Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 06:15 19 Apr 2024
- Arrest over alleged Russia plot to kill Zelensky
- Dubai airport delays persist after UAE storm
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
19th Apr (1938)
Foundation, Beatties of London (link)

Train RunningCancelled
19/04/24 05:11 Gatwick Airport to Reading
05:25 Swansea to London Paddington
19/04/24 06:04 Gloucester to Worcester Foregate Street
Short Run
19/04/24 05:33 Bedwyn to London Paddington
19/04/24 06:00 Bedwyn to London Paddington
06:02 Bristol Parkway to Carmarthen
19/04/24 06:52 Worcester Foregate Street to Bristol Temple Meads
19/04/24 07:13 Great Malvern to London Paddington
09:27 Carmarthen to London Paddington
15:50 Penzance to Gloucester
17:59 Cardiff Central to Penzance
Delayed
06:01 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
PollsThere are no open or recent polls
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
April 19, 2024, 06:26:48 *
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
[176] Rail delay compensation payments hit £100 million
[71] Signage - not making it easy ...
[15] IETs at Melksham
[13] Ferry just cancelled - train tickets will be useless - advice?
[12] From Melksham to Tallinn (and back round The Baltic) by train
[12] New station at Ashley Down, Bristol
 
News: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Network Rail Strike Again  (Read 7396 times)
Andy W
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 267



View Profile Email
« on: February 12, 2013, 18:02:29 »

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/10222924.Henwick_Road_blocked/?ref=twtrec

Utterly useless shower

Complete dog's breakfast yesterday as well as last week's pantomine.
Logged
LiskeardRich
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3461

richardwarwicker@hotmail.co.uk
View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2013, 18:13:01 »

talking of inappropriate pictures, looks like a traffic light to me
Logged

All posts are my own personal believes, opinions and understandings!
inspector_blakey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3574



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2013, 18:17:51 »

Utterly useless shower

Although presumably given that the crossing is designed to fail-safe with the barriers in the down position, not a 'shower' that would affect the train service too badly?

Of course it's not ideal, but the equipment did what it was designed to do in the circumstances: I have no idea of the geography of the area but are there really no alternative routes for motorists? Unfortunately NR» (Network Rail - home page) can't afford to have an S&T (Signalling and Telegraph) technician on standby at every level crossing and signal, particularly given the pressure post-McNulty to cut costs.
Logged
Andy W
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 267



View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2013, 19:04:48 »

Utterly useless shower

Although presumably given that the crossing is designed to fail-safe with the barriers in the down position, not a 'shower' that would affect the train service too badly?

Of course it's not ideal, but the equipment did what it was designed to do in the circumstances: I have no idea of the geography of the area but are there really no alternative routes for motorists? Unfortunately NR» (Network Rail - home page) can't afford to have an S&T (Signalling and Telegraph) technician on standby at every level crossing and signal, particularly given the pressure post-McNulty to cut costs.
One problem is unfortunate like last week. Yesterday was a major problem - three indicates inadequate maintenance. I'm sure this is acceptable within the industry - look at the problems into / out of Paddington recently shows a company that does not achieve anything like acceptable standards to the rest of the community.
If Network Rail kit fails why on earth should the motorist be inconvenienced? Geography is irrelevant.
Logged
Electric train
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4362


The future is 25000 Volts AC 750V DC has its place


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2013, 20:32:38 »

If Network Rail kit fails why on earth should the motorist be inconvenienced? Geography is irrelevant.


And why should Network Rail be inconvenienced when a motorist decides to jump or even crash through level crossing barriers or when a high sided lorry hits a bridge, like you say geography is irrelevant.

The incident outside London before Christmas I have seen the report on this the route cause may well be down to negligence by a contractor (cannot say more for obvious reasons)
Logged

Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
Andy W
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 267



View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2013, 14:28:43 »

And why should Network Rail be inconvenienced when a motorist decides to jump or even crash through level crossing barriers or when a high sided lorry hits a bridge, like you say geography is irrelevant.

When a motorist crashes into a bridge / crossing barrier they are breaking the law and can be successfully prosecuted. Network Rail close a road as a matter of proceedure because their equipment is faulty favouring the railway over the road. I have a lot of sympathy for problems that Network Rail have in terms of cable theft / suicides etc but there has been no demonstrable investment in the Worcester area for years. In fact the infrastructure was pilaged in the 70's by the railway authorities (the same people who have morphed into Network Rail)

Also AIUI (as I understand it) track from Norton - Pershore is currently being replaced & rather than site it ready for re-doubling it is being laid in such a way that it would have to be re-laid when / if re-doubling ever occurs. This really disappoints me.
Quote
The incident outside London before Christmas I have seen the report on this the route cause may well be down to negligence by a contractor (cannot say more for obvious reasons)
Network Rail are ultimately responsible for appointing a contractor & should there be any problems you cannot simply abdicate responsibilty.
Logged
martvw
Full Member
***
Posts: 55


View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2013, 22:16:38 »

I agree with Andy you would have thought that a bit of planning for the return of two tracks between Pershore and Worcester could have been posible. Worcesters rail network always seems to get as little as posible spent on it. No wonder there is trouble with outside toilets! sorry line side equipment .
Logged
John R
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4416


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2013, 22:33:28 »

Remember that where lines have been redoubled (North Cotswolds and now starting on South Cotswolds) it takes several months of work to get to a point where the existing line can be slewed into a position compatible with a restored dual track formation. So it's not as easy (or cheap) as just relaying on a slightly different alignment.

I presume that by singling onto a central formation, maintenance on the shoulders of the track formation is reduced, and over time (40 years or so) this results in significant deterioration.
Logged
IndustryInsider
Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10116


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2013, 22:36:14 »

I agree with Andy you would have thought that a bit of planning for the return of two tracks between Pershore and Worcester could have been posible.

I agree to a certain extent as well, though I think it's fair to point out that the section of track in question is quite awkward in that it is on a slightly elevated section with fairly difficult access, so if that track had been moved I would have thought some embankment strengthening would also have been needed.  Also, for the majority of the mile of track that was replaced the original track was slewed to one side with room for a second track, in other areas there is a small amount of lineside equipment that would have needed moving - nothing too major but it would have added to the cost.  The section that would need moving is around the point where it crosses the B4084.

It will appear a little short-sighted should Norton to Evesham redoubling suddenly jump up the NR» (Network Rail - home page) pecking order, but, if I suspect, it'll be at least ten years before it happens then perhaps it's understandable, if a little regrettable.
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2013, 22:49:38 »

I did not think it was that difficult to slew track over.  You do not have to lift it and relay it surely.  So delaying the move until needed and when the inevitable embankment strengthening (aka 50 years back maintenance on earthworks) is complete.  Now if they were resignalling and putting the new cable runs and equipment cabinets in the way that might be different.
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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