Derekl

There is a fairly detailed discussion of ERTMS in relation to a train passing Llandebarn crossing with the barriers up in this RAIB report. The Appendices may also contain useful information (confess I did not get as far as reading them): http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/120627_R112012_Llanbadarn.pdf

Slightly off the topic, but related to energy saving, I noticed that a strict "off at the plug" policy on TV and add-ons, computers and periphals, and things like mobile phone chargers seemed to make a noticeable difference to electricity bills, maybe 15% or so reduction. Makes some sense when you look at the computer, printer and other junk all with their own little transformers, all using a small amount of power 24/7 (unless you knock them off).

The Highway Code was first published in 1931. The stopping distances are the same (albeit now in metric) in the current edition, suggesting there has been no improvement in brake, tyre and road surface performance in 80 years. The hand signals are still there as a supplement to rule 103, although they are presented in a less amusing fashion.

I got one of these after a frustrating evening in some place north of Manchester trying to find a house and street using a Google maps print out, in the dark, and raining. Fairly useless if you want to travel (say) Leeds to London, since you just go down the M1, but pretty vital for finding the destination address in London. Having said that, it does give an ETA, more or less accurately. The software seems to work on the basis that you travel at 60 mph in 70 zones, down to 25 in 30 zones. In the latter, it is unaware of the existence of traffic lights, so the last bit of the journey, if on busy city streets, will be optimistic. If you can stick to 70 to 75 mph on motorways, you see the ETA dropping slowly. In city traffic, particularly when effected by traffic lights, you see it rise. The one I have (Garmin) doesn't seem to have any software taking account of your driving style. I can't really see the point in trying to race it, but no doubt somebody finds it fun - but then, people do find some odd things to be "fun". I agree with other commentators that it doesn't really give you a feel for where you are, or what is round about you. You are just following the instructions on screen and (sometimes irritatingly) in voice. I have sometimes driven to areas with which I was once familiar, recognised the layout, and thought "Oh that is where we are!" While I prefer a map and a rough idea in what passes for a brain as to where I am in relation to the UK generally, or local attractions, they do have their uses - I can't see that racing them is one of those.

Put the postcode into google search and one of the first options will be zoopla, which has land registry recorded house prices from about 1995. There are other sites (which also come up) giving much the same information - you don't have to register for zoopla, nor most of the others. You may have to fiddle about a bit to get the exact house you are looking for, but it isn't very difficult.

The use of concrete for motorway road surfaces in the UK was the result of lobbying by the concrete industry in the early days of motorway construction - I think the government agreed that X % of motorway surfaces were to be concrete. I don't know what the cost of material and building are, but I guess that agreement would not have been made unless concrete and tarmac surfaces were broadly similar in cost. The concrete surface is not totally satisfactory - smooth concrete would be bad for water run-off and provides poor grip, so it is ridged to allow for run-off and increase grip, thus the unpleasant tyre noise levels on concrete roads. To move on to the actual question, I don't think you will find much poured concrete on pavements in the UK, although it is used for driveway access across the pavement. My access is poured concrete (recently replaced), but having seen the post, I notice that the house across the road has tarmac access. The pavement on that side is tarmac, on my side concrete slabs, with grassed verge to the curb stones. My general impression is that in city/town centres and in older areas concrete slabs were used. Newer developments use tarmac pavements, possibly because they are laid at the same time as the road surface, making it a logical choice. Both are (usually - this is never going to be an exact science) supported by pre-cast concrete curb stones. The traditional 3 foot by 2 foot slab fell foul of the Manual Handling Regulations (they are too heavy to be lifted by one person) although, obviously, many are in still in place. I am not sure what size is currently used, but it is probably about half of that. The large slab could still be used, although the vehicle used to transport and lay would have to be (small) crane equipped. Laying stone slabbing is fairly skilled (particularly if you don't want to have to come back next month to re-align the lot) which may discourage use. Tarmac is (I think) quite easy, although you need the equipment to smooth the surface, which may encourage use. Stone slabbing also has a tendency over time to deteriorate, producing hazardous trips where the sand foundation has been washed or worn away so that the slab can rock, resulting in an apparently flat surface surface suddenly becoming a 1 inch plus trip hazard. This has cost local authorities dearly in compensation payments in the past, but that has also resulted in higher standards of inspection. I don't see it as likely that paving slabs in city/town centres are likely to be replaced with other than slabs, or a version thereof. I can see that in suburban areas, older worn slabbed pavements are likely to be replaced by tarmac.

"Perhaps the Government should go further with their leglation re- 'no win, no fee' claims handling companies and injury lawyers and ban all television advertising so as to try and reverse the cursed 'compensation culture'. it just might save us all some money on our motor/home etc insurance in the future." "Compensation culture": this is a little bit of hoary myth dreamed up by the insurance industry. The level of personal injury claims has been roughly static for a good many years. (Lord Young reported to that effect last year). This despite the efforts of the insurance industry themselves to encourage claims - if you are unfortunate enough to be involved in a road accident your insurer is likely to encourage you to pursue a claim for personal injury (assuming there is some injury) - they will sell it to their panel solicitor for a nice little wad. As to the playgrounds - with me (clearly not very competently) in charge, my 2 year old grand daughter fell off the top of a slide. I was mightily relieved that the ground surface was rubberised matting, not concrete - injuries limited to quite a fright (for both of us) and a very minor bruise on grand daughter's cheek. (Sufficient to get me in bad books of daughter in law, mind you). Nile - I don't quite follow this argument, which assumes that only stupid people have accidents. I don't think that is supported by any statistical analysis.

Interesting too, to notice that these early SR experiments with high speed push pull have had widespread repercussions. 47 + 8 on the Glasgow - Edinburgh, followed by much the same on the WCML and the ECML (well, with 87s and 91s). Over the water, in Europe (OK, sorry, a bit off UK prototype topic), you will find many fast regional expresses operated push-pull: Munich - Vienna I noticed a few years ago, and last week in Italy I noticed the regional sets on Rome - Florence were push-pull, and in widespread use on other services. Much like old SR - spanking new Bombardier locos on one end, sort of new converted DVT on the other, and 8+ 70s (or thereabouts) marginally spruced up coaches in between. (OK inside, but paint peeling on the outside). Remarkable to think that high speed push-pull experiments from cash-strapped SR resulted in al this usage. Perhaps I am wrong, and they would have been doing it anyway, but I understand that it was the SR experience that extended push-pull as it has been.

There is a fair amount of information here, as well: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/index.php Although it seems largely centred on the accident reports (which can be helpful in setting out the layout of junctions, and so on) there are documents on all sorts of issues.