Mod6

Two similar topics merged.

Certain posts have been removed to the admin area for consideration.

Well, we get this (Keith George's) vewpoint and we get the opposite from members who want to keep the engineering efforts clear of off-topic posts. We do what we can to strike a balance but clearly we can't please everyone.

It's happened since the beginning of this forum and is simply a case of management of contributions (and occasionally contributors) for the benefit and convenience of the majority.

Mogman1969 - if you are going to contribute to this or any topic please at least make it coherent; then we have a fighting chance of seeing whether or not it's helpful or relevant. From what I could see it was mostly just ranting and repeating of comments we've had several time already. For everyone else, I've deleted this and subsequent 'what?' posts to declutter the thread.

Instead of all of us speculating, it appears from the BBC item - published after my previous post - that someone high up in Network Rail (i.e. someone who should know) has at least confirmed which of three possible diversionary routes are officially favoured. Whether this is old or new we should wait and see. It may or may not change anything. I would hope that members posting to this topic can exercise some common sense on what is old, new, fact, speculation, relevant, OT.

Thanks for raising this, but what I actually said was Which referred, possibly too covertly, to endless uninformed speculation. Perhaps I should have made that clearer, although it's the same message we have to keep using in topics on level crossing accidents etc, i.e. wait for some facts to arise. What we now seem to have is a news item suggesting that NR favour one out of three possible options (which have all been done to death on here) as a potential diversionary route. Captain Kernow has kindly offered to try and find out more about this, and no doubt will report back. There may well be material in that to discuss, based on facts, but please no more "well in my opinion I still think the 1930s scheme is better". Hopefully we respond to changing circumstances, would you have us do otherwise?

Guys We know it's tempting to go off at tangents, but most of the possible views and arguments have been raised at least once in the four days (yes, that's all) this topic has been running so far. I don't think any further speculation on what will happen in the future is merited in this topic for now, and certainly not on climate change, HS2 and other peripheral factors. Their time will undoubtedly come when all the options are considered in due course, but when the current issue of repair and reopening is dealt with and when all parties have had time to catch their breath. The line at Dawlish has been breached and NR etc are doing their utmost to fix it, together with the other issues in Dorset and Somerset. Let's try and stick to that if we possibly can please.

I think Lifeboatman sums up our position quite well. Going back over 30-odd pages separating them as Trevor suggests is a lot of work, and in any case there are enough readers who are interested in both/all facets of this topic who would be inconvenienced if they had to go through two or more threads instead of just one. As Lifeboatman suggests, just skip over any posts that don't interest you.

Quite. And as was pointed out he has thanked members for their replies in advance. There are many reasons, such as work or family commitments, which might preclude a member being available on here 24/7.

Apart from a bit of OT posting, this is now covering similar material to the other HS2 topic - any objections to merging them before we have two significant parallel topics running? EDIT - OK done

Let's try and steer this back to the 2BIL if possible please.

Two Dapol Western topics now merged.