Edwin_m

Some of the track circuits probably aren't working. The train describer moves the descriptions on when it sees a particular track changing from clear to occupied, so if it has failed safe nothing will happen.

It is probably still under engineers' possession - it must be if road-rail vehicles are being used as they aren't allowed on a line open to normal running.

I hope they fence off the glued ballast area so nobody walks on it while the glue is setting.

Increasing what they call the "fixity" of the track allows tighter clearances to be used, because it makes it impossible for the track to move around. The ballast is also glued just off the end of the Metrolink stop at the Etihad stadium, thus denying any miscreants a ready source of ammunition.

Surely all those general safety arrangements could and should be in place even if it isn't a railway site? Declaring it as a railway would just introduce extra complication of needing PTS, COSS etc which are designed around setting up and following safe systems of work in a railway environment. The extra training and safety staff would be time and money wasted addressing a hazard that doesn't exist (trains) and more seriously probably just act as a distraction from the issues that are real hazards on this site (the sea, site plant, falls from height etc). Obviously at some point this changes as it becomes a railway engineering possession (as it probably is elsewhere on the section now) and eventually an operational railway.

I think that's true to a large extent in all the rural areas, except those in the south-east that happen to lie on commuter routes. However the larger cities of the north (and Birmingham) are at a tipping point where public transport is starting to get more attractive than the car for certain journeys starting and/or finishing in the city centres. I think a lot of people who would drive everywhere except into London now wouldn't consider driving into Leeds or Manchester either, and a relatively small investment here can grow usage of the railway by quite a lot.

Not if it was a 4-wheel tram with stud contact!

Thought you were going to say you built the first skateboard out of bits of an old tram...

No doubt the atmospheric pipes will be back soon too.

Thanks Dave (Chris) - I assumed it had happened as there was so much hoo-ha about it a few years back. By hosting the rowing instead, maybe Eton College has done a public service!

The original route is also severed by a rowing lake east of Bedford. It also did quite a good job of missing all sizeable centres of population between Bedford and Cambridge, so some way of picking up Luton or Stevenage would be good (and also improve ECML interchange). To my mind there seems little point in building a new route into Cambridge when the Royston line would have enough capacity.

http://www.eastwestrail.co.uk/ They have succeeded in getting Government commitment to the Oxford-Bedford section, but are still looking at options for the more difficult section east of Bedford.

It would be logical to have a "limit of shunt" on the far end (behind the camera) of the platform you are standing on. This would mark the limit of a move (for example) wrong direction out of the loop into this platform, if it was ever necessary to start a train northwards.

I've heard it said that the loops are to even out wheel wear. It may not always be the case as Sheffield also has one and they could turn trams on the triangle near the station instead.

RSSB did some research into median strips on the approach to crossings. http://www.rssb.co.uk/RESEARCH/Lists/DispForm_Custom.aspx?ID=98

With regards to posting a phone number instead of a phone, using the phone at the crossing has the advantage that the controlling signaller will know exactly which crossing is involved, avoiding the need to confirm this with the caller and the safety risk if a mistake is made. I suppose you could have a separate number for each crossing but then someone would put the number into their phonebook and might accidentally dial it when at at different crossing.

Nottingham Parliament Street - a few rails just about visible here I think. They're moving out to a new site soon. A smaller tram depot in Nottingham - now appears to be a Wetherspoons Paignton - number of times I stayed nearby on holiday and never knew about this one!

Correct, although it was actually a bridleway (Carr Lane). Since replaced by a massive ramped footbridge - but when I visited for work purposes a few years back there was still a foot crossing a mile or so down the line at Rossington.

There was a fatality recently at an AHB near Oxford when the car broke down on the crossing, the driver couldn't get it moving and one of the occupants was a wheelchair user so couldn't get out in the short time before the barriers descended and a train arrived. That would seem to be a truly unusual set of circumstances where despite all reasonably practicable measures being taken there was still an accident. Which didn't prevent someone on another forum arguing that it was a reason all crossings should become MCB/CCTV types.

That's what I recall reading too. The difference it makes in water level upstream is a matter of a few inches.

For Jonathan's benefit, reverse direction controls allow the crossing sequence to operate correctly if a train approaches in the wrong direction, though only at a much reduced speed which is indicated on the wrong-direction approach by a horizontal rectangular white sign with a black speed number and an "X". No such sign is visible at Athelney on Bing maps, but unfortunately Streetview doesn't include the shot down the line which would confirm absolutely that there isn't one. Para 65 states: "The strike-in treadles ... were of a simple design that was unable to differentiate between operation by a train travelling in the normal direction and one travelling in the opposite direction". Para 87 states that treadles on crossings such as Athelney are being replaced by versions that discriminate by direction, which would apparently prevent a wrong-direction move causing the "out of synchronisation" condition that led to the barriers to be down for so long. Reverse direction controls would be a more expensive way of solving the same problem but would also allow the crossing to work automatically during single line working.

Looking at the drawings I think you'll find that HS2 crosses floodplains by viaducts rather than embankments.

Thanks as ever CK for the updates. Is the wall being put back as before or will the path be raised to the level it is along the rest of the section, thus thickening the wall?

The last thing they would want would be to have to put all their urgently-needed workers through a 2-day PTS course plus a medical, which is totally unnecessary as the site is a train-free zone.

I noticed containers are also being used in the Levels to counter the erosion caused by the outflow from the Dutch pumps. Standard technique, great minds, or has NR hit on something with wider use?