Network Rail to Replace Ufton Nervet Crossing With Bridge

[fgwrich]

From BBC News:

Ufton Nervet death crash rail crossing bridge plan

Seven people were killed at Ufton Nervet after their train hit a parked car on the track in in November 2004

Network Rail in Berkshire is planning to erect a bridge in place of a rail crossing where eight people have died.

Residents have long called for action to be taken to improve the crossing at Ufton Nervet.

In 2004 a train derailed killing seven, and in May of this year a man on a moped died on the level crossing.

The firm said a bridge was the preferred option but it would depend on planning and highways consent as it did not own the land.

But it said it was proceeding with the bridge plan in the meantime, looking at land purchase, designs and funding.

Jane Hawker from Newbury is one of the survivors of the 2004 crash.

She said: "I would be very pleased to think that a bridge would be built.

"I've wanted that crossing to be looked at from a safety point of view since the accident that I was involved in, and obviously the deaths that have happened since then."

To replace the crossing, between Aldermaston and Theale, the company said it would also need to secure additional funding.

Patrick Hallgate, Network Rail route managing director, said: "We have a once-in-a generation opportunity to make changes at Ufton Nervet as part of our plans to re-signal and electrify the line.

"It is our view that we have a strong case to close the crossing and replace it with a road bridge.

"Every crossing that we close removes the risk of a person or vehicle being struck by a train and improves safety for everyone on the railway and for those who travel across it."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-20169287

 

[PhilipW]

Hooray.

.... but I have to say that I think this solution was obvious to most people years ago.
Still, Network Rail got there in the end and came up with the right solution. So 2 cheers for that.

Now ..... just get on with it.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Hooray.

.... but I have to say that I think this solution was obvious to most people years ago.
Still, Network Rail got there in the end and came up with the right solution. So 2 cheers for that.

Now ..... just get on with it.

The solution was always obvious to them too. If network rail could every single level crossing would be a bridge. But what does that require?
Money. Thats where the sticking point will always be, they are now trying to do it as part the GW scheme while they are down there. Reducing the costs slightly.

 

[MarkyT]

. . . Money. Thats where the sticking point will always be, they are now trying to do it as part the GW scheme while they are down there. Reducing the costs slightly.

Well building a bridge saves renewing the old crossing control equipment with kit compatible with new signalling and traction power. It will also forever remove the maintenance, any regulatory modifications required and eventual cyclical renewal costs.

Although probably not the case here, road bridges can also be difficult to fit in areas where buildings are close to the railway. Picture an idyllic country station and crossing at the heart of a historic village - huge approach ramps may be totally out of character with the site and would likely be vehemently opposed by locals. A longer bypass route around the village might be possible, but that might anger local businesses losing some of their passing trade, and anyway may also involve further environmental issues.

 

[tbtc]

Well building a bridge saves renewing the old crossing control equipment with kit compatible with new signalling and traction power. It will also forever remove the maintenance, any regulatory modifications required and eventual cyclical renewal costs

Although roads and bridges will need maintenance too - I guess that comes out of someone else's budget.

One of the important points in the quote is that Network Rail don't own (all of) the land that a bridge would be on, so it's not easily up to them to just build them.

 

[MarkyT]

Although roads and bridges will need maintenance too - I guess that comes out of someone else's budget.

Long term renewal is a big cost, though is difficult to capture in typical DCF business calculations. A bridge might have a nominal life of 100 years. In that time the crossing might be completely renewed 3 times at least, with numerous components replaced under day to day maintenance. There are periodic inspections and tests to carry out, all of this I believe to be far more time consuming and costly than procedures applicable to a modern low maintenance bridge structure, periodic road resurfacing and fencing repairs once grade separation has been achieved.

One of the important points in the quote is that Network Rail don't own (all of) the land that a bridge would be on, so it's not easily up to them to just build them.

Just about every successful crossing to bridge replacement project has been a partnership with a willing local or road authority, and even upgrading a crossing often requires road changes outside the railway boundary.

 

[tbtc]

Long term renewal is a big cost, though is difficult to capture in typical DCF business calculations. A bridge might have a nominal life of 100 years. In that time the crossing might be completely renewed 3 times at least, with numerous components replaced under day to day maintenance. There are periodic inspections and tests to carry out, all of this I believe to be far more time consuming and costly than procedures applicable to a modern low maintenance bridge structure, periodic road resurfacing and fencing repairs once grade separation has been achieved

A bridge will be a lot cheaper in the long term - no argument - but talking about "forever removing maintenance costs" suggested that the were no maintenance costs associated with a bridge.

 

[PhilipW]

On the local 'South Today' news tonight there was a general welcome for the new bridge.

The residents of nearby Thatcham were calling for Network Rail to make it a double and replace their level crossing with a bridge too; apparently that has been talked about for 25 years plus but nothing has happened. With the frequency of trains increasing and likely to do so still further after electrification getting rid of all level crossings on the Reading-Newbury line seems like a good idea.

We have further reason to be thankful to Isombard Kingdom Brunel in that he built the GW main line with minimal level crossings. Looking at my map I can only see one (at Steventon) all the way from Paddington to Temple Meads and the Severn Tunnel. Now that was vision.

 

[route:oxford]

On the local 'South Today' news tonight there was a general welcome for the new bridge.

The residents of nearby Thatcham were calling for Network Rail to make it a double and replace their level crossing with a bridge too; apparently that has been talked about for 25 years plus but nothing has happened. With the frequency of trains increasing and likely to do so still further after electrification getting rid of all level crossings on the Reading-Newbury line seems like a good idea.

We have further reason to be thankful to Isombard Kingdom Brunel in that he built the GW main line with minimal level crossings. Looking at my map I can only see one (at Steventon) all the way from Paddington to Temple Meads and the Severn Tunnel. Now that was vision.

You don't have to go far off the FGW mainline to find one though. I'm sure there is a one between Diddyland and Appleford.

 

[Zoe]

Looking at my map I can only see one (at Steventon)

There are two level crossings in that area, Stocks Lane and Causeway.

 

[455driver]

So NR pick up the tab (again) to protect their railway from idiot car drivers/ bike riders.

The highways agency should have to pick up at least some of the cost.

These crossings are perfectly safe if used correctly, the only people who do not use them properly are the road users.

I will get off my soapbox now.

 

[Dieseldriver]

Thankyou 455 driver, my thoughts exactly. Ufton Nervet was not an industry failing, it was a car drivers fault. The same for Great Heck yet they are both known as rail disasters.

 

[Stephen55a1960]

Thankyou 455 driver, my thoughts exactly. Ufton Nervet was not an industry failing, it was a car drivers fault. The same for Great Heck yet they are both known as rail disasters.

Great Heck (IIRC) was due to a motorist having inadequate sleep?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Great Heck (IIRC) was due to a motorist having inadequate sleep?

Indeed. The driver of the car later tried to pass it off as fate IIRC.

Edit - Yep, he did http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-12591249

 

[Stephen55a1960]

Indeed. The driver of the car later tried to pass it off as 'God's will' IIRC.

I didn't know about that!! Very stupid "defence" if that was the case.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

See my edited post, I found the article and it was actually fate, I knew it was something along the lines of it not being his fault.

 

[Stephen55a1960]

See my edited post, I found the article and it was actually fate, I knew it was something along the lines of it not being his fault.

Thanks. I saw the edited post. Still shouldn't have played that defence though. He was tired and in no fit state to drive - end of. The rail casualties were the innocent victims in all of this.

 

[Eagle]

The highways agency should have to pick up at least some of the cost.

Why the HA? Council transport department surely. It's not a trunk road.