|
TerminalJunkie
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2009, 20:04:01 » |
|
capable of attracting the car user That only works if there's somewhere to leave the car. Towns with a train generally grow. I think you'll find that towns generally grow whether or not they have any train services. Ever been to Skelmersdale?
Heavens, no. Been past it at speed on many occasions, though 
I should perhaps have made my initial point a bit clearer, though. Why would you want it to 'operate independently', when there's a more-than-adequate public transport service already in place? What would be the point, other than to suck up vast sums of public money in subsidy that could be better spent elsewhere? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Daily Mail and Daily Express readers please click here. |
|
|
|
|
|
Andy
|
|
« Reply #32 on: May 19, 2009, 08:14:38 » |
|
It's always seemed to me that the 1960s closures in North Somerset/Devon/Cornwall were ill-advised. It would have been better to retain Paddington-Taunton-Barnstaple-(?Ilfracombe/Bideford) and (Waterloo-)Exeter St Davids-Crediton-Okehampton-Lydford -Tavistock-Plymouth, plus branches from Lydford-Launceston and Bodmin Road-Wadebridge-Padstow.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
onthecushions
|
|
« Reply #33 on: May 19, 2009, 11:17:47 » |
|
TJ:
1. Bideford yard already has c40 spaces, Barnstaple 89.
There's also kiss'n ride, taxis and bus interchange.
2. Skelmersdale is the largest(?) English Town not to be rail served. It's a new Town and was planned that way, even to the point of making existing peripheral stations inaccessible (check Rainford Jn and Upholland). It has a 6-lane spine motorway (the M58) that is mostly empty. It has thus been an unemployment blackspot since it was founded, with some of the cheapest (and best landscaped) new houses in the UK▸ .
I'm not surprised you didn't stop.
3. Towns (and districts) do grow preferentially with rail for the simple reason of capacity - rail can carry more traffic than road (cars or buses) and is attractive to the higher, more productive socio-economic groups that work and spend. That's why London prospers and why developers wanted Crossrail and the Jubilee Line.
4. Independent operation is a hunch/prejudice of mine that smaller outfits work better than larger ones. The Heritage Railway (HR▸ ) Sector not only has fat controllers and Thomas, it also has 1435mm gauge track passed for 22t axle loads and 60 mph (no passengers at present). It uses contractors where sensible and works to the same safety rules as NR» . Separated branch lines would let HR do its stuff albeit with modern or second user rolling stock and full time staff, much more cost-effectively.
I do however concede that Bideford would better be served by an extension of present Barnstaple services.
Regards,
OTC
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 23:32:24 by onthecushions »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chris from Nailsea
|
|
« Reply #34 on: May 19, 2009, 23:56:07 » |
|
Towns with a train generally grow. I think you'll find that towns generally grow whether or not they have any train services. Portishead, just for example, has been growing 'preferentially' for many years, with no train service whatsoever ...    |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
William Huskisson MP▸ was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830. Many more have died in the same way since then. Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.
"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner." Discuss.
|
|
|
|
6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01
|
|
« Reply #35 on: May 20, 2009, 00:20:43 » |
|
also goes the other way i agree with market towns the loss of railways hasnt altered growth but has increased conjestion, however holiday resorts like ilfracombe did suffer
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
onthecushions
|
|
« Reply #36 on: May 21, 2009, 12:25:53 » |
|
Portishead, just for example, has been growing 'preferentially' for many years, with no train service whatsoever ...
Perchance ye towne of Portishead prospereth for that it lieth but a league from ye ancient and great city of Bristolle so that ye merchants thereof may repair thence to make sport with their ladys alsoe it lieth by ye fair haven of Portsbury where congregate ye great argosies of all ye world for to trade their wares. Ye iron ways lately come into our Earldom of Wessex do indede carrie goods but not persons in this handsome towne. Greetings unto all to whom these presents come, OYC (PS To Ilfracombe could be added Bude, B.S., Padstow, Sidmouth, Seaton, Lyme R, Bridport, Ventnor, plus a selection from the East Coast like Mablethorpe) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01
|
|
« Reply #37 on: May 21, 2009, 13:48:49 » |
|
seaton would be too complicated the tramway runs on the old track bed shame it doesn't link up to a station on the main line as an interchange
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chris from Nailsea
|
|
« Reply #38 on: May 21, 2009, 20:08:42 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
William Huskisson MP▸ was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830. Many more have died in the same way since then. Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.
"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner." Discuss.
|
|
|
|
Andy
|
|
« Reply #39 on: May 22, 2009, 14:13:38 » |
|
Yer bt no bt iz Brizzle inet?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #40 on: May 31, 2009, 17:59:09 » |
|
1) Service from Minehead to Taunton, to compete directly with the slow bus service... (1hr+) Enhance the service during the summer to allow for passenger flow to Minehead (Butlins). Also instate a Station at Norton Fitzwarren. The only route I would say is practical is route 1, as the infrastructure is already there. I'm not sure what the track leasing costs would be though from Norton Fitzwarren to Taunton station...?! This might shelve the idea completely...!  WSR currently are indeed seeking planning permission for a platform at Norton Fitwarren. The application states that it could be used for incoming main line trains in future (ie, but not initially). This would reduce significantly the time taken for a unit to shuttle from Taunton to BL and back, and could open up the opportunity of Taunton terminators running on to Norton and back in marginal time. They hope to have it built by August. The original application was withdrawn because the highways authorities objected to parking space there, which has now been removed from the revised application, which comes up for consideration before the month end. And the good news is that planning permission was granted, with work starting more or less immediately if the target date is still to be met. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thetrout
|
|
« Reply #41 on: June 01, 2009, 01:05:01 » |
|
Thats excellent news  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
autotank
|
|
« Reply #42 on: June 01, 2009, 12:25:53 » |
|
How about Cholsey-Wallingford? Compared with some of the schemes proposed already on this thread it would be pretty simple to get going. The track is already in place and up to passenger carrying standard. There is a half hourly service to London and Oxford at Cholsey with a cross platform interchange. As the hertiage services are fairly limited, running a Monday - Saturday 30 minute interval service wouldn't get in the way of steam/08 operations.
Wallingford is expanding all the time with 850 new houses just about to be built next to the station at Winterbrook. This line would be perfect for PPM‡ operation and a 25mph restriction wouldn't be an issue because of the relatively short distance involved (just under 2.5 miles). As the route is self contained it wouldn't have to bother with the expense of TPWS▸ /AWS▸ /OTMR▸ and carry on operating under an LRO.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #44 on: June 26, 2009, 23:21:21 » |
|
Because as has been posted earlier they have a Fat Controller. Once a heritage railway decides to do something it doesn't have to have endless consultations with all and sundry to work out if it's feasable or how to do it. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 29, 2009, 20:11:32 by eightf48544 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Click on the map to explore geographics
