Search results

All Shinkansen (excluding the Chuo Shinkansen maglev, which is a special case) since the 1990s have been built with a maximum speed of 260km/h.

The review on this specific point was not talking about nuclear safety in specific but about how the courts interpret the meaning of "reasonably practical" with regards to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 - it cites the 2011 case Baker v Quantum Clothing Group, which was about noise...

I am afraid it is behind a paywall for me.

The recession officially ended in 1993 - considering electrified lines kept opening until 1995 before new electrification ceased pretty much entirely, I think that the recession might have caused a gap of a couple of years as in the early 1980s, but it was privatisation that meant the economy...

Personally I suspect privatisation was the larger cause here. For all the talk of BR's financial woes, they always managed to get something electrified each year with the exception of 1981 and 1982 - it was clearly a priority for capital expenditure. Come privatisation this dropped off...

Here's a good article from the Toyo Keizai in Japanese about it. I've used Google Translate to translate the sections explaining the history and economics of the service: https://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/938832

Can you provide a summary of his arguments for those who don't have the April 2026 issue, which doesn't appear to yet be on sale digitally?

The Island Line has the 484s, what would the point be of the 230s?

So do you disagree with the Fingleton Review when it says that different judges have had different opinions on what "reasonably practicable" means?

Interpretation by who?

As I have pointed out, the government's current position by accepting the Fingleton Review is that ALARP has an insufficiently clear definition and too often is interpreted in too restrictive a manner. Of course as I have said, this may not change the situation with regards to third rail.

I should note that the Fingleton review was very critical of the idea that ALARP demands a safety "ratchet". The government takes the opinion that "as low as reasonably practical" does not mean "the absolute safest system physically possible".

This is the government responding to the Fingleton review. The government said it accepted all of the Fingleton review's recommendations. Chapter 6 of the Fingleton review deals with the concept of As Low As Reasonably Practical, and at least with regards to nuclear power Fingleton considers it...

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this - are you talking about, for instance, HS2 having to get local planning consent for every access road etc.?

Thanks.

What precisely is considered "personal data" here? Is there any information available about what data is collected?

Hmmm. The UK being an innovator tends to mean a very high price tag attached.

Are there any lines worldwide with similar conditions that use battery units?

On the other hand, the Japanese have never abandoned the "linear line with frequent stations" model for any of the subsequent Shinkansens, despite the real estate bubble collapse and increasing NIMBYism.

Only the Vine Street branch survived carrying passengers though - passenger services to Uxbridge High Street ended shortly after the outbreak of WWII (as did the GWR/Met through services to and from Vine Street).