Jump to content
 

land slip Banbury - leamington spa


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

Given the amount of slip to be moved that has been quoted it is about a quarter of the size of the slip at Hatfield and Stainforth. That took 5 months from slip to reopening but it is not as simple as taking a proportional timescale since we do not know what damage there is to the formation. That at Hatfield was substantial.

 

The official report is what we need to see or official updates from Network Rail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Which slip?

The 1884 one?: http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrhc94.htm :jester:

 

Keith

Long recognised as a 'difficult' area I believe Keith.  What I therefore find difficult to understand is why a building(s?) should be under construction right on the top of an area known to be somewhat on the dodgy side.  I wonder if NR objected to this development in the way they have at a well known slip site at Dawlish?  Or were they even consulted about the building work?

 

Looks like the Southampton container etc trains are going via the preferred diversionary route of Reading - Acton - WCML but seemingly rather thinned out at present.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

This is serious because the civil works that have been done to stabilise the original slip have not worked - they have failed.

 

I can smell writs on the wind.

 

Why?

 

From the limited photos available, the repairs previously carried out seem perfectly reasonable in the sense that they have worked successfully elsewhere on the network where cuttings have required stabilisation works. Presumably the relevant geotechnical experts had every reason to suppose they would work here too or NR wouldn't have gone to the expense of applying them to this location.

 

Thus while compensation will certainly be due from NR due to the line not being open, such practices are already catered for in the various agreements that underpin our allegedly privatised railway structure. Talk of Writs implies negligence which is nonsense when actually there is plenty of evidence to suggest that NR were taking all reasonable steps to manage the situation.

 

We need LESS legal involvement in our railways not more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't know what the original geotechnical prognosis and recommended solution was. It is possible that the optimum solution was too expensive and disruptive for NR to stomach and a half way house solution to improve stability but not cure it chosen but knowing the risk of a big slip.

 

It will certainly be a bigger solution now

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Long recognised as a 'difficult' area I believe Keith.  What I therefore find difficult to understand is why a building(s?) should be under construction right on the top of an area known to be somewhat on the dodgy side.  I wonder if NR objected to this development in the way they have at a well known slip site at Dawlish?  Or were they even consulted about the building work?

 

There was a section of track featured in one of the recent railway documentary series where a factory estate with inadequate drainage, had been built at the top of an embankment .

Every time there was heavy rain water poured onto the NR property were it hadn't previously.

 

Keith

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?

 

From the limited photos available, the repairs previously carried out seem perfectly reasonable in the sense that they have worked successfully elsewhere on the network where cuttings have required stabilisation works. Presumably the relevant geotechnical experts had every reason to suppose they would work here too or NR wouldn't have gone to the expense of applying them to this location.

 

Thus while compensation will certainly be due from NR due to the line not being open, such practices are already catered for in the various agreements that underpin our allegedly privatised railway structure. Talk of Writs implies negligence which is nonsense when actually there is plenty of evidence to suggest that NR were taking all reasonable steps to manage the situation.

 

We need LESS legal involvement in our railways not more.

I was talking about NR suing their consultants and contractors who were obviously in the process of building the stabilisation works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...