One of the union magazines in the 1980s (or was it 90s?) - the health service one that became part of Unison - had a crossword clue: "I'm an evil Tory bigot (8,9)"

Any takers? I thought it nearly as clever as: "E (13)", which appeared in the Grauniad.

With enough changes in franchises and the accompanying TUPEing, we will end up with a single level. Some may call it nationalisation, others may say that entropy will always increase.

/philosophy.

And nor will I! Imagine that - all staff across all TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) paid the same relevant pay for the same job. Imagine the utter confusion that would cause. Might as well do away with TOCs, and make all the staff Civil Servants (although there is no longer such a thing as a national civil service pay scale).

Like NSE^▸ (Network South East), I think we will see a net increase in driving jobs come 2019. Crossrail is adding capacity to a creaking underground system in effect, but it will allow some extra surface trains. Some extra capacity comes from more capacious trains, but, as NSE reminds us, there will be 4 tph to Bristol. With four tracking to Filton Bank, and MetroRail Phase One, we will see an extra six or seven sets operating in the Greater Bristol area, possibly cascaded 165 / 166s. I'm no expert on HR^▸ (Human Resources) - how many drivers are needed to operate 6 sets 7 days per week between 06.00 and 23.59?

We may see drivers cascaded, as experienced commuter service drivers apply to upgrade to intercity services. They will have knowledge of working on a railway, so will take less time to convert than to train a rookie driver from scratch. I am sure, given how long it takes to train a driver to the point where he can drive a train full of passengers solo from Bedminster to Parson Street, and even given the imponderables of the new franchising negotiations, someone in FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is crunching numbers and making plans as we speak.

TUPE^▸ (The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.), or not TUPE? That is the question.

She must think the whole world smells of fresh paint.

It was stairing me in the face...

Good point, trainbuff, good work in finding the hidden agenda to everyone else. It's all down to Parliament. The local MP^▸ (Member of Parliament), Anne Marie Morris, doesn't have any sort of ministerial post, however humble. She is Jenny-come-lately, having only been an MP since 2010. Her website says she is "lobbying hard to see a more resilient line put in place that will future proof the existing railway running through Dawlish and Teignmouth", which doesn't say she is after a new line. Ultimately, unless our new junior transport minister, Claire Perry from Devizes, thinks it a national priority, I think it will be down to the Heart of the South West Local Enterprise Partnership's Local Transport Board to keep eyes open. They will need to work up any scheme, do the maths, and put a reasonable business case before whichever transport secretary and chancellor is in situ next May.

My guess is that there'll be a long queue at the door of number 11...

A lot of it has been done with CWR^▸ (Continuously Welded Rail), including the bit past my son-in-law's workshop in Crediton, a little west of the station. He said the difference is remarkable - he hardly hears trains passing now. I noticed a lot of kit in the siding at the station a few months back.

I tripped over a safety notice at the top of stairs at work once, the one the cleaner puts out saying "Caution - Wet Floor" after she's finished rearranging the dirt, and before she goes home. The floor was, it goes without saying, dry. I didn't mention it, as I don't want to trip over a second saying "Caution - Safety Notice Ahead".

ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)'s view is that level crossings are dangerous. Mine, and I pay tribute to Chris from Nailsea for helping me find an economy of words, is that "Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner". The same is true of motor cars, knives, machine guns, aircraft, dynamite, and chain saws, all of which I have operated in complete safety (except, arguably, the last. OK, or the first).

It is also very true of roads, including Quays Avenue. Consider the prospect of the station being, because of lack of permission for a LC^▸ (Level Crossing), to the east of Quays Avenue, with the 100-place car park to the west. Were there a LC in place, the car park and station would both be to the west of QA^▸ (Quality Assurance), and the train would be running at about 5 to 10 mph, the driver keenly alert for problems on the LC and planning his arrival at Portishead in terms of pulling up to a stop. Without the LC, we may well see drivers, maybe having had trouble finding a parking space and seeing the train at platform, throw caution to the winds and dash across QA without paying heed to the traffic. It only needs another driver en route to work from the estate behind the roundabout, maybe inexperienced, maybe distracted by finding the right track on the iPod, probably nearing 30mph, and the stage is set for calamity.

Put 50 people against a closed LC gate who desperately want / need to be the other side of the track, and I doubt more than two idiots would chance it (I would say none, had I not seen it before). Put them by a traffic light controlled crossing with the last train for half-an-hour in sight opposite, and I reckon that at most, you would have the vicar and the old lady with two walking sticks wait for the green man without at least thinking about it (and I'm not sure of the latter).

We could be in the situation where the relative risks are obscured by the risk assessment process. By the third inquest, Network Rail will be able to issue a standard letter to the coroner saying "ORR refused permission for a level crossing on safety grounds. No level crossing was involved in this tragic accident, which did not occur on NR^» (Network Rail - home page) property, nor involve any NR or TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) equipment, vehicle, or personnel. Our hands are clean; ask NSDC to make the path from car park to station safer".

This could make the second-best option a no-no, the first-best having been ruled out by ORR's opposition to what is essentially a piece of safety equipment, but leaving issues of potential conflict between pedestrians and cars. These will have to be dealt with by NSDC, who will, like Bristol CC when the layout of the City Centre was changed, leading to some serious accidents, including fatal collisions between pedestrians and buses, having to find answers.

I still don't get why they call them boring machines. They fascinate me.

You'd have to sew mine back on first.

Having been to Digby and Sowton station(s), I wondered similarly. I may go to Cam and/or Dursley soon.

This is a bit of a breakneck rush, isn't it? Only two years from start to finish.

Or lost, more like. Time for a Huge Rant (see what I did there?)

I agree with ellendunne that it could be worth an appeal, especially if there is strong local support and little local opposition. I do not know the state of play. It's a potentially expensive business, though, especially for the council. Another strategy could be a revised application with fewer parking spots.