|
Umberleigh
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: July 23, 2020, 12:22:29 » |
|
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
|
|
« 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
|
|
« Reply #32 on: July 23, 2020, 13:20:37 » |
|
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
|
|
« 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
|
|
« Reply #34 on: July 23, 2020, 14:08:49 » |
|
No image
Perfectly formed image on my PC, but try this..... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jamsdad
|
|
« 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
|
|
« 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
|
|
« 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
|
|
« 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
|
|
« 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
|
|
« 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▸ slower, then it would have been built as a double track bridge. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Southernman
|
|
« Reply #41 on: July 23, 2020, 23:42:11 » |
|
I recall that at the time, the Department concerned (Transport, Roads?  ) 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
|
|
« Reply #42 on: July 24, 2020, 19:30:56 » |
|
I recall that at the time, the Department concerned (Transport, Roads? ) 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
|
|
« 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
|
|
« 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
|
|
|
|
|
