Yes, it was more that I remember being told that there were three blockades which would involve HST^▸ (High Speed Train) diversions via Banbury, only one of which would affect Christmas, and a little bit of me putting two and two together, but that was many years ago so the details may have changed.

When you check what's in the Engineering Access Statement I'd be interested to know - I'd check myself, but I know you love scanning through that sort of document over supper, Paul. 

I might have got a little mixed up, but I thought there was one more lengthy possession involving diversions planned for Easter 2015, when track and signalling for the flyovers/unders are fully commissioned along with the extra western entrance to the depot and realigned relief lines and reinstated goods loop?  Then it's job done.

Cost?  It can also be useful as a storage area for certain equipment trolleys which are still in use on some of the shorter distance routes, such as Oxford-London HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s.  Though certainly not essential any more, so they would be more use converted back to toilets.

I'm sure they'll set a tamper onto that slewed track to make it a little less 'wiggly'!

Not much work at all - should just involve installing the western end connection and commissioning that and the eastern end connection already installed and associated signalling (which is also already installed).

Not too sure about the queuing system, but the trains were, shall we say, a little busy to say the least!  It's a good job that a HST^▸ (High Speed Train) was put on the 11:56 MIM-PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) as I saw a message saying it was full and standing after Charlbury, so a Turbo wouldn't have stood a chance.  The regular Adelante's were very busy with normal travellers (as they always are), and I saw the arrival of the 09:54ex GMV at Paddington and it's fair to say that I don't think I've ever seen such a packed Class 180 limping in 20 minutes late.  I'm sure the other trains were just as busy, and a couple of the additional trains were unfortunately only 2-Car Turbo's - and the rumoured replacement of the 15:15 PAD-WOS^» (Worcester Shrub Hill - next trains) on Friday with a HST didn't happen and it was a 180 as normal on summer Fridays.

That being said, without the redoubling it would have been a lot worse as the additional trains couldn't have run, but it's another example of how the Cotswold Line is running pretty full to capacity even with the 180's and a couple of additional trains over what used to run, so as soon as there's an event such as this it stretches the route to breaking point!

And bang goes any future improvements in journey times with a delay at Edinburgh detaching and then attaching the replacement locomotive and then that single engine struggling to haul a full length train with far worse acceleration than a Bi-Mode IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) will be capable of.  Not to mention the inevitable odd engine failure causing far more disruption than an engine failure on the multi-engined Bi-Mode train, and the increased cost in hauling a full-length train running half-empty for most of the time north of the border when a Bi-Mode can split at Edinburgh and leave half behind.  And the fact that you'd probably need to replace the carriages anyway in around 20 years when the Bi-Mode would be still going strong.

Actually, I do take Rhydgaled's point about the Bi-Mode's not being ideal for such long hauls under the wires, but should Aberdeen get wired then the Bi-Mode engines can be removed and everyone's a winner as that only leaves the daily train to Inverness, and my points above are all possible counter arguments to his suggestions.

Great to see the ongoing works, Sapperton Tunnel.  Many thanks for posting.

Probably done off of his own initiative, rather than any specific instruction/request from anyone.  Perhaps he reads this forum... 

Oh, and anyone deciding to take the 19:50 (change at Slough) option tonight has been rewarded by a 2-Car Turbo replacing the booked 3-Car Turbo.   

Barrow actually has a better TPE^▸ (Trans Pennine Express) service than Windermere in terms of longer distance services, with a 2-hourly service from Manchester Airport (with Northern filling the gaps to provide roughly an hourly service).  The Barrow route was shut for a prolonged period recently whilst extensive viaduct repairs were undertaken.  Windermere did have a few more direct trains a few years back but now basically has only a shuttle service to/from Oxenholme, with just the two direct trains from Manchester and the odd extra one from Preston/Lancaster.

That being said, I don't think the Barrow route will be electrified any time soon as it's a lot longer than the Windermere branch and would be a bugger to electrify given the two very long viaducts.  Barrow, judging from a visit a few years ago, is in desperate need of an economic boost though, so it's a pity in some ways, and there must be fears that the direct service to Manchester would be threatened without electrification?

Platforms 9 and 10 are the only platforms at Reading where anything approaching a high-speed movement might ever take place and even then that would be at a maximum of 100mph - that wouldn't be until the advent of in-cab signalling and until then 50/60mph will be the maximum for the next decade or so, which is rather less than the 75mph that was permitted through the old Platforms 8/9 until the late 90s.

Places like Didcot, Slough and Maidenhead regularly have trains running alongside the platforms at 125mph.  Special arrangements are needed for speeds over 125mph, which (I feel) might be the biggest hurdle to overcome with regard to 140mph IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) workings over the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) in the future.

And should there be a signal failure (which there wasn't in this case I don't think), the signaller will authorise the driver to pass that signal at red after verbally confirming which route has been set with the driver (phonetic alphabet and repeat back are in use to avoid misunderstanding) and will instruct the driver to proceed at caution at a speed that they can stop short of any obstruction (i.e. another train).

If the rules weren't so fail safe then there would be plenty more incidents and I wouldn't be 100% happy entering a cab!

Good - that's much better looking!  Just the water ingress to deal with now then - and possibly some further minor tinkering with the signage, escalators and CIS^▸ (Customer Information System) screens.

Yes, they should.  The onus is on the signaller and driver (and even the guard) to spot that a wrong routing has been made.  My guess is that due to the fact the drivers are used to seeing both indications (i.e. a route towards Gatwick and a route towards Reading) regularly when they reverse at Redhill, the driver simply didn't notice that the wrong route had been set.  A mistake by both parties, and a word will be had with both of them I'm sure, but an inconvenient mistake rather than one that had any safety implications.


No train would have 'come quickly round the corner', James.  It was a signalled move that happens every hour when trains are supposed to be going to Gatwick, and as such any other signals that might have conflicted with it would have been interlocked to stay at red.

Only a short spur, but this would allow Windermere to retain some premium electric services to/from Manchester, some of which were cut back a few years ago I believe?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/electric-route-for-lake-district

Proves again that once you electrify certain route, you reach the tipping point for others, and so those lobbying for electrification for places like Newbury to Bedwyn/Westbury (and even on to Plymouth), and Bristol to Weston-Super-Mare shouldn't give up!