West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Which is why I’m with @Yorkshireman in considering that government bodies have no cash of their own, and that it’s important that it is see as being taxpayers’ money. But that digresses from the topic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

For a crossing with gates that are operated by someone taking one end and walking, then doing the same for the other gate, that is entirely sensible. But has no-one ever assessed the practicality of motorising them just like barriers?

 

However let's focus on the positives. New crossing mechanisms, reflecting the much increased numbers of vehicles and pedestrians who don't want to be kept waiting. No money required from the railway, but the railway will still have control of operation, maintenance and repairs as at present.

 

It needs to be said that this situation is not true S.E.W.P. as the proposals are being made by the organisation who will pay. True S.E.W.P. is a gricer thing, very much linked with W.I.B.N.

PH

 

It shouldn't be seen as just taxpayers' money after it has been collected - it belongs to the whole community.

 

Which you have failed to do. SCC does not have a magic money tree. Every penny it spends comes out of taxpayer’s pockets. I find it hard to see how they going to get value for money with this project. I am am happy to be proved wrong.

 

I am certainly not saying you are after a cheapskate solution but it is worth remembering that it is the fiftieth anniversary of the Hixon accident which revealed that some aspects of the then current AHB requirements were indeed cheapskate. See this month's Railway Magazine.

PH

 

Then why not address my argument rather than invoking magical things which I did not say? Value for money is not the issue between us.

 

If you are so concerned that the tax payers of Somerset are footing the bill you might suggest to your friends at the PLC that they stump up the money. They could always launch another appeal to pay for it.
Luckily, for the WSR given we are told here that they have cash flow issues, they are getting this new crossing paid for them. I wish someone would pay for the new gates to my property later this year!

 

The Autocar, DS8904 in posting No. 10615 is mine was driven to BL from Axminster. It is a 1917, 30 cwt lorry - so the wrong war for the coming Event! I think that picture was taken 23 years ago.

 

Look, there is no point in comparing any replacement crossing with AHB's. AHB's may be quicker, cheaper, less safe and require less staff than full barrier crossings (whether lifting or swinging), but Somerset County Council has, rightly, ruled out AHB's for the new crossing, so all that is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

What part of "controlled crossing" do you not understand? The replacement crossing will have to be controlled by someone - it's in the spec. Shall we call them the crossing keeper? So, the cost of the crossing keeper, the "crossing keeper operated traffic lights" and the "crossing keeper hut with communication to Minehead box," is part of the scheme whatever happens, unless some way is found to control the crossing from the signal box, in which case this saving applies to gates as well as barriers.

 

Is a hut proposed? Staffing it would be a significant new liability. Controlled crossings with full barriers are often controlled remotely, using CCTV to check the highway is clear. I imagine this would now be the norm for Network Rail installations, unless the crossing is within the view of one of the few remaining traditional signalboxes. I’m not aware of this being done with traditional gates though I hope someone will say if they’re aware of it.

 

The two situations are very and were very different. Hixon demonstrated how concerns about speed of implementation and minimising specifications could be overdone.

PH

 

Which is where I go all Maggie Thatcher, and dispute the existence of an autonomous thing called "society". What belongs to everyone has a nasty habit of belonging to no one and becoming the asset of someone.

 

As a break from the unnecessary, pointless stream of argument about Seaward Way level crossing its good to see the PLC Chairman post a blog here:

https://wsrchairman.blogspot.co.uk/

A welcome development.

 

We must all take ownership and hold to account those who spend money on our behalf.

 

I was reading the January number of ‘Railnews’ over lunch. There is further comment about the Minehead -Taunton service which readers might find interesting. I have posted it in the parallel ‘Viability of extending to Taunton’ thread.

Robin

 

Not necessarily, it can easily be controlled by an automatic system. Well known design specifications and specific component selection will ensure fail-safe operation without any human involvement.

After all, when you fly back off holiday you don't think the pilot is landing the plane do you? (Well OK if its one wheel first and quite a thump he/she probably is.. )

 

In which case, why does the SCC document distinguish between the Automatic(ally controlled) Half Barriers there at present and the controlled full barriers that are proposed?