IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) it depends on what the permitted speed is.
Such poor condition track would be potentialy dangerous at a high line speed, but little cause for concern at very low speed, as in some platforms.

It appear that the ballast has either disintegrated, or been driven downwards into the underlying soil.
This results in excessive movement of the sleepers and rails as trains pass, this gets worse as time passes since the continual movement wears away or displaces more ballast, and tends to pollute the ballast with mud/soil.
In time a broken rail can result, or the track becomes so distorted that derailment occurs.

De-railment at 100 MPH can result in a destructive accident with substantial loss of life, at very low speed the result is far less serious.

IMHO you acted correctly in reporting this, network rail will know the permitted speed, and can therefore decide if the matter is urgent, or can wait until the next routine visit.

Regarding line speeds in general, I wonder if the service on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) (and elswhere) could be improved by a slight general increase in line speeds, I believe that in many cases speeds could be slightly increased without expensive infrastructure works, and without reducing safety standards.

It must be remembered that a speed limit of say 60, may have been imposed decades ago when many drivers took speed restrictions with a "pinch of salt". In years gone by a great many services routinely exceeded speed limits by 5 or 10 MPH without accident.
These days speed limits are strictly enforced, with drivers at risk of dismissal for all but the most trivial breaches.
A strictly enforced limit of say 65 MPH should be no less safe than a limit of 60, over which trains in practice did at least 65 and sometimes 70.

If the timings were kept as at present, but permitted speeds slightly increased, then a much more reliable service could offred, by turning late departures into on time arrivals.

Reading the above press release is a bit worrying!

1)the picture of cattle class appears to be mainly high density bus seats without tables, as on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) "improved" HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train).

2) They refer to 21% more seats, thats not much when looking at the overcrowding on todays services, I suggest that we need new trains with a substantialy increased capacity, 12 coachs instead of 7/8 (or pro rata if longer coaches are to be used)

3) they also refer to replacing the HSTs, what we need surely is new full length trains to suplement the HSTs which could still work less busy trains and/or secondary routes.

4) It will probably be discovered at the last minute, that the 26M long coaches wont fit some curved platforms without spending an extra few billion^ (meanwhile we can use a 2 car DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit))

If proper catering and luggage space was to be provided, we could spend a vast amount of public money to end up with less comfortable trains that only carry about 10% more passengers, hows that for progress!

Well it is certainly good news for those employed on the project, at a time of rising unemployment.

As to whether it is good news for passengers on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and elswhere, that remains to be seen.

In the past, many new trains have been a backward step for passengers, since new trains have generaly been shorter, with minimal catering, few tables, limited luggage space, and reduced legroom.

Also, in the past, new trains have been replacements, but what we need now in many cases is extra rolling stock, not replacements.
There will be no gain for passengers if say 40 HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) are scrapped and 36 new trains introduced (new trains are often introduced in smaller numbers than the ones they replace, because it is hoped that will have higher availability. This is seldom achieved in practice)

There is no reason why refurbished HSTs cant remain in service for another 20 years or more.
With many services grossly overcrowded, what we need is a new build of full length inter-city trains, at least 12 coaches, with restaurant, hot buffet, facing seats with tables, luggage space etc.
These should be in addition to the HSTs which should be retained for less busy services and secondary main line routes.
Any spare HSTs that result should not be scrapped but should displace the unsuitable DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) used on many longer routes.
The resultant spare DMUs should of course not be scrapped but used to increase train lengths.

At a time when the rail network is increasingly congested, we need to move away from trying to provide more trains, and move towards longer trains.

Overcrowded HSTs should be replaced with new 12 coach trains
Overcrowded or unsuitable DMUs should be replaced with HSTs
Overcrowded, but otherwise suitable DMUs should be lengthened.

Only in very exceptional circumstances should anything be scrapped, better a seat on an old train than standing on a new one!
Older less efficient or less reliable trains should be kept in reserve and used for peak flows or in case of breakdown etc.

Loco hauled services can be expensive to run, but are useful for increasing capacity and therefore customer satisfaction.
To loco haul 12 coaches costs more than 6, but not twice as much, therefore it would seem that the best use would be a 10/12 coach loco hauled train on whatever the busiest HST^▸ (High Speed Train) diagram is.
This would free an HST to displace a DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) from whatever the busiest DMU diagram is, thus freeing one or two DMUs and allowing lengthing of the most overcrowded services.
Therefore the introduction of one or two full length loco hauled trains would bring real benifits to many passengers, not just those on board.

Perhaps a long loco hauled set of coaches could be used on the Golden Hind (up and down) This service is frequently very overcrowded, and is meant to be especialy important.
Does anyone know if a 67 with coaches could keep to HST times? or would two 67s be required?

We need the ICEP because the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) wont last forever, and also have inadeqaute capacity on many services.
As others suggest what we need is a long train of proper loco hauled coachs,with facing seats, tables, luggage space, and a restaurant/buffet, with diesel or electric locomotives/power cars being used as required.

What we will probably get is some variety of complicated diesel/electric hybrid multiple unit, shorter than existing trains and with high density bus seats and no catering or luggage space.

No, the HSTs dont have an electronic reservation system, at least on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know) elswhere too.
Traditional paper tickets are used and this usually works quite well.

Yes, a very interesting article, I particularly liked "when customers say they want a seat, they dont mean that they want to sit with thiere knees behind theire ears in order that 4 more people can sit down, they mean that want an extra coach in order that 74 more people can sit down" (or words to that effect, dont have the article to hand)

There is a general belief among the public at large, that the railway industry has received large amounts of public money which has been spent on REDUCING train lengths.
Whilst the well informed members of this forum will be aware that this is not allways the case, regretably often it is. My local line (not FGW^▸ (First Great Western))  suffered total route modernisation some years ago, which meant 6 car trains replacing 8 car.
Waterloo to Exeter was also modernised, with 8 car loco hauled services downgraded to 3 car DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit).

AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know) the signaling between the Minehead branch and the main line has now been improved, and would permit of a regular through service to Bishops lydeard or beyond.

I very much hope that we will see through trains again, either for special events, or even a regular timetabled service.

The 28 bus provides an acceptable service at off peak times, but is very poor at busy times due to overcrowding of the bus and delays caused by road congestion.

Unfortunatly, providing a regular rail service between Minehead and Taunton, might not produce any saving on the subsidy paid to the bus company.
When BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) closed the Minehead branch, a bus service was provided instead, this was originaly a true rail replacement bus, calling only at railway stations.
However as the years went by, the bus service was altered to better serve not just ex rail customers, but also the community in general.
As a result the present bus service has many additional stops, not at rail stations, the better to serve numerous communities en-route.
Any replacement of the bus by a re-instated rail service would probably be strongly opposed by such communities.

"red oil for a tail lamp" indeed!
What about red batteries for a modern tail light then?

I frequently use the 1803 from Paddington on fridays, whilst standard class ticket holders are sometimes addmitted, it would be unwise to count on this, sometimes even first class ticket holders are turned away.
On this service I invariably pay first class to be nearly certain of getting a seat in the restaurant.
Sometimes the staff make no enquiry as to what ticket is held, and merely admit the first 17 or 29 customers to arrive. (I have complained about this if I have paid the full first class fare and been unable to dine because standard class were admitted first, having been able to run faster than me)
There is only one sitting, on leaving Paddington, first class ticket holders may therefore remain in the restaurant for the remainder of the journey if they wish.
Standard ticket holders are meant to return to standard class after completing the meal, though enforcement of this is rather variable.

On days other than Fridays, standard class have more of a chance, but I would not rely on this.

Seats in the pullman can be booked by those purchasing a first class ticket.

On less busy services such as the afternoon train from Plymouth, there is generly ample room in the restaurant for everyone.

Does anyone know if through trains between Minehead and the national network are to return?

They seemed successful in the summer of 2007, but AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know) did not run in summer 2008. Although the trains in 2007 were open to anyone purchasing a ticket, I believe that were primarily intended for customers of the Butlins holiday camp, hence the timings.

The main road between Minehead and Taunton suffers from awful traffic jams at busy times, and the motoring lobby frequently call for road widening.
A modest subsidy for through trains might alleviate congestion better than road widening.

Of what does the travelling chef service actually consist in practice?
Whenever I have tried it, its been a counter service of toasted sandwiches only, nothing else and no table service in first class, as was promised.
Have I been unlucky or is this the norm?

Whenever possible I use trains with a proper pullman restaurant, and very good it is too, when available.

Not that many years ago there were 7 trains daily from paddington to the West with a pullman, now its 3, hows that for progress!
When the most of the pullmans were withdrawn, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) promised that the wretched travelling chef would be a similar service to a pullman, with proper hot meals, china plates, table service in first etc.
What we get is a toasted sandwich in a cardboard carton! did not this used to be called a hot buffet?

Third rail power supply is not generally regarded as suitable for long distance mainlines.
The limited clearences mean that the voltage has to be quite low (less than 1,000 volts) this requires a much larger current to supply the power.
The combination of low voltage and high current means that substations have to be located at relativly frequent intervals which adds substantialy to costs for both equipment and land purchase.
Also the HSE^▸ (Health and Safety Executive) are opposed to any significant expansion of the third rail network, they dont like the presence of a lethal voltage exposed at ankle height.

Fuel cells are very bulky and very expensive in sizes suitable for locomotive use, much bigger than a diesel engine.
Hydrogen fuel is also very bulky and problematic to store and handle, it must be stored either as a supercold liquid in a very expensive insulated tank, or as a gas under great pressure in special ultra high pressure tanks,
Refueling would  be a complex operation, requiring sophisticated facilities, not like diesel fuel that simply needs a pump and a hose!
However the main objection to the use of hydrogen is that hydrogen is not a source of fuel, but a means of storing or transporting energy.
Hydrogen must be manufactured, there are two means of so doing on a large scale.
Firstly by the chemical treatment of natural gas, this is a well understood process, but natural gas suffers from the same problems of declining supply and rising prices as does oil. If natural gas is to be used, better to use it directly as liquified natural gas rather turn it into hydrogen.
Hydrogen can also by produced by electrolisis of water, this requires a great deal of power and there are already doubts as to the sufficiency of UK^▸ (United Kingdom) generating capacity. To electrify and use electricity directly would be more efficient.
Finaly having produced the hydrogen, it must be either compresed or liquified which requires considerable expensive plant, that also requires energy to run it.
Then convince the nimbys that it is safe to store hydrogen at rail depots etc! it is probably no more dangerous than petrol, but try convincing anyone of that. And it probably is more dangerous than diesel fuel.

Agree entirely, other countries have weather and theire largely electric railways work fine even in conditions much worse then experienced in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom).

However in the short term I feel that getting the existing electrified lines to work reliably should be a higher priority than cheaply/badly electrfying the great western routes.
I cant imagine any decision being taken taken until after the next election, then allow at least 5 years for nimbyfests, another 5 years for technical planning and another 5 years for actual installation.
It therefore appears unlikely that great western routes will be electrified before 2020, and 2025 might be more realistic.
Hence the nead for some proper, new, full length, long distance "self propeled" trains, which in effect means diesel powered.
The existing HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) though excellent in many ways, are simply inadeqaute on busy services, hence the need for a limited number of new 12 coach intercity trains. The HSTs being retained for less busy services and/or secondary main line services.