martin_wynne

But not many without a signal box.

Not fish:

Hi Michael, Here is a video showing how to do that. Templot will get the map for you and set it to the correct scale: https://85a.uk/templot/companion/get_map_from_the_web.php cheers, Martin.

Hi Michael, DON'T DO THAT! If you change the scaling the track won't match your track plan and templates. To adjust the chair fit, click this button and change the settings: But first, you can probably use better settings in your FDM slicer than the standard profiles provided. The default settings in the chair fit button should work well if you get the slicer settings better. I'm in the middle of explaining the slicer settings for you on Templot Club forum, but I knew you wouldn't wait until I've finished! 🙂 The chairs are designed to be a tight press fit in the sockets, they don't just drop in (otherwise they would need some glue). You can firm them home by tapping a hardwood block on the rail top with a pin hammer: If you are using the solid-jaw slide-on chairs, don't try to fit them without rail in them. Martin.

Yes, I was thinking of that when I wrote it. But in that case the problem was a failure of the leaf-cleaning regime. Hopefully that has been changed since, or extra speed restrictions introduced when conditions are bad. Martin.

. I give up. How much would a shuttle bus round the local schools to and from the station cost? That sort of thing used to happen 60 years ago when I was at school, but we mustn't hark back to the old days of course. Bus Back Better? See: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9464/ Martin.

To do all that without inventing the wheel strikes me as pretty dim-witted. The very first thing you are likely to need is a wheelbarrow. Did they at least use log rollers under the stones? Martin.

Well I'm pretty sure it would significantly reduce the total risk. I didn't suggest it would remove all risk. For most of the day the risk is unchanged, but for far fewer pedestrians. It was obviously a daft idea, on operational and financial grounds. You could easily shoot it down in flames on that basis. But to choose RISK as a reason to object to it makes no sense to me at all. You are in effect saying that the railway can't be trusted to run safely, and you would be better off walking across a live railway on foot that sitting in a train at the opposite platform. Martin.

Also within walking distance is a private catholic girls school, Farnborough Hill, with a capacity of 650: https://www.farnborough-hill.org map: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/196961357#map=17/51.30044/-0.74566 Martin.

This is getting silly. I never suggested not having a footbridge, which is obviously the best solution. I was suggesting a way of dealing with the problem IF IF IF it is not possible to build a bridge. I've noticed time and again that the word IF seems to be invisible on RMweb. Martin.

Hi Mike, But he was comparing two different risks which are orders of magnitude different in scale. The financial and operational factors are obviously massive, but they don't change the underlying risks: 1. that a schoolchild would be killed or injured crossing the railway tracks on the level. That risk is so great that it very nearly happened, and only the intervention of a crossing keeper prevented it. How often has a pedestrian been injured on a foot crossing in recent years? 2. that a train will pass a signal at danger AND that the TPWS will fail AND that the driver will be unable to brake sufficiently to avoid a serious collision. How often has that happened in recent years? The two risks just aren't sensibly comparable. Martin.

Perhaps the court would order the objectors and the children's parents to be locked in a room and not come out until they have reached an agreement. I'm sure NR would be happy to provide the room and the sandwiches.

What would happen if they did exactly that? Would a court order them to demolish it and force school children to walk across a live railway line instead? Martin.

I wasn't burying my head in the sand, harking back to the old ways, or pretending it was better then. We now have many safety improvements. TPWS, in-cab radio, and all the rest. Just wearing bright orange has probably saved many lives. The change I object to is the attitude. In those old days the response to such a question would be a confident "we can do this, let's get on with it". Nowadays the very first response is to find reasons why it can't be done, and blame H&S. Martin.

Good grief Simon, what has the railway come to? This is what our railways used to look like: Now we can't have signals -- far too risky, they might get passed at danger. We can't install a crossover -- it might need oiling. Obviously running trains in this country is far too risky and difficult, it would be better if we stopped doing it. My throwaway idea was obviously a bit silly in operational terms, or in financial terms, but the idea that it can't be done because of RISK is beyond belief. What has happened to our railway? Martin.

Crossovers and signalling can be installed. It costs money, but so does a footbridge, which might not then be needed. It also doesn't require any planning permission or have any Nimby issues. We are talking about saving young lives. Martin.

It doesn't say it's not possible to provide a footbridge -- just tied up in planning red tape. That would vanish overnight if a kid got killed. A short-term measure might be a motor-operated gate a few seconds after the alarm starts. If it closes slowly it is unlikely to injure anyone badly, and the crossing keeper could stop it if they saw such a thing likely to happen. An operational possibility might be to swap school trains to the opposite platform if the signalling allows it. Frightening the kids would help -- I doubt many of them held the gate open for others while the alarm was sounding on the next morning. It would have been all round the college by lunchtime. Martin.

RAIB report today: https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/report-04-slash-2023-near-miss-at-farnborough-north-footpath-level-crossing Andrew Hall, Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents said: "This incident was particularly serious because it involved large numbers of school and college students crossing the railway on a footpath crossing, ahead of a train travelling at speed. A serious accident was probably avoided due to the quick thinking of the crossing attendant who, on realising the danger, ran to intervene directly by closing a crossing gate that the students were holding open for each other. Behind the incident was an issue of the type RAIB has seen before. Historically the railway knew of the risks at this crossing and ongoing efforts were being made to replace it with a footbridge. This was proving time consuming and difficult, as is sometimes the case when planning decisions are involved. In the meantime, additional warning lights were installed, and a crossing attendant was provided to remotely control electromagnetic locks on the gates, thereby reducing risk. However, a known residual risk was that the crossing’s users might not respond correctly when the audible alarm and warning lights were activated by an approaching train. In this case people held open the gates for each other as the train approached, meaning the attempted application of the gate locks by the attendant had no effect. If a known level of residual risk is allowed to persist for a long time, the chances of it manifesting itself as an accident or serious incident will inevitably rise. This is what happened at Farnborough North and is why the incident holds a powerful lesson."

Hi, All the answers are available if you ask on the Templot Club forum. That's what it's there for: https://85a.uk/templot/club/ There is a direct link in the help menu in the program: cheers, Martin.

I hope you told her? It can make a person's day to be told they are doing a good job. Martin.

And several more in the RMweb area.

I do hope they are scratching "2023 AD" into the wet concrete on HS2. We don't want any arguments breaking out on RMweb in 5000 years time. Martin.

Sorry, my photos from that time have gone missing. But Google says "Estimated as being erected in 3100 BC, Stonehenge was already 500-1,000 years old before the first pyramid was built". But it's probably fake news. Martin.

Stonehenge was a dry run for the Egyptian Pyramids, which were built about 1000 years later. They waited that long for the patent to be granted to UK Pyramid Designs Ltd, who were the design consultants for the Pyramid project. The Pyramids were made that shape to avoid having to wait even longer for plastic guttering and downpipes to be invented.