This article reads as though it’s just the building. The station site itself achieved planning approval a while ago and is under construction, they’ve recently started on the access roads and land clearance. I looked for an existing thread about Reading Green Park, but the last one seems to have been in 2014.
It does certainly seem to be taking a lot longer than it should. Last year I read that the station was due to be completed by mid 2019 but I believe they only started preparing the site quite recently.
Me too. I’m sure there were reports in other forums referring to a planning application being agreed back in March, and I’m fairly sure it was for a station but might be mistaken.
I’ve found it on the Reading council planning website now, this is definitely a new application, it’s dated only 28th May, and it also reads as just for a station building.
I therefore suspect the earlier application must have been for a basic pair of platforms with minimum facilities.
Thanks for finding all that, so with 3 different authorities involved in the station approval so far, does this application now being to Reading possibly mean that the station building itself might just luckily be entirely within Reading’s boundary?
I think 'irregular" is putting it politely!
Yes, it's a separate, unrelated planning application.
It might be because Reading Borough have been more focused on the East Reading MRT and the Royal Oak Park development near the Madjeski Stadium got cancelled.Green Park Village is still there though.
Too many freights to/from Southampton and cross country services, probably.
There is generally one, sometimes however two, Cross Country services each hour in each direction between Southcote Junction and Basingstoke as well as an approximately hourly container train in each direction. This section could carry another train each hour without too much trouble., especially if it was electrified or had DMUs with a higher power to weight ratio than the 165/166s.
In other words, what we really need is the Didcot , Newbury and Southampton reopened , electrified with 25kv OHLE and all the traffic from the Port of Southampton sent down there.
Assuming you are not writing that with your tongue in your cheek, so to speak, I think there is a simpler solution.
The movement combinations are so various and complex that there's no single grade separation that would solve all the conflicts perfectly. Thus I'd go for a flexible three track layout between Southcote Jn and Oxford Road Jn with much bidirectional signalling and copious parallel flat crossover provision so trains can weave around each other in alternative positions according to emerging real time running. An advantage would be smaller land take and visual obtrusion of structures. For example:
Good idea,but nearly as expensive as mine because of all the property you'd have to buy.
Hmm!
True,but I'd like to see Network Rail try pushing that through the RBC planning committee-they blocked a new footbridge at Reading West and this is a much,much bigger scheme obviously.
The Council received objections from local residents that the proposed position of the footbridge would mean that their properties were overlooked. The rejection was entirely understandable and it looks as if the footbridge will be built at another location once the planning process is completed.
What is required is that Network Rail is not so cack-handed as it was at Steventon.
Fair enough, no problem with the grade separation-it just seems a bad option to stick a third track on a very narrow corridor through a very densely populated area that will require property demolition for it to be built. Have other options not been discussed-perhaps a tunnelled 3rd track from Southcote Jcn to Oxford Road Jcn-although that would be prohibitively expensive or perhaps something a little cheaper like passenger/goods loops on the B+H/Reading-B'stoke line just before Southcote Jcn or goods loops on part of the old Coley branch line(I know not all of it is still available.)
