Search results

Yes, thanks I can confirm 5044j being present as 5044jq2. Thanks once again for a fantastic effort.

I confirm that 5044i2q is now there. As per Snowball's earlier post, I confirm that j, o and n are missing. Re: The comment about the debris being dumped in a disused quarry, I thought it was mandatory these days for demollition material to be recyled. i.e. crushed and used under roads, paths...

There doesn't seem to be a 5044i and the direct link above gives a 404 error, page not found.

That's odd, it never happened during the heyday of steam. (As far as we know!)

Yes it will and depending on the ground conditions it could partly be in tunnels. Don't forget that the most recently constructed Woodhead rail tunnel is now used for just this purpose, having recently vacated one of the older rail tunnels.

Just noticed that part of the original stone abutment capping came off between pictures 5044e and 5044f. No picture of it actually happening.

Yes, the piling for the eastern abutment was done in June 2015, see LDECR's pictures Here. (4456q) I would think that the contruction has been carried out since then, but was not visible from any of the usual vantage points.

The picture of the telescopic gates is attributed to Google, so is a library picture. The NR Press Release is Here

The aspiration here is for 2tph, but for that to happen, a passing loop would need to be provided near Little Kimble. Amersham is totally out of the picture as it is near capacity with LU traffic.

I wholeheartedly second that. What happened to the Cemetery Road bridge abutment on the West (small tunnel) side? I assume it was re-used and capped with a concrete beam. Presumably it was done overnight when nobody was about.

As The Planner points out, the Oxford Bicester section was planned pre 2010. To bring the Bicester - Bletchley back into use as a modern 100mph railway requires a huge amount of planning. Every structure including bridges and culverts, cuttings, embankments, drainage etc. have to be assessed...

Yes, indeed it is. Please see the EastWest Rail Website

The document is Here on Page 140.

Yes but, taking the North Downs Line as an example again, is it really practicable to have voltage changeovers at four places along the route, Wokingham, Aldershot South Jnc., Shalford and Reigate? Not to mention the raising of the bridges and tunnels along the route, a no 3rd rail policy...

Although 750v DC is not preferred, what is your evidence for that statement? There are plenty of infill examples, such as the North Downs Line, where using other than 750v DC would make no sense at all.

Yes, as per this NR Press Release.

Not really. This incident was on the Eurostar platforms which are wired as conventional catenary. The contact wire was burned through due primarily to the incorrect setting of a spark gap on the train.

Salford, at 53.490931,-2.277948 , perhaps?

Is that what you intended? This is the ECML Project Completion Certificate

I agree. That's why I quoted the source of the information as being the book by John Marshall (1969) The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway, volume 1. ISBN 0 7153-4352-1