IRJ: £1.2bn rail upgrade proposed for southwest Britain

[whole diary]

[Oxonhutch]

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?

Indeed, I suspect a cost-benefit analysis would not justify a rebuild - and that includes the soft cost of disruption to the (possibly millions) of drivers on the M5. At 5.5 metres (not scaled of course!) it could accommodate a gauntleted pair of tracks and thus minimise the running and maintenance burden of two sets of point switches.

[eXPassenger]

My understanding was that there would be problems at Crewkerne due to the way the track was slewed and other developments made.

[Robin Summerhill]

I have now had the opportunity to read a spirited defence of the report by someone who is very close to the two authors, quoting one of the reports author’s correspondence to him. As this appeared on a closed railway group (Southern email group) I am not sure whether it would be appropriate to copy it and post it here. Perhaps one of the mods could advise.

At this stage, all I am happy to reveal is that the cost estimates for Bodmin to Padstow are said to include the assessment of the cost of acquiring additional land and the costs associated with the acquisition.

And they apparently think they can do it, and all the associated work, and still get change out of £33m.

Make of that what you will.

[ellendune]

At this stage, all I am happy to reveal is that the cost estimates for Bodmin to Padstow are said to include the assessment of the cost of acquiring additional land and the costs associated with the acquisition.

And they apparently think they can do it, and all the associated work, and still get change out of £33m.

Make of that what you will.

I can't see how they could get through or round Wadebridge for £33 million let alone the rest. 

[bradshaw]

Yes, at Crewkerne the track was slewed toward the middle of the formation to allow for the raising of the platform prior to the introduction of the Class 159s. It also made more room for passengers to walk to that part of the platform beyond the bridge, as it was very narrow there. The goods yard has been developed for housing recently which would mean the road bridge would have to be rebuilt even if there was room for re-doubling.

[grahame]

I have now had the opportunity to read a spirited defence of the report by someone who is very close to the two authors, quoting one of the reports author’s correspondence to him. As this appeared on a closed railway group (Southern email group) I am not sure whether it would be appropriate to copy it and post it here. Perhaps one of the mods could advise.

I had that quandary earlier in the thread - looking to discuss the matter but not publish them.  And I wrote:

Follow up at http://www.passenger.chat/23820 in the Transport Scholars area.

Suggestion - follow up on that same "back thread" ... post a similar pointer here so that Transport Scholars know to look there for backup data to the points you 've gone on to make in the rest of your post.