Search results

Because I am pretty sure the Dft didn't look at the full picture. Two Reading links via two routes gone!....Dft couldn't care less what those passengers would do. There was some demand for those services between Brighton and Reading which cannot be denied. Also as I pointed out, future OHLE of...

I have said this before but I consider the removal of the SWT Brighton services to be nothing but short-sightedness by the Dft. I don't think they took future OHLE of Basingstoke-Reading into account. In summary I think the case of removing the Brighton - Reading service was flawed and not...

If you would like to explain, I don't really see how that would benefit Winchester.....and if the paths are even there to do that. Also I doubt they can reverse anymore at Southampton or fit anything else through the tunnel.....!!

Thanks for confirming that! I don't think the Winchester Southern service should be frequent, maybe 2tpd (in each direction). 1 service in the morning and 1 in the afternoon/evening....with a more frequent service at weekends (maybe). This would be the same level of service FGW provide to...

This is something which has struck me as odd how Southern serve Southampton Airport Parkway as part of the South Central franchise and Eastleigh as well.....but there appears to be no suggestion to run any service towards Winchester to replace the old SWT Brighton link. Would this be something...

You will find the timetable for Southern stops at Southampton Airport very unbalanced. The weekday service is infrequent only once each way so not particularly that useful, but the weekend service is more frequent . --- old post above --- --- new post below --- I think this a non-starter to be...

No doubt Mr Crow will have more and more to say on this as the debt goes up......:roll:

One thing you have to remember with Network Rail is they inherited a lot debt from Railtrack and their liabilities. So a lot of debt they have is not necessarily of their own making..... As and when interest rates rise though (and they are at an all time low at the moment), servicing the debt...

Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't realised that was the case.

:lol:

By the way, to give some insight into the sorts of incidents that have happened at Yapton in the past....this Audi driver getting stuck underneath the barrier for example: That sounds the right way to go....(but without the champagne of course :wink:)....tougher penalties if caught might do...

Indeed :lol:

I was following on from ''Southern313's'' post about it being under Barnham control in which case it would be CCTV operated not automatic. The bollards idea is interesting.....although it doesn't stop some idiots trying to drive down bus lanes.....:roll: O0wY-hvMC44

Deleted

That's a good point actually, i'd forgotten about the low bridge at Barnham and Ford crossing not suitable for HGV's.....so no wonder WSCC objected to the closure then....

Well it amazes me that they didn't include Yapton level crossing within the Barnham resignalling, changing it to full barrier instead of the AHB....surely it would have made sense to have done that???

Fair enough, and that is true. If it were to become a siding instead of a branch line however....then as you would be changing the status of the line, i'd have thought that would involve some type of official closure of the branch itself to passenger trains, not just closing the Marine station.....

Which is why I don't think formal closure would be the best option.... I don't think you quite see what I mean there.....the tracks branching off to the Marine station are there to serve the Marine station only, it is a dead end when you get to the Marine. If the Marine station were closed no...

Thanks for the info on that. It surprises me WSCC were so against closing it.....was there a particular reason????

That is a good suggestion, not sure whether NR have given it serious thought though. Indeed, the Beddingham bridge took 2 years to build if I remember correctly. The Beddingham crossing itself though saw 25 accidents between 1999 and 2002!....