12:17 Westbury to Swindon due 12:59

12:17 Westbury to Swindon due 12:59 will be starting late from Westbury and is expected to be 12 minutes late.
This is due to a points failure.

10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids due 13:07

10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids due 13:07 has been delayed at London Paddington and is now 26 minutes late.
This is due to a points failure.

A key piece of information is missing.

I think, with hindsight, and a fairly straight face, it is not unreasonable to say that if the money wasted on what was done at Bath had been (better ?) used to bypass Melksham and Westbury then the M4 to Warminster bit of this "strategic" route would now have a reasonable road. Only the A36 to, and round, Salisbury left to do 

But that shows it to be a rail over footway, rather than correctly as footway over rail

Given that Bath's in the top ten and possibly the top five in terms of revenue generating stations for GWR that's a little ungenerous.

09:46 Westbury to Swindon due 10:29

09:46 Westbury to Swindon due 10:29 will be starting late from Westbury and is expected to be 10 minutes late.
This is due to train crew being delayed.

I think, with hindsight, and a fairly straight face, it is not unreasonable to say that if the money wasted on what was done at Bath had been (better ?) used to bypass Melksham and Westbury then the M4 to Warminster bit of this "strategic" route would now have a reasonable road. Only the A36 to, and round, Salisbury left to do 

There's nothing wrong in avoiding Barf. Shame there isn't a Bath avoider for the railway. Never liked the place especially those who can't count when it comes to bikes in the HST TGS.

Openstreetmap's useful for this. For one under railway ownership, it's a very singular footbridge.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.344990/-1.762909

Here is an interesting 1990 photo of the Batheastern & Swainswick bypass (looking towards Bath).   Those parts got built, by the link to A36 in left foreground was dropped due to local opposition

https://bathintime.co.uk/image-library/image-overview/poster/20931/posterid/20931.html

** Made me think of that foot crossing on the Westbury avoiding line too. Another that's found itself amid housing. And probably many other examples...

Catching up (rather belatedly, for which I apologise) with this topic here:

I, too, doubt that they will ever be 'fully accessible'.

Just back from a week in Lanzarote, and was pleasantly surprised to find my 0721 Melksham-Chippenham train on time this morning. But it didn't last - the Paddington service that precedes it into Chippenham was running a bit late, so mine was delayed and I just missed the (unofficial) connection with the 0734 Chippenham-Bristol service. Then the next 0809 was cancelled (train fault). And now the 0832 is showing as 'running late' by 11 mins.

Good to be back

Oh - the same irony that rail franchising is declared dead and the TOCs will be nationalised, whereas flavour of the month in bus operation is a network designed by the public sector, with routes or areas operated by franchises?

05:23 Hereford to London Paddington due 08:23
Facilities on the 05:23 Hereford to London Paddington due 08:23.
This is due to more trains than usual needing repairs at the same time.
Will be formed of 5 coaches instead of 9.
Last Updated:17/03/2025 06:12

Here is an interesting 1990 photo of the Batheastern & Swainswick bypass (looking towards Bath).   Those parts got built, by the link to A36 in left foreground was dropped due to local opposition

https://bathintime.co.uk/image-library/image-overview/poster/20931/posterid/20931.html

But it wasn't (overturned)

The question from the OP was why was the penalty reduced to zero, rather than the penalty cancelled/overturned.

Summary

At around 20:00 hrs on Saturday 14 December 2019, a train driver became trapped between two trains in the yard at Tyseley maintenance depot, Birmingham. The driver received fatal injuries as a result.

The driver became trapped because he was passing between two closely-spaced trains when one of the trains was moved towards the other as part of a coupling operation. The driver had not used a safe route when he was walking within the yard, and almost certainly did not expect that the trains would move as he passed between them. Another driver, who was attempting to couple the trains, was unaware that anyone else was close to them. He did not sound a warning prior to coupling because local instructions did not require this.

RAIB’s investigation identified that the depot operator, West Midlands Trains, had not adequately considered the risks faced by drivers on depots. The investigation also found that Tyseley depot is operating at or beyond its capacity at night and that West Midlands Trains’ management assurance processes had not promoted safe working practices.

Recommendations

RAIB has made two recommendations as a result of the investigation, both addressed to West Midlands Trains. The first recommendation is that West Midlands Trains ensures that effective assessments are carried out of the risks to those walking and working in depots, yards and sidings and that suitable measures are in place to control these risks. The second recommendation is that West Midlands Trains reviews its safety assurance processes to ensure that unsafe working practices within the company can be effectively identified and their causes addressed.

The investigation has also identified six learning points for the railway industry:

* the first two learning points warn duty holders and railway staff of the dangers of being in close proximity to railway vehicles

* the third learning point reminds duty holders that authorised walking routes must be made known to staff

* the fourth learning point reminds duty holders of the importance of assessing the capacity of depots relative to the operational demands placed on them to ensure that they can be operated safely

* the fifth learning point is that results from brake tests and other safety critical examinations are routinely checked and understood by competent staff

* the sixth learning point covers the importance of screening staff members involved in accidents for the presence of drugs or alcohol in accordance with the relevant procedures.

Simon French, Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents said:
The death of any member of railway staff on duty is a tragedy. As we publish RAIB’s investigation report into the accident which took place at Tyseley depot in December last year, my thoughts are very much with the family of the train driver who died as a result.

This sad accident highlights how dangerous depots and sidings can be. When I started on the railway in 1982 one of the first things that was drummed into me was to take care around vehicles, and to only go under or between vehicles when you were quite sure they were not going to move. That is as true now as it was then. No matter how bad the weather, don’t be tempted to make a quick dash through a small gap. It could prove fatal.

In a depot like Tyseley, trains are maintained and serviced in readiness for their next duty. Train drivers are required as part of their normal work to take trains into depots for these activities to take place. They will also carry out the final preparation of trains and take them out of depots afterwards. We found that the department within the train operating company responsible for managing traincrew and the department responsible for the servicing and maintenance of trains were not working well together. This meant the company as a whole did not understand or sufficiently manage the risks posed to drivers who were working or walking in depots. The company was also not taking effective action to deal with unsafe actions in depots. Good safety management requires both an understanding of risk and spotting when things are not being done properly, and then doing something about it.

No: he was found clinging to the outside of their vehicle.  The article makes that clear.

Not fully understanding how fines and convictions work in this case.... I guess there is a distinction between 'reducing the fine to £0' and dropping the case altogether?

32 Penalty for carrying clandestine entrants.

(1)A person is a clandestine entrant if—

(a)he arrives in the United Kingdom concealed in a vehicle, ship or aircraft,
(aa)he arrives in the United Kingdom concealed in a rail freight wagon,
(b)he passes, or attempts to pass, through immigration control concealed in a vehicle, or
(c)he arrives in the United Kingdom on a ship or aircraft, having embarked—

(i)concealed in a vehicle; and
(ii)at a time when the ship or aircraft was outside the United Kingdom,

and claims, or indicates that he intends to seek, asylum in the United Kingdom or evades, or attempts to evade, immigration control.

10.—(1) A notice may be served on a person under regulation 9(3) by:
(a)delivering it to that person;
(b)leaving it at his proper address;
(c)sending it to his proper address by first class post in a prepaid registered envelope or by the recorded delivery service;
(d)facsimile, sent to his usual or last known business facsimile number;
(e)electronic mail, sent to his usual or last known business electronic mail address.