Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 15:35 29 Mar 2024
* Delays at Dover as millions begin Easter getaway
* A view from inside ship that hit Baltimore bridge
- Attempted murder charge after man stabbed on train
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
29th Mar (1913)
Foundation of National Union or Railwaymen (*)

Train RunningCancelled
15:14 Swindon to Westbury
15:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
15:28 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
15:50 Bedwyn to Newbury
15:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
16:15 Newbury to Bedwyn
16:23 Westbury to Swindon
16:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
17:24 Newbury to Bedwyn
17:36 Swindon to Westbury
18:04 Bedwyn to Newbury
18:26 Newbury to Bedwyn
18:37 Westbury to Swindon
18:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
19:02 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
19:24 Newbury to Bedwyn
19:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
20:13 Swindon to Westbury
20:49 Newbury to Bedwyn
21:16 Westbury to Swindon
21:16 Bedwyn to Newbury
21:53 Newbury to Bedwyn
22:25 Bedwyn to Newbury
22:30 Swindon to Westbury
22:47 Newbury to Bedwyn
Short Run
13:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
13:42 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
13:55 Paignton to London Paddington
14:36 London Paddington to Paignton
15:28 London Paddington to Weston-Super-Mare
15:42 Exeter St Davids to London Paddington
16:35 London Paddington to Plymouth
16:50 Plymouth to London Paddington
17:03 London Paddington to Penzance
17:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
18:03 London Paddington to Penzance
18:29 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
18:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
19:04 Paignton to London Paddington
19:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
20:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
21:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
23:17 Bedwyn to Reading
Delayed
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
10:20 Penzance to London Paddington
12:03 London Paddington to Penzance
12:15 Penzance to London Paddington
13:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
13:15 Plymouth to London Paddington
13:50 London Paddington to Great Malvern
14:03 London Paddington to Penzance
14:15 Penzance to London Paddington
15:03 London Paddington to Penzance
15:15 Plymouth to London Paddington
16:03 London Paddington to Penzance
16:15 Penzance to London Paddington
17:29 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
etc
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
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
March 29, 2024, 15:46:16 *
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
[211] 2024 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury...
[66] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[49] Who needs a travel agent these days?
[36] Travel for free on the m2 metrobus - Bristol - 4,5,6 April 202...
[28] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[26] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: IRJ: £1.2bn rail upgrade proposed for southwest Britain  (Read 7439 times)
Umberleigh
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 456


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: July 23, 2020, 12:22:29 »

Quote
reinstatement of double track between Exeter, Yeovil and Salisbury (£382.3m)

A very welcome plan, but have they included the huge disruption caused by having to demolish and rebuild the M5 bridge to the east of Pinhoe?

Was no allowance made for future redoubling when it was built?
Logged
Umberleigh
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 456


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: July 23, 2020, 12:50:51 »

Why not a 15” railway with scaled down Bullied Pacific’s between Boscarne and Padstow?  Enough space for cyclists and walkers alongside as per the Bure Valley railway and others. Padstow gets suffocated by cars and coaches in the summer and the approaches are ruined by large car parks, so maybe identify a park and ride site either along the line or as an extension shuttle. Run it in conjunction with the existing Bodmin & Wenford with through ticketing etc

Logged
PhilWakely
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2007



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: July 23, 2020, 13:20:37 »

Quote
reinstatement of double track between Exeter, Yeovil and Salisbury (£382.3m)

A very welcome plan, but have they included the huge disruption caused by having to demolish and rebuild the M5 bridge to the east of Pinhoe?

Was no allowance made for future redoubling when it was built?

Sadly not!

image courtesy of Video 125 'Exeter to Basingstoke Driver's eye view' (posted with permission)
Logged
rogerw
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1336



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: July 23, 2020, 13:52:28 »

No image
Logged

I like to travel.  It lets me feel I'm getting somewhere.
PhilWakely
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2007



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: July 23, 2020, 14:08:49 »

No image

Perfectly formed image on my PC, but try this.....
Logged
Jamsdad
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 201


View Profile Email
« Reply #35 on: July 23, 2020, 15:28:08 »

Looking at the proposals for Cornwall, I dont think there is much chance of getting a line back to Padstow. But a regular service from Bodmin Parkway to Bodmin General could work, as could Lostwthiel Fowey. The development with the greatest traffic potential would be the faster service St Austell- Newquay over the Burngullow- St Denis clay line. All three of those proposals require little or no new track. Exeter- Plymouth via Okehampton is still important, not only as the diversionary route, but opening up traffic into Okehampton, North Cornwall and Tavistock.
Logged
Oxonhutch
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1244



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: July 23, 2020, 15:31:47 »

Sadly not!
image courtesy of Video 125 'Exeter to Basingstoke Driver's eye view' (posted with permission)

What terrible short-term thinking at the time. Extra width for the original double track can't have added 10% (probably much less) to the cost of the original construction.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2020, 18:41:19 by Oxonhutch » Logged
Bob_Blakey
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 783


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: July 23, 2020, 15:46:58 »

Looking at the image of the Monkerton bridge it appears to me that the main decking might be wide enough for, with a little engineering ingenuity, new sidewalls to be built 'outside' those that already exist to provide the necessary width clearance for double tracking.
Logged
PhilWakely
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2007



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: July 23, 2020, 17:08:46 »

Looking at the image of the Monkerton bridge it appears to me that the main decking might be wide enough for, with a little engineering ingenuity, new sidewalls to be built 'outside' those that already exist to provide the necessary width clearance for double tracking.

Just to add further complexity to any required engineering..... the track is aligned to the centre of the original double-track alignment. Within 50 yards of the M5 bridge, to the east, is an old 'traditional' brick bridge over a country lane. I doubt it would be possible to slew the track under a slightly widened bridge and bring it back to the original alignment within 50 yards (but, then again, I am no civil engineer!), so a new bridge may be required over the lane as well.
Logged
Robin Summerhill
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1145


View Profile Email
« Reply #39 on: July 23, 2020, 19:43:20 »

What terrible short-term thinking at the time. Extra width for the original double track can't have added 10% (probably much less) to the cost of the original construction.

Sadly not again. The perceived wisdom at the time amongst the majority of people, not just politicians and road engineers, was that railways were yesterday's form of transport that nobody wanted to use any more.

They had what happened to the canal system as an example. With the exception of a few preservationists in isolated areas, most of the network was abandoned and derelict. It wouldn't even have crossed anybody's minds at the time that the railwaty would ever be doubled again - perhaps closed altogether, but never doubled.

Even if crystal balls had been standard issue I doubt if naybody wouild have foreseen an upsurge in traffic 30 years later.
Logged
eXPassenger
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 547


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: July 23, 2020, 20:01:13 »

Was no allowance made for future redoubling when it was built?

Singled in 67, M5 opened in 75.  If the M5 had been faster, or BR (British Rail(ways)) slower, then it would have been built as a double track bridge.
Logged
Southernman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 114


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: July 23, 2020, 23:42:11 »

I recall that at the time, the Department concerned (Transport, Roads?Huh) stated (in response to objections) that if there was ever a requirement for the railway to be redoubled, this bridge would be widened. I am sure it came in the form of a 'guarantee'. Don't expect it holds much water now though....
Logged
Robin Summerhill
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1145


View Profile Email
« Reply #42 on: July 24, 2020, 19:30:56 »

I recall that at the time, the Department concerned (Transport, Roads?Huh) stated (in response to objections) that if there was ever a requirement for the railway to be redoubled, this bridge would be widened. I am sure it came in the form of a 'guarantee'. Don't expect it holds much water now though....

A guarantee perhaps, but with a guarantor thinking they had about as much chance of having to do it as an inurance company paying out for volcano damage in Berkshire...
Logged
onthecushions
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 977


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: July 24, 2020, 20:49:35 »

Looking at the image of the Monkerton bridge it appears to me that the main decking might be wide enough for, with a little engineering ingenuity, new sidewalls to be built 'outside' those that already exist to provide the necessary width clearance for double tracking.

Breaking every drawing office rule (do not scale...), the over (M5) bridge opening looks about 5.5m square. I vaguely remember a figure of 8.5m as a double track width with walkway, so only a small set back needed. Even if the bridge deck were a bit short, it could well work with corbelled supports. Both new and old bridges look to have the track centred so slewing shouldn't be needed.

The M5 is wide at this point so could take a contraflow while work was in progress. Road builders seem to be more adroit than rail contractors - more practice!

Where there's a will..

OTC
 
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: July 25, 2020, 09:41:25 »

Since the track does not appear to be centred it would only need to be widened on one side, but how much a problem would a short section of single track be compared to the cost of a new M5 bridge?
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 2 [3] 4
  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