Wokingham Station improvements

[whole diary]

[stuving]

Can't see any sign of lifts though, so is the 'step free access' simply level access from either of two entrances?

The "Access for all" footbridge and the new station were planned separately, and I think run as separate contracts (managed by SWT^▸ (South West Trains) and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) respectively). Even the plans they submitted to planning for both showed the other its "before" state, until I prodded them to do better.

The pretty pictures of the station (posted previously) also show the old footbridge. The new one is much taller, because of the lift headgear - that was the main comment during the planning consultation. Of course this is permitted development so neither the public's comments not the planning department can alter any of that. The "totem" is shown as 9.2 m high, and is not a square tower but a flat "plank" 2.4 x 0.67m. The bridge is, from the same ground level, 10 m high so, from the front, the bridge will be more prominent than the edge-on totem.

The work you can see now is for the link road rather than the station. The announcements said the station would be done first, and it may still be finished first, but of course the groundwork takes most of the time.  I suspect a lot has been done preparing for the station and footbridge build, but it has mostly been moving wires so not very visible. While a foundation still has to be laid, I guess that erecting an Ikea station kit on it will be pretty quick.

[stuving]

The bit I recall is that the mini roundabout immediately adjacent to the level crossing will be going and that there were be traffic lights, co-ordinated with the crossing, that will control flows instead. I think the idea is to give priority to traffic coming towards the town up Barkham Ride when the barriers are open, which makes sense.

The best thing of all of course would be to get rid of the crossing altogether and put a bridge in, but I suspect space and cost would be the main issues, just like they are in Thatcham!

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.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Many thanks for posting your well-considered thoughts here, stuving.

The only vaguely similar comparison I can offer, on the spur of the moment, is on the vexed question of the possible location of the necessary new station at Portishead - see http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=231.msg131357#msg131357 and subsequent posts.

[bobm]

From Getwokingham.

Negotiations for "crucial" new railway bridge continue
Negotiations to build a ^crucial^ bridge over the railway line to link thousands of new homes to the town centre are continuing behind the scenes.
 
Wokingham MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) John Redwood and borough council leader Councillor David Lee have regularly been meeting Network Rail and Transport Minister Patrick McLoughlin to thrash out the plans and funding.
 
The bridge taking traffic over the railway line will be on the Southern Distributor Road (SDR), which will be part-built during the first phase of work for 650 homes at Buckhurst Farm. But discussions are ongoing with Network Rail about payments to allow the road to cross the railway.

Cllr Lee said: ^The bridge is crucial as it allows the second part of the site to be developed.

^We have had regular meetings with ministers and hopefully we will come to a final agreement with the developer and Network Rail on how much it will cost. They tried to seek benefit from the development of the site by allowing us to cross the railway. Not everyone would agree with that argument.
 
^John Redwood and [transport minister] Patrick McLoughlin have been doing their best to oil the wheels towards an agreement.^
 
The SDR will branch from London Road, turning through Buckhurst Farm before crossing the railway line and heading west to join the Tesco roundabout in Finchampstead Road.
 
Council officers estimate 1,400 cars will use the SDR during peak hours in the morning and 1,100 cars during peak evening times in 2026.
 
John Redwood MP has stressed to ministers that Network Rail must be ^sensible^ in negotiating the bridge that shouldn^t be used ^as a ransom opportunity against the local community^.
 
Mr Redwood said: ^Network Rail think they have a right to payment from us for a bridge over the line but it^s a public asset.
 
^The Government were very happy to back it so the remaining obstacle is Network Rail.
 
^I would expect Network Rail will do their best to make it extremely difficult as they did for many years over a new station.
 
^m doing my best to change their method of approach.^
 
He added if Network Rail wanted money for the scheme bosses should make their demands soon so the project can continue to progress.
 
Cllr Lee added funding for the bridge would come from the developer. He also confirmed work would need to be done on the railway bridge in Finchampstead Road to allow for lorries as part of the wider project.
 
A spokesman for Network Rail said: ^We fully support new bridges which make crossing the railway safer for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists and discussions continue with all parties associated with a proposed nearby housing scheme regarding the development and a potential new bridge in the area.^

[stuving]

From Getwokingham.
^We have had regular meetings with ministers and hopefully we will come to a final agreement with the developer and Network Rail on how much it will cost. They tried to seek benefit from the development of the site by allowing us to cross the railway. Not everyone would agree with that argument.

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...

[stuving]

The "Access for all" footbridge and the new station were planned separately, and I think run as separate contracts (managed by SWT^▸ (South West Trains) and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) respectively).

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.

[bobm]

Perhaps "post-planning" is "in hindsight"? 

[stuving]

Perhaps "post-planning" is "in hindsight"? 

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!

[Red Squirrel]

There's only one phrase more annoyingly redundant than 'pre-planned', and that's 'pre-prepared'... there seems to be some sort of inflation process going on with these terms; I'm keeping my ears pricked to hear someone say 'pre-preprepared'...

[stuving]

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.

[stuving]

There are posters in Wokingham station saying that next Sunday (19th May) they will be removing the old footbridge. Not only will there be no trains, but the crane will block the car park so the buses will be at the back of the station in Oxford Road (which is not really suitable for buses). I can't see any sign of a temporary footbridge, so maybe they think we do not really need one. That is not entirely unreasonable given the level crossing and public footbridge, and the absence of any ticket gates.

[stuving]

At last! This vital piece of the new infrastructure has now been installed. (And another one across the road, so drivers can see it, whichever road they approach on.)

[stuving]

Well, the old footbridge has gone. A very slick operation, and quiet! So much so that I missed it. I looked out of my bedroom window at 9 am and could see a digger dangling from a crane, and assumed they were setting up as I had heard nothing. It turns out they were clearing up, and by 11 am the crane was all packed and ready to go. From then on the slickness wore off, as the crane had to wait for a new tyre before leaving.

Not only that, but someone decided it was a good time to cut a trench across the main road, just where the buses were stopping. They were meant to be at the back of the station, in Oxford road, but that's not suitable for anything worthy of the name "bus", and has a 7.5 T limit; they were using 16 T buses.

Presumably there will now be a lot of work preparing the site (digging holes in the platform, mainly) before the next full possession on 7th July. And if they are going to finish the new station this summer, they ought to start on that soon.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Not only that, but someone decided it was a good time to cut a trench across the main road, just where the buses were stopping. They were meant to be at the back of the station, in Oxford road, but that's not suitable for anything worthy of the name "bus", and has a 7.5 T limit; they were using 16 T buses.

So much for their "pre-planning" (or indeed "pre-preparation") then, eh? 

[stuving]

I can't see any sign of a temporary footbridge, so maybe they think we do not really need one. That is not entirely unreasonable given the level crossing and public footbridge, and the absence of any ticket gates.

As expected, here is ... I guess we should call it a footbridge replacement poster service?