A little issue

[whole diary]

[swlines]

Whilst I agree with the idea of the pledge for the Melksham route - I don't particularly agree with the huge banner here on the coffee shop.

We all know that Melksham deserves a better service, but doing it through a huge banner at the top of the page which is aimed at FGW^▸ (First Great Western) on the whole IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) is only going to really turn users away as it appears that the sites concentration is on Melksham, which is surely what savethetrain is for...

Tom

[John R]

And more to the point, it takes up so much space that it makes navigation etc more difficult.

[grahame]

It's shrunk, gentlemen ... a bit big and brash on my part (and you can blame me alone for that!) - sorry.

[swlines]

That's a fair bit better - although Graham you may wish to resize the actual text banner as I've got a huge amount of whitespace either side of it... serves me right for using 1680x1050 though!

[Mookiemoo]

That's a fair bit better - although Graham you may wish to resize the actual text banner as I've got a huge amount of whitespace either side of it... serves me right for using 1680x1050 though!

I'm 1920x1200 and its fine for me

[Tinminer]

Perhaps we could focus on one re-opening scheme each week or month at the top of the website, thereby giving other deserved causes publicity as well as Melksham (which I DO thoroughly support).

For example: Tavistock, Okehampton, Newquay re-route, Cotswold line re-doubling, etc, etc.

....just a thought!

[Conner]

I'm 1920x1200 and its fine for me

serves me right for using 1680x1050 though!

You are both insain. 

[Mookiemoo]

I'm 1920x1200 and its fine for me

serves me right for using 1680x1050 though!

You are both insain. 

NOT!

I WANT MORE PIXELS!

[swlines]

You're already at over 1080p!!!

1680x1050 is the default resolution on my iMac.

[Conner]

I'm 1920x1200 and its fine for me

serves me right for using 1680x1050 though!

You are both insain. 

NOT!

I WANT MORE PIXELS!

I'm on 1280x800 but am not that sure about that.

[grahame]

Perhaps we could focus on one re-opening scheme each week or month at the top of the website, thereby giving other deserved causes publicity as well as Melksham (which I DO thoroughly support).

For example: Tavistock, Okehampton, Newquay re-route, Cotswold line re-doubling, etc, etc.

....just a thought!

Yes, indeed.   Very happy to keep the site moving and to highlight causes rather than have it go plain and turgid.  And if particular issues are liekly to be "hot" in the coming month, then they're probably good ones to mention.  The TransWilts (Melksham is only a quarter of the traffic - it just happens to have been worst hit by the cuts!) is at a crucial stage for the next few weeks ...

[smokey]

Perhaps we could focus on one re-opening scheme each week or month at the top of the website, thereby giving other deserved causes publicity as well as Melksham (which I DO thoroughly support).

For example: Tavistock, Okehampton, Newquay re-route, Cotswold line re-doubling, etc, etc.

....just a thought!

It's well known that the Road Lobby and Air Lobby run rings round the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about), unlike the Rail lobby.
I came out of RDS (Rail Future) or what ever they call them selves now, RDS will never make much headway,
why?
Because it's split into small regional groups.

What makes the DfT sit up  a small feather pointing at it or a MASSIVE kick up the BACK SIDE?

The Road lobby has a simple strategy, sit down work out the top Road schemes, put together the reasons to improve said road, then kick the DfT hard about it.
When the DfT find funding, the road lobby move on to the 2nd scheme on their wish list!!!!

Rail lobbists infight about different schemes and get NOWHERE.

[Lee]

Rail lobbists infight about different schemes and get NOWHERE.

One of the reasons CANBER^▸ (Campaign Against the New Beeching Report) was set up was to give various campaigning groups and individuals a means of networking with eachother. Not everybody agrees on everything (an impossible aim, I would suggest) but overall I think it works well.

As a Coffee Shop Global Moderator, one of the things that pleases me is that several forum members are also leading figures in rail-related organisations, and this also gives us an opportunity to discuss issues that otherwise may not have been available to us.

[eightf48544]

CANBER^▸ (Campaign Against the New Beeching Report)?

I agree with smokey that rail lobbisists fight about different schemes. Also the very clever split between Networkrail and the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) means that the being transitory beasts TOCs have no vested interest in large scale investments other than those they were foolish enough to sign up to with their franchise.

Networkrail, therefore, has no reason to push any schemes other than those in the watered down strategy.

Therefore, at the risk of bing shot down here is my list of possible schemes for te eFGW franchise area.

More stock an essential first step to alleviate overcrowding and provide more trains, This solves the Melksham problem.

I would suggest extra carriage for 165/166 so 3 become 4 and 2 become 3  plus say 10 extra  compatible two cars for branches and train stengthening.

SW trains 159 fleet to get similar extras cars and more units.

West of England fleet more 20+? 2 car units to make 14Xs redundant and  use of 153s as trains redundant. 153s to be train stengtheners.

Reopenings

Bere Alston - Tavistock Stage 1

Tavistock Okehampton Stage 2 (to provide alternative route to Plymouth for when Dawlish seawall disappears).

Bourne End - High Wycombe


Capacity enhancements

Cotswold redoubling
Salisbury Exeter

Electrification 25KV long term

GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) in stages.

London to Banbury/ Bedwyn including Greenford loop all curves, Old Oak to West Ruslip, Marylebone Banbury and Aylesbury Via Wycombe.


Electrification third rail.

Reading to Basingstoke to enable Reading to  Brighton to be electric. The only problem with doing Reading Basingstoke third rail is that you would have to have third rail through Reading station. If 25KV Reading New Junction becomes boundary, but would require dual voltage units for Brightons.

Guildford to Reigate North Downs

Basingstoke to Exeter

Southampton Salisbury via Redbridge and Chandlers Ford

Salisbury Westbury (either system does it make more sense for Salisbury or Westbury to be boundary?

Tram Trains:

Bristol including Portishead Avonmouth (both ways) Severn Beach possibly Yate/Thornbury (via Mangotsfield?).

By splitting it up into several projects under different headings you can an argue that each type of project is different (meets a different aim) and, therefore, work should be done on one project under each heading.

[Lee]

CANBER^▸ (Campaign Against the New Beeching Report)?

You can find out about us in the website link below.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/G1517

As good a time as any to let you all know that we will be moving to http://canber.co.uk/ at some point before Action Network closes (my thanks to swlines for the webspace.)

I stand by what I said earlier about CANBER being a good way of giving various campaigning groups and individuals a means of networking with eachother. In the overwhelming majority of cases, those I have come into contact with have been very supportive of what we are trying to do.

Believe it or not, I am one of life's optimists, and I hope that we can play a small but significant part in bringing rail campaigners together and helping them to further their aims.