Not heard anything about extensions, but anyway, connecting Axminster and Chard loops gives very little operational benefit. It might provide a perturbation margin, but it still doesn't help increase frequency.

Assuming that the obvious increase over an hourly service would be to a half hourly through service, you'd need both a loop exactly half way between Axminster and Yeovil Jn, ie just about at Crewkerne, and you'd also need another loop somewhere west of Whimple (like Cranbrook). 

Can't see it even in the medium term, even the half hourly Exeter to Axminster stopper is pretty much on the back burner as far as I can see. The GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy) reckoned there was no business case yet.  (It did make me wonder why it's discussed in there BTW^▸ (by the way) - perhaps because it is Exeter related?)

Paul

Porcine Aviation, Kite Flying, and Pies in the Sky (above 1000 ft) are all under their control...   

Paul

The linked BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) report on this does say that the buffet counters would be still used when trains were full.

Same routine as SWT^▸ (South West Trains) operate reasonably succesfully if that's the case - on full 444s they serve from the minibuffet counter, and on a packed 450 with a trolleys they usually set up in the cycle area.

Paul

There's also the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 32-34 dealing with 'endangering the lives of persons on the railway'.  Max sentence 2 years by neglect, life with intent. 

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) this is the offence quoted on Network Rail's 'Trackoff' scheme literature for parents and teachers...

Paul

Tyne Yard - similar set up to Tinsley - masssive investment and hardly ever used.  The layout of the hump yard there is still obvious on Google Earth, Multimap etc.  Search for 'Low Fell'..

One way of looking at it is how could BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) have collectively, and so comprehensively, failed to notice what was happening on the roads?

Paul

Awaiting CAA^» (Civil Aviation Authority - about) approval...

Paul

Using a 'mechanical bistable memory device' [1] doesn't seem to have been that smart though...

[1] a technical term I just made up... 

Paul

There are normally 27 159s diagrammed daily from 30 units. That is pretty much normal DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) utilisation of 90% - so where's the big surplus? If FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have two all but one will be in use that day.  Perhaps they are covering with 450s elsewhere, or for the odd day they have tweaked the maintenance plan. It will be interesting to see what they do on the day.

I therefore doubt the units could be released for a long term period, and as for the units hanging around Salisbury depot all day, it isn't the case in the peaks. Like all the other SE commuter TOCs, a lot of stock is free mid day, buit it comes out again late afternoon.

As for the 158s running over the third rail all day that's a completely different question AFAICS^▸ (As Far As I Can See)...

Paul

It is not possible to run a 2 tph service though. The loops at Chard and Honiton are not positioned correctly to allow it, they'd both have to be moved to the mid points between the double tracked sections. This has been analysed to death before now, I went as far as drawing detailed graphs of distance/time, and it can't be done.

Paul

Really? Are you saying you can't have DOO anywhere on the third rail network?  There's plenty of SN suburban services are DOO, and then there's various bits of the LO network, and FCC^▸ (First Capital Connect) are fully DOO on the Brighton Line...

Or have I misinterpreted what you are suggesting?

Paul

I think previously most SWT's to Exeter were cancelled beyond Yeovil Jn and replaced by a limited FGW service, before the hourly service became possible, but AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) we haven't had any weekend diversions since? 

It will be interesting to see what happens next time. Perhaps they'll run alternate hour FGW and SWT services.

Paul

SWT at Waterloo 'don't work'? That's a bit of a generalisation surely.  Exactly what ticket did you have that didn't work?

Paul

I think you'd only get a ticket issued to Portsmouth Harbour if you buy at Fratton or Portsmouth and Southsea.

Surely though it was fairly predictable that a ticket with 'Portsmouth Stations' on it would be swallowed at the 'town station'? You'd finished one of the possible journeys it allows?

The purpose of grouping stations for fares purposes was historically to reduce the number of pre-printed tickets held in ticket offices, when fares to the destinations were the same. But as every ticket is printed at the time of issue nowadays, it would seem possible to print them to an explicit destination, but that brings up other problems. You'd then get people complaining when they were told they couldn't get out at Southsea because their 'Advance' ticket was to the Harbour...

Paul

I wonder if the heritage lobby might sit down and discuss what Brunel would have done, if confronted with this problem. 

I reckon being an engineer he'd have been well chuffed with the availabilty of pre stressed concrete and prefabricated sections.  Oh and I think he'd be amazed at the availability of mobile cranes big enough to do the job without closing the railway for more than a couple of days...

Paul

The failed train was being rescued in an unpowered and unbraked condition, according to reports elsewhere.  Turning off the power would only have stopped other trains (depending on the size of power switching sections)...

Paul