|
Phil Farmer
|
 |
« on: November 29, 2009, 14:26:46 » |
|
Nobody seems to have picked up on the following item in the current copy of Modern Railways:
Network Rail is progressing well with the work to gauge enhance the Southampton to West Midlands line to enable 9ft 6in containers, and work has also started on studying a diversionary route to the same gauge. Some of the primary route, Reading to Didcot, coincides with the recently announced Great Western electrification, which also needs a higher gauge, so NR» is seeking to deal with bridges on this section in one pass for both projects. All was going well until NR informed West Berkshire District Council that it intended to rebuild a bridge near Pangbourne under permitted development rights. Nothing surprising about this; the bridge is one of a dozen or so originally built by Brunel and extended for the four tracking. But West Berks DC▸ had other ideas; the council got the bridge listed under a fast track procedure without anyone knowing.
So now, instead of one weekend possession to demolish the bridge, it will need all four tracks to be lowered by around 60cm over some distance, rebuilding the track drainage and signalling cabling, strengthening the bridge foundations, all over many hundred of metres, and estimated to need 10 full weekend possessions of all four tracks and probably millions of pounds of extra costs, money which could have been used for other purposes.
So we hope that the electors of West Berkshire who use the train services will welcome being in buses for 10 consecutive weekends and that FGW▸ passengers between Reading and Oxford, Bristol, Cardiff and all places in between will, whilst sitting on their rail replacement bus services, remember to blame West Berkshire District Council and not Network Rail (or freight!) for the inconvenience to their journeys.
Its nice to see our taxpayers cash being wisely spent......
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2009, 20:05:58 » |
|
I certainly hadn't. Does anyone know this bridge? Is it really worth listing.
Is there an appeal process for Network Rail? It seems ludicrous that a local authority can do this without a reasonable degree of consultation.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
super tm
|
|
« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2009, 21:42:35 » |
|
Nobody seems to have picked up on the following item in the current copy of Modern Railways:
Network Rail is progressing well with the work to gauge enhance the Southampton to West Midlands line to enable 9ft 6in containers, and work has also started on studying a diversionary route to the same gauge. Some of the primary route, Reading to Didcot, coincides with the recently announced Great Western electrification, which also needs a higher gauge, so NR» is seeking to deal with bridges on this section in one pass for both projects. All was going well until NR informed West Berkshire District Council that it intended to rebuild a bridge near Pangbourne under permitted development rights. Nothing surprising about this; the bridge is one of a dozen or so originally built by Brunel and extended for the four tracking. But West Berks DC▸ had other ideas; the council got the bridge listed under a fast track procedure without anyone knowing.
So now, instead of one weekend possession to demolish the bridge, it will need all four tracks to be lowered by around 60cm over some distance, rebuilding the track drainage and signalling cabling, strengthening the bridge foundations, all over many hundred of metres, and estimated to need 10 full weekend possessions of all four tracks and probably millions of pounds of extra costs, money which could have been used for other purposes.
So we hope that the electors of West Berkshire who use the train services will welcome being in buses for 10 consecutive weekends and that FGW▸ passengers between Reading and Oxford, Bristol, Cardiff and all places in between will, whilst sitting on their rail replacement bus services, remember to blame West Berkshire District Council and not Network Rail (or freight!) for the inconvenience to their journeys.
Its nice to see our taxpayers cash being wisely spent......
Are you sure about this. When are these closures to happen. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Farmer
|
|
« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2009, 23:04:16 » |
|
Taken from English Heritage Listed Buildings Register.....
Listed Buildings Online | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building Name: Railway Underbridge At Su 6336 7663
Parish: Pangbourne
District: West Berkshire
County: Berkshire
Postcode:
LBS Number: 399218
Grade: II
National Grid Reference: SU6336076630
Listing Text:
SU 6376 PANGBOURNE STATION ROAD
6/3
Railway Underbridge
At SU 6336 7663
G.V. II
Railway underbridge. Circa 1840, by I.K. Brunel. Red brick with string course,
parapet,and slightly projecting battered abutments. 3 chamfered skew arches.
Central vehicular arch flanked by smaller pedestrian arches. This is one of
the original bridges built for the Great Western Railway.
Listing NGR: SU6336076630
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #4 on: November 29, 2009, 23:29:19 » |
|
Hang on it says they've listed an underbridge central vehicle arch and two pedestrian arches.
why does it need rebuilding?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The SprinterMeister
|
|
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2009, 11:12:16 » |
|
I certainly hadn't. Does anyone know this bridge? Is it really worth listing.
Is there an appeal process for Network Rail? It seems ludicrous that a local authority can do this without a reasonable degree of consultation.
You wait. This is only the start of it. The line between Chippenham and Brizzle is the original Brunel two track jobbie with nearly all the original features intact. English Heritage and the local councils are going to have an absolute field day adding in cost to the Airport Jn - Bristol electrification scheme, possibly affecting its overall viability..... You read it here first. Lets see who called correctly in 5 years time.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Trundling gently round the SW
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2009, 12:04:39 » |
|
You read it here first. Lets see who called correctly in 5 years time. I agree with that. Lots of historic structures to potentially cause delays and escalated costs! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2009, 15:41:10 » |
|
There are four bridges over the line at Purley-On-Thames, near Pangbourne. All of which are located closely to each other. At least one has a very tight clearance height wise - indeed a very restrictive speed limit of 20mph for freight trains had to be enforced a couple of years ago which I'm pretty sure was due to clearance issues. I think that is the bridge that is being referred to? All four structures were initially built for the two-track broad gauge railway before having an extra arch added for the relief lines. You can see the different colour of brick and the differing width of the arches if you look closely. The bridge in question certainly isn't unique in that respect as there are several others between Reading and Didcot like it, though most of them have plenty of clearance as the cutting they bridge is deeper. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
hornbeam
|
|
« Reply #9 on: November 30, 2009, 17:16:29 » |
|
Look what happenend when the East london line was closed a few years ago EH got in the way and it closed for months more than planned.
I agree that certain things need to be retained, but at what cost? IF this is so important why do they not pay the extra to keep it- that what angers me. As for west berks- well if this causes others to do the same and it stops the project then that will really be a shot in the foot.
Note- as part of the Reading rebuilding the the lest wing of he old booking hall is getting the chop like the right one did at the last rebuild Grade 2 listed. Rather that than no new station!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The SprinterMeister
|
|
« Reply #10 on: December 01, 2009, 18:02:26 » |
|
Look what happenend when the East london line was closed a few years ago EH got in the way and it closed for months more than planned.
I agree that certain things need to be retained, but at what cost? IF this is so important why do they not pay the extra to keep it- that what angers me. As for west berks- well if this causes others to do the same and it stops the project then that will really be a shot in the foot. English Heritage and the various councils do not see an essential and evolving transport system when they look at the GWML▸ , what they see is a wonderfull selection of Brunellian 'Gloomy Gothic' style bridges and other sundry bits of architecture with the occasional HST▸ or unit trundling past. The idea that one should want to increase clearances to run W10 container trains or despoil the whole thing with electric string (to provide a more environment friendly train service) will be completely lost on them as they seek to preserve without alteration Brunels GWR▸ . English Heritage isn't about improving your railway, its about preserving the country in aspic for ever more. Believe me this story will run and run. It started some time back when the disused and unloved Dawlish Signalbox was 'fast track' listed, leaving Network Rail with yet another disused structure to maintain in a condition where it doesn't drop onto the track. Utterly pointless and a complete waste of scarce resources. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Trundling gently round the SW
|
|
|
|
willc
|
|
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2009, 01:25:25 » |
|
I gather that the listing was largely at the behest of a resident in a house on the lane which passes over the bridge who didn't want to take the long way round while the work was going on, so invoked the name of the great engineer and got everyone in a flutter. No-one made a fuss about the others in the immediate area, so they haven't been listed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2009, 15:37:04 » |
|
Yes, I started it over there to try & get definitive ID on the bridge in question.... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #13 on: December 13, 2009, 17:59:56 » |
|
http://www.purleyonthames.net/news.php?news_id=87and this is the link to the parish council which first asked for it to be listed. One of the reasons given is because of the inconvenience to some local residents whilst the work is being carried out - surelyy that's not a reason to list a building. Of course, elsewhere on their site is a contact address, which might be a place to express one's displeasure at the inconvenience to the thousands af rail travellers who will see their journeys disrupted for many weekends whilst the work is being carried out.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #14 on: December 13, 2009, 18:08:53 » |
|
And their clock (in the top right hand corner) is still on BST....!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
