Derekl

The Network Rail advice is not quite correct - it is a criminal offence to trespass on the railway if once there, the perpetrator refuses to leave after being asked to do so. (Section 16 Railway Regulation Act 1840; Section 23 Regulation of the Railways Act 1868 and Section 55 British Transport Commission Act 1949). It appears that a sign warning that it is a punishable offence to trespass on the railway, provided it is properly evidenced and presumably that it is likely that the perpetrator saw or should have seen it is sufficient for the 1949 Act. It may also be sufficient for the earlier Acts, which explains all those warning signs you see on railway property.

Sorry, that is not what the paper is doing - it reports that the victims are well known graffiti artists (without passing judgment, as a news story should not do) and that they were known within the graffiti community (again without passing judgment). The story also reports the considerable disruption to train services as a result, and reasonably reports the Mayor's reaction. It is actually a decent news story, reporting without judging (perhaps an alien concept to readers of the "Daily Mail" and similar) and leaving the reader to make his or her own assessment, as I see many have.... What one thinks of some of the comments is another matter. But, as someone mentioned, it isn't a level crossing accident...

The short answer is, don't and not for the reason above, unless you intend to be primary driver of the car and your son occasional - that is irregular and not that often. That doesn't seem to be the scenario. Insurers regard insuring the car for a parent as primary driver with off spring as named driver where the latter does most of the driving with some disfavour. If anything goes wrong they will investigate and there is a serious risk of having the policy voided which can be an expensive exercise. The best course of action is to look for a real "cream puff" despite the son' aspirations to 2 litre Alfa Romeos. I am afraid it is small engine Fiesta or similar, insurance for which will still be north of £1K, but is useful to build experience and move to the higher aspirations in a few years.

It certainly was in June 2017 - I enjoyed a soup and sandwich there while waiting for the train to Fort William

The train concerned was 1V91, 14.36 Newcastle to Reading (it took me about 5 minutes to establish that on a freely available internet site). The train left Doncaster Right Time at 15.59 and next appeared at a booked timing point - Swinton - at 17.26 running 78 minutes late, it arrived Sheffield at 17.45, 85 minutes late and was terminated 'due to an issue with the train crew'. (N.B. That would no doubt be an NR delay attribution and should in my view be treated as 'initial pending resolution with the train operator'). As I noted in Post 17, yesterday, but thanks for the repeat...

It seems to have been 1V91 from Open train times. Passes Colton Junction 13 late then disappears from the record to reappear at Swinton, now 78 late. Cancelled at Sheffield after arriving 84 late. Some XCs do go via Leeds, thus leaving the ECML at Colton Junction, although it seems to have taken a while before the driver realised he was not on the correct route (or maybe he did, and the efforts to sort it out are unreported).

Those coaches look really comfortable in the rain.

Quite a lot of the problem is that politicians (of all flavours) often prefer their own pet dogmas to the sound technical advice they are given.

The Guardian this morning carries a number of letter on this topic (the real topic, not aspartame) including a cogent letter from NR head of media mounting the predictable defence. Otherwise, there are others who support the activity, both to be able to see better from the window, and to reduce delays.

I have to say that your earlier post certainly looked like criticism of the Guardian, although looking back I see you mentioned the BBC as well. My impression is that the Guardian does get the full facts and report them accurately - there really is nothing wrong with this story other than a (perhaps) overenthusiastic headline. It might have helped had NR bothered to comment - there is clearly a defence to the arguments made by the groups being reported, but you can't expect the Guardian to report a response that hasn't been made. As to policing issues, the paper (and for that matter the BBC) are reporting sound and official sources, as noted by Mike Storey above - it cannot be seriously argued that they are acting as sounding boards for police "authorities" (which no longer exist, in passing - replaced by Police and Crime Commissioners).

The Guardian carries a "correction" this morning - the photograph is on the Kent and East Sussex, which it accepts has no involvement in Network Rail's tree-felling operation.

Sorry if I did not make that clear - the commentators on the program were curious as to who would buy them, a problem I can see. If there are no takers, they will close.

Mike Coupe of Sainsbury's was on PM on R4 a few minutes ago insisting that there would be no store closures and thus no job losses at store level. He hesitated a bit when asked about job losses further up the food chain. He weasn't asked what he would do about store closures mandated by the regulator, if any. A business type commentator said that Sainsbury's themselves have (privately) accepted that around 100 stores will have to go. It is not clear where they would go, which may place jobs at risk. As far as I can make out, although Sainsbury's is talking about price reductions, there is no commentator consensus as to whether these would be effective or long term. I suppose we will have to see. There is a certain inevitability about it, but I do find the concentration of selling and buying power in one big organization a bit worrying. I am aware that it will be marginally bigger than Tesco, but they don't exactly have a great track record in dealing with suppliers - I agree with comments above that they aren't much good at customer service either.

Or perhaps, by agreement, the could enter the platform for that purpose. Another possibility is that this is a delivery base for the village (although it looks a bit small). The papers would have arrived by train and may well have been sold and distributed from here, which would make the presence of the stall a bit more commercially justifiable.

It occurs to me that in a small village with the station more or less centrally situated, as it seems to have been, that may well have been the newsagent/bookstall for the village, which might explain the apparent over provision.

I thought the problem with the 700 seating was that it is not properly spaced - there is insufficient gap between adjacent seats. Ian Walmsley dealt with this at some length in Modern Railways a while ago. When I rode one a while ago, I noticed that but only as a result of reading the article as the train I was in was lightly loaded - there was nobody sitting in the seat next to me, but I could see how it would be cramped if there was. I am not sure what this aspect has to do with the 24 tph specification, although I suppose the cramped seating must result in slightly increased aisle space which may encourage movement down the coach on loading.

It is in an album called "Burton on Trent April 2003" which may be a clue as to the date....

The ban is on advertising which has the sole purpose of promoting a tobacco product. So, if the brand no longer exists, the billboard can't be promoting it. It occurs to me that a billboard on a model; railway cannot be said to have the "sole" purpose of promoting the product, as its main purpose is to depict features of the period modeled. The ban on press and billboard advertising dates from February 2003. Arguably, any pre 2003 layout should feature tobacco advertising, given that i was fairly widespread, as I recall and evidenced by period street scene photographs.

Okay - most definitely not in my backyard, but very cute teenage lion. Mama, other brother and father were around too...

I store tins upside down, as recommended above. Seems to work for many years. I assume the same would apply to jars.

I use credit cards for virtually all spending, but pay off in full each month. The advantage, as noted above, is that I have a full record of spending should I want to analyse it (which I can't actually be bothered to do, but there we are). Payments of £100 plus have the protection of Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act which makes the card provider jointly and severally liable with the retailer or service provider if anything goes amiss, as can happen. I hav a good credit rating which I suspect is a result of moderate spending paid off regularly.

I think the post is behind the lamp post. You can see the operating wire leaving the crank at teh top and then disappearing behind the lamp post - if the lamp post was the support it would not do that.

I use Gillette Blue 2 disposables, shaving every day. Maybe I have soft facial hair, but they last me about a month. I have used razors with replaceable blades in the past, and can't say I have noticed any great difference. It probably does not apply now with production outside the UK, but some years back, all the blades were similar - many were made in a British Steel factory at Stocksbridge (north of Sheffield) which supplied the blades to UK manufacturers. As I understand it, the same quality steel was used for disposable razors and for replaceable blades (although that may have changed now).

Sorry I introduced the DOO element in this having overlooked the reference to the guard/conductor in the OP. I am also aware that the Coastway services are still guard operated since I used one recently to go to Gaugemaster at Ford (where the doors did open for me). Given that there are other services on the Coastway (Littlehampton - Victoria and Portsmouth or Southampton) I suppose it is possible that he was waiting for another service.

Well, sorry for picking the location up. I think this is part of the DOO debate. I have no doubt that DOO can be operated safely and efficiently in the right context. The problem is that what is happening here is not in the right context. If you want to run DOO there should be platform staff (as on London Overground), preferably with an ability to communicate problems to the driver, but at the very least drivers taking right of way from them. Platform staff here would (probably) have seen the intending passenger and done the necessary. It is quite difficult for guards to deal with this issue on crewed trains (although from what I have seen they do so reasonably efficiently), but I don't see how a driver does so - not possible. Sorry to be slightly off topic (but I think this is a DOO issue), on a recent trip to Germany I noticed that the Frankfurt S Bahn uses DOO, no doubt similar to others in Germany. In contrast to practice in the UK, I noticed that there was virtually no gap between train floor and platform on the stations I used, thus no possibility of a fall between train and platform. It is obviously possible that there are stations with a train/platform gap, but I didn't see them and much of these lines are new build. The door sensors are also very sensitive - a wave through the gap causes them to re-open. I know this causes reliability problems, but that did not seem to be a problem here (but I could well be wrong on that).