INBOX
From: Paul Subject: Level crossing safety debate
Lot of interesting comments from lots of opinionated people who do not know the facts. Half-barriers are, by their nature, inherently dangerous and should be replaced – end of. I have spent many years working on and installing all types of LCs. I have witnessed numerous incidents and been to numerous faults: flashing lights/yodel alarms are not effective barriers!
International, with passengers for northern destinations changing for HS1-HS2 link services well- timed to link into them. I say this because some of the domestic high-speed services leave HS1 at Ebbsfleet International and they all leave HS1 beyond Ashford International.
Also, interchange at Ebbsfleet International is very easy, given that Eurostar
passengers just
go to the top of the escalator, turn left and they have reached the Eurostar check-in desk. Furthermore,
Ebbsfleet
International is very under-used and would therefore be a good means of relieving the pressure on St. Pancras International. If that is unpalatable, they could always do things like upgrade the TVM signalling system (say to ERTMS) to cope with higher capacities.
Until we know the ‘facts’ of this case we should not jump on the bandwagon of bashing unions, police, or mentally ill people. People make mistakes, equipment develops faults, and there are poorly designed systems.
Moreton-on-Lugg! Let’s find the facts first and then have the inquest. Why have half a barrier; it’s like putting half a guard rail or hand rail up. Do we intentionally leave gaps in the fencing along the rail infrastructure where easy access can be gained by members of the public driving vehicles or walking next to the track?
From: Graeme Phillips Subject: Alternative HS2 plan from Lords
Services being limited on account of HS1’s capacity limitations? I think that is a good situation to be in, given that HS1 is falling short of its potential. Besides, there are plenty of other solutions if people are imaginative. For instance, some Eurostar services could change at Ebbsfleet International or Ashford
If Crossrail fulfils its idea of extending services to Gravesend one day and Ebbsfleet International and Northfleet stations are properly connected (i.e. by a bridge), the pressure on central London stations could also be relieved, as some people might find it more convenient to be dropped off at Ebbsfleet International station if there is Crossrail interchange.
As for the disruption with boring tunnels to link into HS1 between St Pancras International and Stratford International, if the British railway industry resisted its temptation regarding over- assurance and construction work in the tunnel continued 24/7 until
complete, the disruption
could be mitigated. Also, Eurostar could operate a skeleton service from Stratford International until the work is complete. I say this even though I come into St. Pancras International on HS1 in the mornings. I hate to say ‘I told you so’, but for many months, I was wondering why they weren’t
considering a solution like this.
From: Anonymous Subject: Manchester to London services
So HS2 is really about capacity? In that case, re-introduction of Manchester-St Pancras services would help no end, either by replacing the missing
link
between Peak Forest and Matlock or immediately by re-introducing HST services via the Dore chord so much enjoyed in pre-Pendolino days. A few years ago Mancunians had the choice of three major routes to London (including the GC). Is it any wonder the single route remaining is reaching capacity?
station annually than Harrogate. The main reason is lack of through trains, availability of First Class seating, modern trains and poor weather protection on the Leeds- bound platform. Reinstating through Ripon to Northallerton would reduce northbound journey time from Harrogate by an hour and save a change of trains at York.
The recent announcement that Claro Barracks is to close by 2017 to save money is a good reason to compensate Ripon for loss to the local economy of millions of pounds annually. £160m should be spent out of first year savings of £240m by reinstating the line from Harrogate to Northallerton.
From: Adrian Morgan Subject: Leeds Northern Railway Reinstatement Group
York is becoming a bottleneck with many junctions and conflicting moves. More capacity is needed especially for fast trains to London. Reinstating the line through Wetherby and Ripon will provide that capacity and take 720,000 car journeys off the A58 and A61 annually. Harrogate station is very much underperforming for a town of this size. More people use Ilkley
This will allow easy access to Ripon for visitors, to attract new businesses to Ripon that require a convenient railhead nearby and for residents to find work outside Ripon, especially in Leeds. The campaign
continues with an
updated feasibility study as soon as the money can be found.
(This is an extract of a longer letter, which can be read at www.
railtechnologymagazine.com)
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
opinion@railtechnologymagazine.com
rail technology magazine Apr/May 13 | 19
© Tim Ireland & PA Wire
© Nik Morris (van Leiden)
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242 |
Page 243 |
Page 244