Regarding the specific example given of Watchet, served by narrow roads and a rather poor bus service.

Watchet can at times be effectively cut off, and not just in bad weather. The 28 bus service is barely adequate and seems to have got worse in recent years.
A huge problem is the popularity of the Butlins holiday camp at Minehead, also served by the 28 bus. On a "Butlins changeover day" Watchet is effectively cut off. EVERY bus leaving Taunton will be full and standing, with no question of anyone living in Watchet being able to board.
Likewise EVERY bus leaving Minehead will be full with no question of being able to pick up passengers at Watchet or indeed other intermediate places.

I am aware of one case of a young unemployed man from Watchet who was reduced to subsisting on charitable hand outs.
No local employment could be found, and employers outside of walking distance being reluctanct to offer employment "How will you get here on a Butlins day ?"
Attempts to claim jobseekers allowance failed most of the time as punctual attendance at the Minehead job center was required, when bad weather or Butlins changeover days prevented punctual attendance, the benifit was stopped. Benifit was also stopped for failing to attend job interviews, for the same reasons.

Various plans are periodicaly disscussed to run a train service from Taunton to Minehead, via Watchet, but never seem to progress beyond talking.

And moving on from trains, the 28 bus could be improved a bit by marking the bus stops, and even running a few extra buses at times of high demand.
The bus stop in Watchet is very confusing for visitors or new users. The SAME STOP is used for buses from Minehead and for buses to Minehead. Visitors may board a bus going in the wrong direction.
Buses in one direction go straight past the bus stop in order to turn around before serving the bus stop. Locals know this, but visitors can be misled. Better signage required.

I have always been rather doubtful about renewable energy certificates, carbon offsetting and related schemes that claim to reduce carbon emissions by moving around money and pieces of paper.

Such procedures remind me of the former Church practice of selling indulgences, whereby sins could be forgiven for a suitable payment.

Far preferable would be to physically reduce carbon emissions by greatly reducing combustion of fossil fuels. More wind turbines, more PV modules, and less gas, oil, and coal use.

There seems to be a view that we can trade or offset our way out of doing much on the ground.

Even I am not proposing a ban on flying, but am opposed to any form of grant or subsidy that encourages more flying, rather than letting it shrink naturally.

I and many others enjoy heritage railways, they could however improve matters by minimising fuel use, I have suggested ways to achieve this.

Of course we need road and rail transport, but both should be electrified as far as possible. Horses could well be used in rural areas.

Canals are potentially useful for heavy and non urgent freight. Should be used more in view of the very low energy used. One horsepower per boat, either an actual horse or battery power.

Sea going ships could be sail powered, at least partly thereby reducing fuel used.

All these alternatives provide employment.

Agree, very strongly.
Basic building materials and raw materials should so far as reasonable be produced within our own country. Including but not limited to
Iron and steel (including the coking coal)
Cement.
Bricks.
Roof tiles, corrugated iron.
Industrial chemicals.
Electric wire and cable. Electrical generating and distribution equipment.
Building timber, and processed wood products such as plywood and particle board.
Glass, including window glass and glass containers.

Production of many such materials is energy intensive, but I see no merit in importing such items and exporting the pollution, whilst becoming reliant on potential future enemies.

We should also aim to produce as much as possible of our own food, medical supplies and other essential goods.

When domestic production is not possible, HMG should keep emergency stocks of basic supplies.

Aviation is not in my view comparable to the production of iron and steel.
There are alternatives to flying, including ships and railways, or even staying in one place.
There is no realistic alternative to steel, nor is there any proven way to manufacture it without coal. Steel is needed to build ships, railways, and modern structures.
I would prefer to see steel manufactured in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) with UK coal, rather than being imported. A UK source of coking coal will encourage the return of steel making to the UK.
The carbon emmisions are regretable, but can not be avoided if we are to continue use of steel. I see no merit in exporting the carbon emmisions to china.

I am happy to not fly, and I try to minimise purchases of goods transported by air.
I can not avoid use of iron or steel products and structures.

Agree, iron and steel are vital raw materials, and can not be produced without coke derived from coal.
I see no merit in claiming to be green whilst importing our iron and steel from countries with doubtful reputations.

Agree, third rail is a non optimum choice for long distance main lines.
The former Southern Railway network is said to be the largest in the world, in terms of both total route miles, and distance in miles to the most distant parts.

It was never properly planned, but "just sort of grew"
In the early days of the Southern, electric power was clearly preferable to steam for inner suburban routes due to the rapid acceleration from the many stops, and the absence of light engine movements at London termini.
Electric trains then gradually spread to outer suburban routes and even to the south coast.
The cost of electric outer suburban services was reduced by the capital already sunk in the inner suburban routes.
Each extension therefore made perfect sense on its own, but considered as a whole did not make sense if compared to overhead electrification.

They had better get a move on in changing to 25 KV overhead, before English Heritage list the conductor rail!

Well here is a link.
https://www.28dayslater.co.uk/threads/deepdene-ww2-southern-railway-traffic-control-centre-december-2014.125325/

Links to other reports about the same place may be found at the bottom of the page to which I link.

I agree that road building and road "improvements" should be the target of the protesters rather than the relatively much less harmful rail projects.
There is a generaly held view among anti HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) protesters that it is a "very expensive way for a few rich people to travel a bit quicker" and that the new line wont be available to "ordinary people"
Such views completly ignore the fact that the line is as much about capacity as speed, and that the existing route is full, at least in the southern parts. Moving the longer distance passengers to the new line will free up capacity for more freight and local passengers.

I also suspect that some protesters are opposed to anything innvolving building anything and that they are the latest re-incarnation of the various anti capitalist groups, stop the city groups, and the like.

SOME protesters are genuinely concerned at climate change, but others regard it as a means to an end which is to stop to stop capitalists building anything.

"Save Exmoor" from wind turbines.
"Save Goring gap" from those terrible mast things, AKA^▸ (also known as) railway electrification.
"Save the Bristol Channel" from tidal energy schemes.
"Save our communities" from 5G masts that make children sick.

The once secret wartime bunkers used by the Southern at Deepdene are now far from secret. Not open to the public but not that secure and certainly no longer secret. Very poor condition these days.
A number of urban explorers have gained access and posted photos and reports on line.
Not certain if posting a link is OK ?

I understood that orange was selected by "the railway" for high visibility clothing because almost everyone else used yellow and the railway wanted to be different.

This may explain the ongoing staff shortages.

Agree, the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) has made good progress WRT^▸ (with regard to ) to renewably generated electricity, but transport and fuel burning heating has been rather neglected.

It would be rather optimistic to expect a journalist or a politician to know the difference between electricity and total energy.

The other "fly in the ointment" is the fact that generating half our electricity from renewables is relatively easy, but renewably generating ALL our electricity is a much greater challenge. Politicians tend to assume that we are "half way there" and that achieving the second half will be as easy.

Likewise with energy saving, some savings are easy, but we have largely already done the easy bits. Future savings will be more challenging.

In my view, yes it should run.
It is an important transport link for the far south west, and there are probably a few essential workers useing it.

Closure when not busy could be the begining of closure by stealth.

Step one "closed due to the pandemic"
Step two  "Christmas closure extended into January due to little use"
Step three  "Closed for the winter season"
Step four "The closed season has been extended slightly in line with customer needs"
Step five "It is no longer economic to maintain special rolling stock for one single journey a day for less than half of the year. Our most recent passenger survey shows that only a very small percentage of our passengers use it. Most passengers prefer our improved daytime service to the older sleepers. We continue to keep the matter under review and may introduce and alternative overnight format*"

*IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train), bring your own pillow and blanket.

Whilst a battery pack vehicle could be done, it adds cost, weight and complexity without any increase in low speed tractive effort since this is limited by adhesion and not by horsepower.

A better plan might to build a battery locomotive with traction motors and at least one driving cab.
Such a unit could be couple to an electric locomotive to give an increased low speed tractive effort (more weight on powered axles) and increased speeds up inclines due to increased total power.
The train could proceed at reduced speed on battery power alone, useful in dockyards that cant be electrified.

If coupled to a diesel locomotive, then a considerable increase in performance would be possible, at lower fuel consumption than by providing two locos. A limp home "tortoise mode" if the engine breaks would be preferable to blocking the line.