West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Or could be an OD system...less work for the signaller

 

I just hope that when the new crossing is put in its is spaced for two tracks instead of one, maybe it'll never be used but if its put in for one that's one option the railway has either permanently lost of to get it back will be mega ching, it shouldn't cost a lot more to space them slightly further apart, so why not

 

It is not available for general funds - it has to be used for specific improvements - - infrastructure/highways etc - if it is not so used within a specified period, it has to be returned to the developer.

 

Surely, with reduced linespeeds on heritage lines, especially here so close to Minehead station, the aspiration to eliminate half barriers on the national network would have little relevence?

 

In fact lower line speeds encourage misuse... pedestrians are more likely to take risk to get across especially with AHB crossings. There are many many recorded incidents of such misuse.
From what was posted by Robin White it appears that this crossing is not a quiet country crossing and has quite a high pedestrian usage
Its better to make the crossing as safe as reasonably possible and therefore a full barrier crossing should be the preferred option.

 

Have NR actually got OD working properly without failing safe? Less work is not what I have heard about the early installations.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

It is a possibility that a two track area which would only have one track, might encourage misuse. Some folk treating the 'spare area' as a safety zone. Sense and cost dictate a single track arrangement I believe. It might be ten or more years - or never - that the extra track was required by which time the current circumstances and legislation would, most likely, be different and the possibility of different ownership.

 

OD works well.
Like anything new there were the usual teething problems

 

Good points. I'd not thought of it that way.

 

Glad to hear it, coverage suggested more than “usual” level of teething problems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That’s got to be the way to go in future- and best value for the public, the council should not have to pay for manual control.

 

Ha Ha Ha. Well spotted. Thank you. Mea culpa!

 

With a high pedestrian count and a busy road, I would hope full barriers and CCTV are to be used.
Anything less will only encourage zig zags and walking round.

I would also consider the provision of a footbridge as a desirable item, as it will be near the crossing extended ramps may not be needed.
Or even go the whole hog and go for a full bridge and eliminate the crossing.

 

Far too expensive, and it would look awful.

 

I understand that the Council considered a full bridge when Seaward Way was originally constructed but decided that it would be far too expensive to build given the soft nature of the ground in that area.

 

No comments from todays " meeting " yet ?

 

There is a picture of the meeting on Steve Edge's site

Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk

 

I saw that Roger, thank you, but was hoping for some constructive comments as I was unable to attend.

 

Speaking as one of the 320 supporters who attended today’s meeting, I will be very surprised if anyone makes anything public.

The one thing I will reveal; the Plc Chairman and his directors seem to have the total support of those who attended. I’m certainly behind them.