...".

The use of "pre-planned" is unhelpful. For one thing, isn't all planning by definition done in advance? What could "post-planning" possibly be (except another of those vexatious little oxymorons)? Since all the expected work has to be planned, I think we can infer that some unplanned work may be necessary and in some cases that would be at night.

I would be more interested to know whether we will be notified of these nights in advance, though that may be of little practical help to us. They do give us the dates of three all-day possessions: Sundays 19th May, 7th July, and 28th July.

I thought the same. It would be a predictable drawback of so much glazed wall - I don't think they make transparent acoustic absorbers. In the transfer deck itself, the ceiling has acoustic treatment above the slatted surface. I guess that could perhaps be increased - but only up to a strict limit (100% absorption).

The northern stairwell is worse, and that already has a pretty large treated wall. It may be hard to alter that, but maybe it is not such a high priority there.

In the design guide, there are several mentions of the need for announcements, but the only reference to acoustics per se is under "O3.2 Ensure full compliance with all statutory emergency requirements", where we find:
Design appropriate acoustics to allow passengers to hear public address announcements on platforms and help control excess noise and vibration.
Why does that only refer to platforms? Even for this restricted purpose of emergency management, that looks wrong.

I am not so impressed by the "Guide to Station Planning and Design", which I find too keen on motherhood and apple pie. I assume it is meant to tell the public what kind of things are considered relevant, rather than actually to guide designers, still less be a top-level requirement. Even so, it is not much use.

Looking at "U4.2 Provide effective climate protection, [...]", the main statement is:
Design of stations should ensure that passengers are protected from extreme weather conditions (wind, rain, snow, sun, and extreme heat and cold).
To what degree? I certainly expect protection from extremes that threaten life and health, though I accept that I will probably still be uncomfortable. What is more important, I expect to be comfortable within the station when the weather is ordinarily unpleasant outside. Where is that mentioned? I think the current design may meet what the guide says, but not a more realistic requirement.

Later, we find:
Mitigate risks arising from climatic conditions (e.g. the impact of summer sun or water on floor surfaces) for reasons of safety and ease of use.
Another failure, at least for snow getting in (I assume the leaky roof can be cured). Also:
Consider the need for resilience to climatic change and extreme weather conditions.
"Resilience" in the current jargon usually refers to coping with the unexpected, or out-of-normal-range event, even with a lot of intervention. In this case it seems a bit unnecessary; none of the (serious) climate change predictions I have seen involves more extreme extremes, it is all about shifts in probability distributions and so medians and means.

That's poor enough. What is more likely to be damaging is the section on sustainability, here given the title "V2.2 Minimise energy use and explore sustainable energy sources". Most of this is about economising on heating energy use, which I will try to filter out, as my main concern here is the unheated transfer deck. However, we still have:
Harness and reuse solar, wind, daylight and water power where appropriate combined with: 
Passive measures such as increasing a building^s insulation should take priority over active or mechanical solutions and:
Use intelligent control systems to optimise energy use where appropriate.

Because the emphasis is on the need for heating, followed by cooling, ventilation is not covered except by implication. Thus what this set of statements is taken to mean will depend on the mind-set of the reader. I see it as advocating intelligent control and adaptability, to make best use of "mechanical solutions" (fans and motorised flaps and louvres); others may see it as a blanket ban on anything mechanical. There is evidence of this...

There is a "Network Rail Sustainability Policy", as well as loads of web pages on the subject, but I can't see any meaningful; content in any of it - it's all guff. (Google for the title; the link in the design guide does not work.) However, in the RBC^‡(resolve) planning documents there is a "Reading Station Sustainability Strategy" (00229620.pdf, the third "Other documentation..." in 10/01269/FUL). Ignore the "Programme Environment and Sustainability Strategy" (both the first "Other documentation..." in 10/01269/FUL, and the "Sustainability statement" in 11/1-885/FUL) which is really about the construction phase and the surrounding environment, not the design of the building itself.

I shall quote in extenso the section on ventilation:
"Ventilation Options"
Natural ventilation should be always considered where feasible as the most sustainable solution and cost effective from an operation and maintenance perspective.
Wind-catcher or similar systems shall be considered and assessed.
Thats yer lot - the rest is about HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) systems, understood not to be passive.

Why this odd selection of possibilities, ignoring all others? Shouldn't this project-specific document be better targeted and more thorough than the more general one? It confuses cheap with cost-effective, a fatal error when purely natural ventilation simply does not work so, however cheap, is not cost effective.

This comes from section 3, "Building Management", which does say at its start: The objective is to make sure that any Passive measures are designed into the project [in GRIP^▸ (Guide to Railway Investment Projects) 4] and also to assess the viability of additional Active measures that could be incorporated cost-effectively (their capitalisations).
That reflects a more sensible approach, though I still wonder if they know what cost-effective means.
 
What I can't see in any of this is a stated objective of achieving the required performance, in terms of a comfortable internal environment, whatever the weather outside, and for the lowest cost. That should give a rank ordering of fully passive, controlled passive (motorised vents and windows), fans, and then HVAC. And fully passive is never, on its own, going to be the answer.

Oops. Sorry for the faux pas. To be honest I had understood that instruction as per each question of the set - until afterwards, when it struck me that I might be wrong. The wording of course is not unambiguous; but such is the deliquescent solidity of meaning in our language. No doubt I should have realised what was intended; I suspect I missed it because when I read it I was thinking "I won't have time to look at that...".

... and wouldn't 8 be Ashchurch for Tewkesbury?

Aha! 4 must be the oxymoronically named Coatbridge Sunnyside.

That's more than odd - we were told that this new bridge would result in the closure of one if not both of the other (i.e. not station) level crossings, and I imagine that any LC^▸ (Level Crossing) closure has a cash value to NR^» (Network Rail - home page). Of course they do have significant costs in what they have to do so that a bridge can be built over their railway, but even so...

The station link road plan (rather than the new station itself) does indeed put the level crossing inside a traffic-light controlled junction. When I was preparing my submission to the consultation on this plan, I tried (with Google's help) to find any other examples of this. We only found one: at Basford in Nottingham. Does anyone know of any more?

I also wanted to find out ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)'s attitude to giving level crossing orders (LCOs) for such a case, and despite getting to talk to an infrastructure inspector I did not really find out. One aspect of this is that the council have always said changing these junctions to reduce congestion at the crossing depends on the new road, but I think you just need to give priority to traffic off the crossing (remember there's now a roundabout only a short car's length away on one side). The new scheme bans loads of turns by the crossing, and that could be done now too.

The ORR's guidance on LCOs emphasises queuing traffic on level crossings as a bad thing for safety, so removing obstructions to flows off the crossing meets both objectives.  So one thing I wondered was whether the ORR, asked about a new LCO, might insist on these changes to the current arrangement and resist the traffic lights.

Oh, and as I live very close to the crossing, I'd rather you didn't suggest putting a replacement bridge at the same site - i.e. right outside my front door. It's the wrong place, anyway, as we really need to shift through traffic out of town.

PS: one of the banned turns means that if you go down Station Road you won't be able to turn into the station - which has caused some amusement to the locals, but would only confuse visitors.

The Reading, Guildford, and Reigate Railway did try to get a link to the LSWR^▸ (London South Western Railway) main line, so they could run trains from Reading into Farnborough - and a station at the junction was also discussed. However, the LSWR were not keen, as they already had an agreed link with the RGRR at Guildford, and soon after they built their own line from London via Ascot to Reading. Of course they then built a line from Ascot very close to the RGRR (North Downs) line, which did link both ways to the Woking-Farnborough line. Later still there was a chord from the RGRR too, only towards Woking - all these chords have since gone.

How about sight screen, opener - and maybe beamer?

I think you are being a bit harsh on that sign. Safety instructions have to be short and clear, and that usually precludes being legally or logically rigorous.

For this standard sign I would prefer "Danger! Do not cross the line here" as meeting that criterion better. True, at Farnborough North the place they want you not to cross (by going down the platform slope) is the same as where they want you to cross (going round by the crossing gate, so passing the lights and a barrage of notices), so it does look odd. The obvious answer there is to add a sign underneath with an arrow to the right and "Use the crossing".