Edwin_m

Today's loss of all three of the rail routes across Somerset suggests another problem for the use of Okehampton-Tavistock as a diversionary route. Had it been reopened or never closed, how likely is it that the exceptionally poor weather across the region would have blocked it as well? While I wish all success to those campaigning for Okehampton-Tavistock reopening, I fear its benefit as an emergency diversionary route is limited whether assessed as part of a business case or in purely strategic terms. As others have suggested, closures of the coast route rarely last long enough to bring in an unplanned diversion of this length, and diversion via Okehampton cannot provide a satisfactory service for the significant populations served by the intermediate stations on the main line or by the Paignton branch. Having read all this discussion it seems to me to boil down to three issues: (1) In the short term the sea wall line must be reinstated and continue to be maintained both as a railway and as a sea defence. Maximum commendation to CK and his Network Rail colleagues! (2) Some study is needed of whether this event is truly rare or whether the effects of climate change (more storms and higher sea levels) make it increasingly likely. If disruption and damage is predicted to reach unacceptable freqencies then either the wall needs to be improved while still carrying the railway, or the railway needs to be rebuilt further inland so the wall can be rebuilt higher/wider/better without the constraint of having to accomodate the railway. The inland route should if possible provide stations at the "back" of Dawlish and Teignmouth. (3) Any Okehampton-Tavistock reopening needs to stand on its own merits. Justification would be based on the benefits of providing a service to the towns it passes through, plus perhaps some small benefit as a planned diversionary route during blockades especially between Totnes and Plymouth.

I'd have thought the extra time spent in transferring the passengers and luggage would be far greater than the time taken just to reverse the train. And a shuttle from Plymouth to Paignton would have to reverse at Newton Abbot.

The Bailey Bridge idea might restore the railway but it wouldn't do anything for the road and houses that would still be exposed to the sea. The next storm might or might not destroy the bridge but it would almost certainly cause more damage to the town behind the railway - and if it brings those houses down then the railway is blocked again anyway. Reinstatement of a sea wall in the place it is breached restores both the railway and the sea defences and is an essential first step. On another point, has the breach also severed the signalling cables and what does this mean for those parts of the Exeter PSB area that are west of it?

I wonder if some politician might see an advantage in announcing an immediate study of an inland route. With the Govt under criticism from Somerset and having a generally pro-rail attitude I think there is some chance that they might see it as a vote-winner and in the national interest, as well as putting some spending towards an area that doesn't benefit much from any of the other rail investments they have announced.

Is that the preparation for reinstatement of the junction after a little accident with a MGR? ISTR it was plain-lined for a year or two as BR was trying to close the Radford route at the time.

The railway formation may nor may not be re-useable under Victoria Centre, and the tunnels survive though one is used for a district heating system. However virtually no trace of the GC survives on the surface within the Nottingham conurbation, with the exception of the sections that are or soon will be part of a tram route.

The entire area of Nottingham Victoria station was built up by the time the GC arrived and had to be cleared and excavated. It is arguably nearer to the city centre than Midland station is. Midland station was built on the flood plain, which was undeveloped at the time, with the consequence that it was under a couple of feet of water in 1947.

Glossop is on the list of possible Manchester tram-train routes, though others such as Marple are much more likely to happen.

Until 2002 I walked over that bridge on the way to work in the RTC. By that time it had acquired various reinforcements and clearly wasn't a happy bridge even then. Apparently the work to replace it started over Christmas and will last until next autumn. Seems a very long time for one bridge! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-25495486

The advice quoted by Hippo may be perfectly rational in the calm atmosphere of a driving lesson but trying to remember it in a panic situation could be something else entirely. I don't remember it being explained to me when I did lessons 30+ years ago and as the driver in question was described as elderly then it's likely he learned to drive even longer ago. Pretty sure my current car wouldn't let me do that either, as it can only be started by pressing a button with the clutch down. As I think I posted a few back, the very presence of a level crossing probably makes it statistically much more likely that a vehicle will stall there.

A RAIB report has just appeared of a derailment at Castle Donington which gives some details of the new signalling towards Trent.

At least it probably makes it less likely people will slow right down then stall on the crossing due to being in the wrong gear etc. In a lot of ways it's better to encourage the traffic to move faster (within reason!), especially on automatic crossings.

In some cases, such as future Crossrail stations, the main purpose of platform screen doors is related to ventilation and smoke management, and the platform screen "wall" goes all the way up to roof level. However this isn't the case for the Jubilee line, where the running tunnel is open to the platform above the level of the top of the screen. Despite this, the open air Jubilee stations built at the same time don't have platform screen doors (and nor will the open-air Crossrail stations) so prevention of falls onto the track is not an overriding reason to provide platform screen doors. This leads to the question of what the platform screen doors on the Jubilee are actually for...

I think there are two things going on here. One is the objection to some housing that might be built on the green belt near Toton, and the other is the inhabitants of the leafy village of Strelley that will be tunneled under and are looking for an alternative via the Erewash Valley rather than the current preference to follow approximately the M1. The latter group have been bending Patrick McLaucghin's ear via Anna Soubry. I don't think either of these fundamentally threatens the selection of Toton, although Derby council are still pushing for the route to go through Derby.

The P&R will be at the end of the dual carriageway part of the A453 when the current work is finished, so creating an incentive to use it rather than driving on through Clifton village. The Nottingham tram pre-dates HS2 but everyone seems to be agreed that a short extension from Bardills Island to the HS2 terminus is worth doing. It certainly gives better access to western Nottingham but with 16 stops to the city centre it needs to be supplemented by a heavy rail shuttle too.

I believe Ruddington was accessed by reversing in the tunnel at Weekday Cross until the Loughborough connection was put in during the 70s, and parcels work continued at London Road Low Level until well after that. Not sure though if these were accessed from Netherfield Junction or whether another connection was put in nearer Nottingham. If the tramway had served the northern limit of the GCR(N) at Ruddington (where there is no useable station) then it would have missed the much larger settlement of Clifton or at least served parts of it less closely and all of it less directly. I read somewhere that GCR(N) would like to extend northwards to a new tram interchange just south of the A52, which would seem to be a better solution, although the likely interchange site is one of the most environmentally sensitive parts of the tram route. Parts of the route in between have reverted to agriculture so this would be a major undertaking.

That must have been before the villain blew it all up in Skyfall. Where James Bond was definitely travelling on the District line in Tube stock too...

Since any work on the HS2 Heathrow link was put on hold pending the Davies Commission I'm a little surprised that the same hasn't happened with WRAtH. However this may be because in the rather unlikely event of Heathrow being closed as an airport it would be redeveloped as a new urban area, which wouldn't need a high speed link but would benefit from good conventional rail links in all directions.

Unless someone pays for clearance work I assume the operator would have to find an HST or something else if they wanted to continue this working.

Clearances on the Pembroke Dock branch are very tight and there would almost certainly be major problems trying to run an IEP on it.

Last time I heard the bi-mode IEPs in the GW fleet are all to be 5-car and the electrics 10-car. Whether a bi-mode to Weston splits/joins at Bristol or runs as two units throughout, it will have a bit less capacity than a straight electric due to the dead space in the end cars, and will also need more on-board staff.

Bi-mode is necessary for Worcester and Cheltenham workings as well as the extensions to Weston, Carmarthen etc. They will also have to work the main Bristol and South Wales routes when these are diverted off the wires such as via Westbury or Gloucester, though this will probably be late evening or Sundays when there is some slack in the fleet.

On the other hand the South African train in "Young Winston" bore a striking resemblence to a 9F.

Unfortunately VT built a multi-storey car park on the formerly practical route onto the streets of Wigan, although there may be room for a tram-train terminus alongside it. The Atherton line has no through traffic except Southport services, and if these ran via Bolton a diversionary route would still exist via Parkside.

East Didsbury to Hazel Grove involves re-connecting the former Midland route, now the Metrolink line, with the freight line to the south of the Mersey, then following this to a new terminus before it meets the chord up from the existing Hazel Grove station.