Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 18:15 28 Mar 2024
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
- Passengers pleaded with knifeman during attack
* Family anger at sentence on fatal crash driver, 19
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1917)
Bideford, Westward Ho! and Appledore closed (link)

Train RunningCancelled
16:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:48 Reading to Gatwick Airport
17:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:57 London Paddington to Worcester Foregate Street
18:03 London Paddington to Penzance
18:04 Bristol Temple Meads to Filton Abbey Wood
18:04 Bedwyn to Newbury
18:08 London Paddington to Frome
18:26 Newbury to Bedwyn
18:37 Westbury to Swindon
18:51 Filton Abbey Wood to Bristol Temple Meads
18:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
19:24 Newbury to Bedwyn
19:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading
19:33 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill
19:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
20:13 Swindon to Westbury
20:16 Frome to Westbury
20:49 Newbury to Bedwyn
20:56 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington
21:16 Bedwyn to Newbury
Short Run
14:49 Plymouth to Cardiff Central
15:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
15:15 Plymouth to London Paddington
15:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
15:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
15:42 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
16:19 Carmarthen to London Paddington
16:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
16:35 London Paddington to Plymouth
16:50 Plymouth to London Paddington
17:03 London Paddington to Penzance
17:20 Reading to Gatwick Airport
17:30 London Paddington to Taunton
17:30 Warminster to Bristol Temple Meads
17:36 Swindon to Westbury
17:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
17:59 Gatwick Airport to Reading
18:18 Newbury to London Paddington
18:19 Reading to Gatwick Airport
18:59 Gatwick Airport to Reading
19:06 London Paddington to Bedwyn
20:42 Bedwyn to London Paddington
Delayed
13:59 Cardiff Central to Penzance
14:15 Penzance to London Paddington
15:03 London Paddington to Penzance
16:03 London Paddington to Penzance
Additional 17:17 Exeter St Davids to Penzance
Additional 17:26 Castle Cary to Penzance
17:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading
An additional train service has been planned to operate as shown 18:25 Shalford to Reading
19:23 Reading to Gatwick Airport
etc
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 18:30:27 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[133] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[132] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[53] Return of the BRUTE?
[44] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[41] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[32] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 73
481  All across the Great Western territory / Fare's Fair / Re: Fares - down to get passengers but then bounce up? on: May 07, 2020, 11:47:19
That was me who posed that question.

We live in interesting times. It makes no difference is essence whether public transport is privately owned or state owned, at the end of the day it has to cover the cost of providing it, and ideally make a little extra for the shareholders or the Treasury. The price of anything, be it a rail ticket or an airline ticket or a can of peas in Sainsburys, cannot exceed the amount that people are willing to pay for it. If it does, the product stays in the virtual ticket rack or on the shelves.

There may well be a case from a railway perspective of abolishing peak and off peak fares, and just charging one rate as it used to be in the old days. However, if that route is gone down, then the fare charged will still need to be one that enough people will be prepared to pay to make the service viable. And as I write this I think especially about, for example, how much an anytime return from Chippenham to Paddngon costs (£183) and how much an anytime return costs if you split it at Didcot (£56.60 + £68.50 = £125.10) I don't know how many leisure journeys are likely to be made at a fare of £125.10 each, let alone £183, and especially if there is more than one in the party.

So in the fullness of time, when all this is over, things may (or may not) change. But if they do change, those fundamental economic facts regarding supply and demand will still remain,, and they will need to be addressed.
482  All across the Great Western territory / Introductions and chat / Re: Just this once ... on: May 07, 2020, 11:15:00
Congratulations Graham on reaching and passing another milestone in life. I passed the same milestone some years ago. Haven't claimed my state pension, it increases 3% or 6% (can't remember which) each year you delay claiming it. Plus I still have a job that pays me more than the pension. You will also have the pleasure of more immunisations as you get older. I qualify for shingles next year.

Completely off topic, but when you do the calculation it is one of those packages that looks attractive on first sight but the devil is in the detail.

SWMBO (She Who Must Be Obeyed) was one of the last women to be entitled to her pension at 60. She deferred it for a few years, mainly because she wasn't entitled to much anyway because a large anount of her working life was spent in South Africa. The deal was (for her and I don't think it has changed) is that for each year she deferred it she got an increase of 10%. To illustrate the point quickly here is a back of a fag packet calculation:

Let's just say for simplicity that her pension was £10 per week or £520pa. If she deferred for a year she would get £11 per week. or £572pa, an increase of £52pa. For ever. Very nice thank you.

Or is it?

In order to get that extra £52pa she has gone without the £520 she would have got in the first year. To completely recoup that lost £520 will actually take 10 years. And that length of time increases the longer you defer it. If one should meet with the proverbial double decker bus, or wake up dead one morning after a heart attack in the night, it is very easy to lose money on a deferral - very easy indeed.

I once has a drinking partner in the Two Pigs in Corsham who had a comfortable MOD pension to live on. and decided to defer his state pension because, to quote his words, "it would all go in tax." Well of course it wouldn't have all gone in tax (but you couldn't tell him that), but he went after a short illness aged 67. He never saw a penny of his state pension.

My advice to anybody in this situation is to take the money and shove it in the bank if you don't need it. You never know what tomorrow may bring...
483  Sideshoots - associated subjects / Campaigns for new and improved services / Re: Two views of a discussion on: May 06, 2020, 23:31:17

It was a welcome distraction from the work I'm supposed to be doing! As are the photos, even more so.

In case anyone is interested in the Cromford & High Peak Railway, latterly the High Peak Trail, I posted some photographs on Flickr some years ago. They are not in an album, but the first in the series, showing the northern end of the Trail at Dowlow, is here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/93122458@N08/19830273414/

Just keep clicking on the right arrow mid-screen and you can see them all. Once an image of the Handyside  Bridge at Derby appears you've got to the end!
484  Sideshoots - associated subjects / Campaigns for new and improved services / Re: Two views of a discussion on: May 06, 2020, 20:58:40
Where conflict seems to occur most is when you have a route which serves both purposes (recreational and commuter) and has high levels of cycle usage. In particular, the Bristol & Bath railway path, the western section of the Kennet & Avon towpath, and the Regent's Canal towpath in London.

Ultimately the only answer here, I think, is to alleviate the pressure by providing more commuter capacity elsewhere - i.e. more safe, direct segregated cycle tracks by roads. As I've written in the pages of Waterways World, London commuter cyclists don't choose the Regent's Canal because they like looking at ducks, they choose it because they don't want to get squashed by a tipper truck.

Of course, neither the Regents Canal nor the K&A have any pedestrian/ cycle segregation. The Regents Canal has plenty of impediments to sustained speed - two on road diversions to avoid tunnels under Edgware Road and Islington, restless natives with their cycle prohibition on the towpath at Maida Vale, plenty of locks, a right hand turn at Regents Park, permanently congested areas such as at Camden Lock and the general disincentive to speed that if you get it wrong you can get wet very quickly and very easily...

I admit I didn't even realise there was much commuter traffic on the K&A into Bath. Presumably it mainly comes from eastern Bath and perhaps Bradford on Avon? It is possible to get up to a fair rate of knots on the towpath at Widcombe flight, but there is a sharp turn there too and a very main road at the bottom, once again I would imagine de-incentivising high speed.

i can fully appreciate why both routes would be a far better alternative than the roads in the area though.

485  Sideshoots - associated subjects / Campaigns for new and improved services / Re: Two views of a discussion on: May 06, 2020, 20:31:55
Which leads me to ask: What use would a single line be? Where would it go?

You've got me thinking again now  Grin

Even in steam days, nine minutes was par for the course between Temple Meads and Fishponds. I sm now thinking one way of utilising the route for public transport as well as its current use might be a light rail tram system running from the central area, joining the existing formation at either Barton Hill or Russell Town Avenue, with a single line up the bank with a passing loop at Fishponds and another at Mangotsfield. With a bit of careul timetabling a 15-minute interval service could be operated. Put in another passing loop on he Greenbank side of Kingswood junction atb that woould give a more frequent service possible, with the advantage of putting a chicane in on the path to slow down errant boy racers!

As regards where it would go, Emersons Green would be the obvious choice. Extending it beyond to Yate and/or Warmley and Bath would get a lot more expensive needing to bridge the A4174 Ring Road.

 I shall now stop pipe dreaming and come back to  reality  Grin
486  Sideshoots - associated subjects / Campaigns for new and improved services / Re: Two views of a discussion on: May 06, 2020, 15:16:21

Similarly the banks on the Cromford & High Peak, but in my view you’d be an absolute nutcase to try to cycle down those in the first place (that Catch Pit at Cromford was put there for a reason!!).
I found it hard to envisage any gradient a railway could get up that might be too steep to cycle down, so I had to look this up. So it isn't or wasn't a conventional railway: hauled by static steam engines using cables. But the steepest gradient was 1 in 7, according to Wikipedia. That's about 14% – steep for a train but not excessively steep for a road. There are residential streets in Bristol which reach 40%! So you'd hardly be a nutcase to cycle down Bunsall Lower Incline (the steepest section according to Wikipedia).

Apologies for making you work! I didn't think an explanation of the Comford & High Peak would be necessary, but perhaps I didn't appreciate that it closed in 1967, it is 150 miles away from GWR (Great Western Railway) territory, and not everybody reading this would be as fascinated by the line as I have been all my life!

In brief, it was one of the UK (United Kingdom)'s earliest railways with construction starting in 1825, and ran from Cromford, between Derby and Matlock, to Whaley Bridge, linking the quarries in the Debrbyshire Peak District to the Cromford Canal in the south and the Peak Forest Canal in the north. The intention had been to build a canal, but when this new fangled idea of railways came along they built one of those instead. The problem was they used canal principles, and most of the line is almost flat. Where changes of gradient were required it was done in one go, substituting a lock flight if you like with a stationary engine winding vehicles up and down. Needless to say, the line never became part of the normal UK rail network as it developed, and was stuck with this odd method of operation until the final section closed in 1967. When the LNWR (London North Western Railway) built their Asbourne to Buxton line in the 1890s the northern section beyond Parsley Hay was abandoned.

There are three major inclines on the section of line between Cromford and Parsley Hay and that is the section I have ridden - Sheep Pasture (1 in 8 and 1 in 9), Middleton (1 in 8 ) and Hopton (1 in 12) The latter was actually worked by adhesion and here id a [hot of a sign at the top of it:




All three inclines have signs at the top of them saying "cyclists advised to walk" Perhaps to that end, all three are not as well surfaced as the rest of the High Peak Trail, and it was that fact more than anything else that engendered my "nutcase" remark, I've ridden down 1 in 4 hills on roads, such as Summer Hill in Totterdown, but riding down a poorly surfaced 1 in 8 that goes on for a mile or so is another matter!

It's hard to convey a 3D matter on a 2D photograph but here is my attempt at doing that on Hopton incline. The railway is to the right on the picture.

]


Finally, what it looks like at the top and bottom of Sheep Pasture. The bottom shot shows the remains of the catch pit:








487  Sideshoots - associated subjects / Campaigns for new and improved services / Re: Two views of a discussion on: May 06, 2020, 12:11:11

Thanks Richard. It appears we might be talking at crossed purposes.

Virtually all of the examples you linked to are predominantly on road cycle routes, and there is of course nothing unusual about that. The road - cycle lane - pavement layout is seen all over the country, and indeed there is an example a couple of hundred yards from where I'm sitting now. I also know of plenty of examples (virtually all on-road examples) where white paint indicates a pedestrian lane and a cycle lane. I'm not sure they are ever enforced though, if indeed they are enforceable - we don't have "jaywalking" laws in the UK (United Kingdom) and the number of public places where pedestrians are specifically forbidden to go are few and far between - only really on motorways and some dual carriageways and signs will be seen specifically saying "No pedestrians."

There are no such signs on any cycle route I have ever encountered, and I have encountered quite a few in years gone by. That's not to say that they don't exist of course, just that I have never encountered any, and my cycling has taken me from Padstow to the far east of the Kent coast, and from beyond the south coast (Isle of Wight ex-railway routes) to Manchester and Warrington.

Whether any cycle/pedestrian segregation is actually enforced anywhere in the country I personally would doubt (Only opinion of course and not fact). They generally rely on self-policing. One segregated route that I have come across that probably does have a high level of self policing is the Middleton Way between Rose Hill Marple and Macclesfield - you will see why from the photograph below!


But there  are very big differences in my view between the normal provision of shared footpath/ cycle tracks and those needed in the case of the Bristol and Bath one, and they are the gradient and the lack of the usual impediments such as give way signs, roundabouts etc. This can result in unusually high disparity between average speeds of the users. The only other shared ex-railway path I can think of with anywhere near that sort of gradient is between Boscarne Junction and Wadebridge, but that doesn’t go through a built up area where people are regularly joining and leaving the path at many intermediate points. Similarly the banks on the Cromford & High Peak, but in my view you’d be an absolute nutcase to try to cycle down those in the first place (that Catch Pit at Cromford was put there for a reason!!).

On Fishponds bank we have two miles of uninterrupted downhill except at Clay Bottom and the “fake” zebra crossing. To do anything that would even remotely lead to the possibility of an increase in differential speeds down there would be potentially lethal, and that is why I hold the (quite strong now I’ve thought even more about it) view that the path should not be widened, cyclists and pedestrians should not both be given a false sense of security by introducing segregation that would not be enforced and indeed would be unworkable given the number of access points on the bank, and that anything that is done down there should be aimed at reducing differential speeds rather than potentially increasing them.

Just my take on the subject of course, and other takes may differ. But the heading on this thread is “Two views of a discussion.”
488  Sideshoots - associated subjects / Campaigns for new and improved services / Re: Two views of a discussion on: May 06, 2020, 00:21:33
In order to give a reasoned reply to this, Richard, can you provide some evidential links to the schemes at the locations you quote please?
489  Sideshoots - associated subjects / Campaigns for new and improved services / Re: Two views of a discussion on: May 05, 2020, 14:19:24

The 'shared space' concept you refer to is not without its critics! In particular people with visual and hearing disabilities don't like them at all.

As someone who is visually impaired himself I think I should respond to this! (Blind in one eye through glaucoma and a severe cataract in the other that the NHS won't be dealing with any time soon).

Life is never exactly the same for people with visual or audible disabilities as it is for everybody else. Luckily my hearing is very good and I rely more on sound to warn me of danger. That doesn't stop me walking into silent things like benches but at least I can hear a cyclist coming, and from some distance away. I have used this path very frequently since it opened, for walking and cycling, and I have never been over-concerned about my personal safety down there. Personally my current biggest issue is with electric cars, which one can't always hear coming.

I can't comment for the hearing impaired and you must ask then for their take on the issue.

I can't see how putting up a fence between bicycle users and others would give 'the lycra-clad' a false sense of security. From whom? It would certainly give parents walking their young children to school a real sense of security. I'm not sure that BCycC are after favours; they recognise that the path holds dangers for all classes of users and think Sustrans' plans could make things worse.

I feel you are not looking at the whole picture here. Separation in itself, when cyclists know that this bit of the path is for them and them alone, would give to some of them the encoragement to go a bit faster. And that would be fine, and nothing would happen, right up until somebody unexpectedly joins the path and crosses the cycle lane to the pedestrian lane. Or right up until the time that a toddler who doesn't understand these things suddenly decides to cross the cycle lane to look at something.

I found it rather telling that they sought at every opportunity to emphasise the "fakeness" of the zebra ccrossing, whilst at the same time berating the Council and the Police for not enforcing their byelaw about dogs on leads(not that the police haven't got better things to do, of course)

Incidentally, exactly this happened to me a few years ago when my eyesight was still good enough to cycle. I was riding the coastal/ prom route from Sandbanks to Southbourne. Up at the Southbourne end there are some beach huts and a boy of about two years of age came flying out of one of them aiming for the beach. I was a few yards away at the time so that didn't cause me a problem. What did cause a problem was he suddenly changed his mind and ran back into my path. I went flying whilst missing him but I was only doing about 10mph (I rarely cycled any faster). It might be interesting to see what happened if a boy racer had been tanking it down from Fishponds and that happened on the "fake" zebra crossing. Perhaps we should have kids on leads as well as dogs?

I'd be interested to know which alternative 'race track' you would recommend for the bicycle commuters who use this route?

Horses for courses. If you are commuting on a bike you should be riding in a way that doesn't inconvenience other users,not treat it as a time trial.

My no.3 son was a member of Chippenham cycling club in his teens and 20s, and often went time trialling with them. They used quiet country lanes in North Wiltshire. I accept that there are more quiet country lanes around here than there are around Greenbank and Easton, but they'll find quite a few to amuse themselves on beyond Pucklechurch. And, being time triallers, it shouldn't take 'em long to get there Wink
490  Journey by Journey / London to Swindon and Bristol / Re: Chippenham station and track layout on: May 05, 2020, 12:48:11
Thanks for the information.

I will be very useful indeed as the Friends of Chippenham Station are putting together a display to commemorate the 180th anniversary of the station in 2021. Its always important to get the facts right in such things because somebody will soon point out any errors when it goes up in the Waiting Room!
491  Sideshoots - associated subjects / Campaigns for new and improved services / Re: Two views of a discussion on: May 05, 2020, 11:53:53
As regards the Midland line from Bristol to Yate, there are two important points to consider. Firstly, as one of the first long distance cycle routes in the UK (United Kingdom), Sustrans get very protective about it whenever someone suggests that it is used again for the purpose it was originally built. On the other hand (and this is where the "two views of a discussion" comes into the equation) the line was originally built as a double track broad gauge railway. There is in theory plenty of room over the majority of its length to be widened back to those dimensions by simply removing half a century's worth of vegetation, accumulated spoil and the landslip that originally closed it a week before it's time, and have enough room for both a railway and the Bristol to Bath Railway Path.

Maybe in theory, but absolutely not in practice! Cycle traffic is sufficiently heavy south of Fishponds that 4m of the formation really needs to be set aside as a segregated cycle lane. If you allow another 3m for pedestrians and 3m for landscaping (it is, after all, a park), then that's your 10m right-of-way gone.

For a reasoned explanation of the issues, see here: https://bristolcycling.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BCyC-Response-to-Sustrans-BBRP-Proposals-06012020.pdf


Well I've read it all and whilst I agree that it is reasoned, it is reasoned from solely a cycling perspective. That of course would be expected, but wider issues also need to be addressed.

They speak much, for example, of separating the different types of path users. However in recent years there has been a move towards removal of separation between types of road user (look at the area on the site of the former Bristol Goods as an example) which has the effect of slowing traffic down. This concept was originally tried out about 30 years ago in the Netherlands, and they do know a thing or two about cycling!

They say that "speeding cyclists" is a subjective matter (as indeed it is) and also that only a very small minority of cyclists are guilty (with which I also agree). However, implementing user separation is more likely to excerbate this problem than solve it, because it could give the lycra-clad a false sense of security.

The thrust of the argument summarised as: "it is busy in the peak so it needs to be widened" is not one that Highway Engineers have recognised for a generation or two! Whilst the railway path is not a highway in the legal sense, its usage by a number of different groups with different means of transport (ie feet, cycles, mobility scooters, maintenance vehicles etc) means in my view that any moves to solve any problem should appreciate this, and not favour one group over another.

So in summary I am not convinced by their overall position. Widening the path would only lead to a potential increase in differential speeds between the slowest and fastest users. Introding the odd obstruction or chicane, carefully designed of  course, would not inconvenience any but the small minority of "speeders." After reading it all I still remain convinced that there is plentiful room to widen the route to its original dimesions and provide both a good quality railway path and a railway line.

And the lycra-clad would either have to accept it or find a race track more suitable for their needs.
492  Journey by Journey / London to Swindon and Bristol / Chippenham station and track layout on: May 05, 2020, 10:49:09
A query has arisen elsewhere over when the old down main platform at Chippenham was taken out of use.

I have always been under the impression that it happened at the same time as the Multiple Aspect Signalling programme was being carried out in 1970/71 (this was at the time when the then new Bristol Panel box was opened). Others are of the opinion that the old down main platform was still in use until 1976, and the track to the current down main platform (currently platform 1) had previously beeen lifted.

My theory is not evidenced relying solely on memory, and theirs appear to rely on newspaper articles, neither of which could be said to be 100% reliable!

It did strike me that if the "1976 theory" was correct that would probably have involved changes to signalling, and not just a simple case of slewing the track from one platform to another.

Do any of the learned and wise on the foum know what actually happened?
493  Sideshoots - associated subjects / Campaigns for new and improved services / Re: Two views of a discussion on: May 04, 2020, 21:42:35
From a rail perspective, re-using the Midland alignment from Bristol through Mangotsfield to Yate makes a great deal of sense. It's worth reminding ourselves that Filton Bank was built as part of the Bristol and South Wales Union Railway, whilst the Midland Line was originally the Bristol and Gloucester Railway. If the Midland line was still open we would avoid the current situation whereby north-south trains have to share the route from Bristol Parkway to Westerleigh with east-west services, a major capacity constraint.

Surely if that was the problem it could be resolved more cheaply by grade separation at Westerleigh using the old Midland route under the GW (Great Western) and looping round to join the GW on the south side.  Though I think that would need the down Midland line to cross over the up.

The biggest problem to overcome between Mangotsfield and Yate is not thinking about a new connection to the GWR (Great Western Railway) line. The problem is over half a mile of the formation has been obliterated at Emersons Green by the A4174 Bristol East Ring Road
494  Sideshoots - associated subjects / Campaigns for new and improved services / Re: Two views of a discussion on: May 04, 2020, 21:38:34
The Bristol to Bath cycle route is also part of the National Cycle Network. In parts this quite successfully runs cycle and rail next to each other. Either end might have cycle commuting element, although the bulk of the route is less likely. Can proposed rail projects satisfactorily combine cycle and rail?
There are quite a lot of people who cycle-commute between Bristol and Bath, in both directions. Right now probably more doing that than by train...  Undecided In any case, while another rail line between these places would no doubt be useful, it would be indirect compared to the existing route and the only new places it would serve would be parts of east Bristol. I feel there are other lines which could be reopened to greater benefit; Portishead for one, which will also have to share parts of its route with a cyclepath (or divert that path – I don't know what the detailed proposals are there).

If such a reopening were to be seriously contemplated, it would not serve as an alternative and longer route than the GWR (Great Western Railway) main line. Its purpose would be as a suburban railway linking both Bristol and Bath to their dormitory towns and suburbs.

Whilst Bath has not grown much on its western side, the spread of residential development in north east and east Bristol has been phenomenal. When the line was open, a couple of hundred yards out of Staple Hill tunnel you saw little more than green fields all the way to the outskirts of Bath. Now there is a substantial development around the railway route at Mangotshield and the course of the line runs through almost a whole new town between Warmley and Oldland Common/ Bitton station.

Within reasonable walking distance of the former stations, let alone new ones that might be provided, you have substantial residential areas at the east end of Staple Hill, at Emerson's Green and at Longwell Green. Furthermore, a station provided on much the same site as the old Kelston station (with improved access arrangements) would actually better serve most of Saltford than the former GWR station site.

The biggest drawbacks would be building a new line near Newton St Loe to connect to the GWR line, and deciding what to do about the three level crossings between Warmley and Oldland Common

Whilst I traditionally take a somewhat jaundiced initial view when I read of new reopening proposals (mailnly due to the number of crackpot schemes around that even the Railway Mania fanatics of the 1840s would be embarrassed by), this one could actually "have legs" if approached in the righ way. Whether or not it would ever happen would of course be another matter entirely.
495  Sideshoots - associated subjects / Campaigns for new and improved services / Re: Two views of a discussion on: May 04, 2020, 16:21:30
We have had to correct this misunderstanding a couple of times before. The proposals for the restoration of a rail link from Bath to Radstock/Midsomer Norton and possibly onto Shepton Mallet (and some believe very long-term the whole former S&D (Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway) route) do not include the reuse of the Two Tunnels route in Bath, because both providing a viable connection to the national rail network that way and adapting the cycle route are not considered practical.

An alternative route, deviating after Midford, and running via the old Camerton branch via Monkton Combe to join the Cardiff-Portsmouth route between Bathampton and Limpley Stoke has long been mapped out to enable some form of S&D reopening should it ever become truly feasible.

A point which I feel is frequently lost on many railway-minded folk is that if a line is considered for reopening, it is not set in tablets of stone that it must unwaveringly follow the course of the original line. Bath to Midford is a good example of why sometimes to do so would be absolutely ridiculous. There is no way, without knocking half of Oldfield Park down, that it would be possible to link it to the GWR (Great Western Railway) main line. And even leaving to one side that you would have to knock down a trading estate, a retail park and a number of brand new blocks of flats to get it back to Green Park, it would be of precious little use to the UK (United Kingdom) rail network to have such a line terminating half a mile away from Bath's major station.

Matters can sometimes get even more complicated when people are railway minded and cyclists! I have had a conversation with someone who thought that the Chippenham to Calne footpath/ cycle track "was job half done by the Council" because there is a nearly half a mile long gap in it east of Stanley Bridge and one needs to go "on road" to bypass it. This line of reasoning fails to recognise that the Council wanted to provide an off-road route from Chippenham to Calne, not reuse the entire branch for purist purposes.

As regards the Midland line from Bristol to Yate, there are two important points to consider. Firstly, as one of the first long distance cycle routes in the UK, Sustrans get very protective about it whenever someone suggests that it is used again for the purpose it was originally built. On the other hand (and this is where the "two views of a discussion" comes into the equation) the line was originally built as a double track broad gauge railway. There is in theory plenty of room over the majority of its length to be widened back to those dimensions by simply removing half a century's worth of vegetation, accumulated spoil and the landslip that originally closed it a week before it's time, and have enough room for both a railway and the Bristol to Bath Railway Path.
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 73
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page