Firestarter
Member
- Joined
- 15 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 554
They always used to chop trees down. An FGW driver I know was doing 50mph 1 mile from Castle Cary and nearly missed the station! HSTs never used to suffer this, it's only poor lineside management of vegetation that has lead to this. You only need look at railway photos of 20+ years of age and you'll see thousands of locations no longer photable (is that a word?) due to encroachment of trees and bushes etc.what have the trees done to deserve that?![]()
Perhaps they meant 'One senior citizen said''The thought of what possibly could have happened at the level crossing is just too horrible to imagine,' one senior source told the Evening Standard.
One senior source from where ?
Perhaps they meant 'One senior citizen said'
Seriously, the crossing would be down for the approaching train.
Of course, if the trees were cut down, there would be something along the lines of "Family house prices to suffer as BR cuts down the lineside trees next to YOUR HOUSE - using illegal gay immigrants".
If the Daily Wail said 2 miles, it was more likely 50 yards !
The moment I saw the headline, particularly with the screaming "TWO MILES", I knew it would be the Wail.
They aren't exaggerating, the RAIB report has it as 2.45 miles...
So, here is a perfect example, for all those so narrow of mind who choose to buy houses by railways lines, that trees really were all kept cut back. I assure you that trees DID grow in 1968!
![]()
Burscough Bridge Junction 2010
![]()
Burscough Bridge Junction 1968
Ignore the missing track, look at all those trees behind the signalbox, these shots show exactly the same signalbox, so come on NIMBYs, what's your defence for accusing NR of money making or ruining the value of your property, and of course, their concern for the environment.
Yep, and just look at how little of the route that runs at the back of the shot you can see, versus the full open embankment visible in the vintage shot. I reckon with good use of the net to find photos such as this, taken back in the day from fixed structures, we can make a shaming case against the laziness of lineside vegetation management.Great point i looked at them pictures earlier and didnt put 2 + 2 together!
Nice work in finding those contrasting images mumrar.So, here is a perfect example, for all those so narrow of mind who choose to buy houses by railways lines, that trees really were all kept cut back. I assure you that trees DID grow in 1968!
. . .
Ignore the missing track, look at all those trees behind the signalbox, these shots show exactly the same signalbox, so come on NIMBYs, what's your defence for accusing NR of money making or ruining the value of your property, and of course, their concern for the environment.
Seriously, the crossing would be down for the approaching train.
But there were no red signals, therefore the route must be clear. So the crossing gates would be against the road traffic.It would if the train had activated the track circuits correctly.
One reason that leaves cause so much problem is that they can play havoc with track circuits.
See this article in the Sheffield Star
In the actual paper version there were actual photos, these were new build houses, so why buy a house next to a railway that has been there since the mid 1800's, if you don't want to see/hear trains
To me it improves things if you can see the railway.
Admittedly, I'm much more interested in the loco.http://therailwaycentre.com/NewSite POD 2010/POD18-11-10.jpg
Burscough Bridge Junction 1968