Holt extension

In may 2005 Norfolk County Coucil has offered the land alongside the Holt bypass for use by the Norfolk Orbital Railway and since not or vey few informations about this remarkable project
In any case was what about the HOLT extension it seems to me a very worthile-and necessary- project better than to go from somewhere(Sheringham) to almost nowhere!
Noel

 

Without sounding rude, perhaps you could edit your posting as it doesn't make much sense as it stands.


Keith

 

Hi Noel,

Take a look at the Norfolk Orbital Railway website (and Facebook page)

http://norfolk-orbital-railway.co.uk/the-holt-project/

http://norfolk-orbital-railway.co.uk/recent-meeting-with-the-office-of-rail-and-road-at-holt/

I agree - getting back into Holt itself would bring much benefit to the town.

 

Looks like a massive challange to build a railway across, over or under two roads before getting in to Holt. Plus the cost of upgrading the Sheringham crossing for regular use. At least for an organisation made up of volunteers.

 

It will be interesting to see how this works out. From a brief search it seems that this has been mulled over for twenty years and little said about it until recently when a road safety campaign to re-site a bus stop on the site referred to in the links was raised last year.

 

Without several many £Ms it's never going to happen however much the dreamers want it to. A new roundabout on the Holt bypass has just be built over the formation.

 

People might just be better donating their money to the NNR instead then.

 

According to the report quoted above " The footprint of the new roundabout currently being constructed on the Holt bypass will not encroach onto the rail corridor. It would of been helpful if this roundabout could of been offset to the East by a few metres but this request was not factored in so we will have to work with it."
So apparently not "built over the formation" as you claim. Care to clarify ??

 

I'm afraid I wouldn't trust any report written by someone who doesn't know the difference between "of" and "have".

 

Care ! Pedants at work !

Yes, I noticed that too, but it is unkind to draw attention to it. It is an unofficial report of a meeting, not an English language exam : the meaning is quite clear.

 

I suggest you go and look for yourself. There is no room for a rail line as the banking for the raised roundabout covers the potential formation to a depth of several feet. The clearances just aren't there anymore. The whole scheme is just wishful thinking.

 

I disagree. It's not pedantic, it's very basic English grammar. The OP clearly does not speak English as their first language, so I applaud their taking the trouble to communicate in English on an English forum.
However, if English is your first language and you are using a written medium, then I think a grasp of the basics is perfectly reasonable to expect.

That said, these days there are many instances of pathetically bad examples. Only today I read a story on the BBC news web site which used the word 'publically' (sic).

(PS I would disagree with the OP on the Norfolk Orbital Railway dream being a 'remarkable project'. It's been WIBN fantasy for the best part of 30 years, to my knowledge.)

 

Thank you for your reply. I only asked for clarification as I cannot "go and look for myself", I live much too far away for that. There was no need for the hostile response.

 

I too enjoy the proper use of the language. However, this is a site for the discussion of matters of interest about preserved/heritage railways. As such it is used by people with varying degrees of education and background. Some handle language well, others struggle to express themselves in print, one or two identify as dyslexic. Very occasionally it is not possible to work out what somebody is trying to say but, most of the time, it is easy enough to decipher.
If you disagree with what someone is saying then say so, giving your reasoning. Sniping at them for their use of language is not acceptable and has no place in these forums.

 

I don't care for sloppy English, and I get the impression that standards are slipping across the board, on-train announcements being a prime example. However, I wouldn't let grammatical slips get in the way of a good debate. I have worked with a lot of people who have great technical knowledge but not-such-good English, and their ideas are just as valid as anybody else's. It requires a little more effort to check understanding, but it's worth the effort.

One thing I'm sure of is that Oxford English will never be the norm. It never has been, really, and now with such a diverse population and increased social mobility the language is morphing all the time. We might not like it, but we will only make ourselves miserable by expecting perfection.

 

Amazing that this thread has now become one debating language skills. Can we get back to Holt?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I feel a "Life of Brian" moment coming on.

"People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse?!"
"It says, "Romans go home.""
"No it doesn't, what's Latin for Romans? Come on boy!"

It's called learning through fear; the way Latin was instilled into me!

We can't go back to Holt because a roundabout has been built in the way!
sic transit Gloria mundi (someone threw up in my van last Monday).

 

Technically yes but it will need at least a couple of million squidlies to get there...

 

Lol when i said can we get back to Holt I meant the topic rather than whether it is actually achievable now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk