Heat: Diversions from Berks & Hants onto GWML

[Chris Butler]

GWR services that run non-stop from Reading to Taunton are being diverted via Bristol today. I assume that is because the B&H is more prone to expansion problems than the GWML. Does anyone know why?

1. Fewer micro-climate hot spots ?
2. Better ground stability/permanent way standards to resist buckling ?
3. Fewer heavy freight (stone) trains and so less stress on the track (if that is even truly the case) ?
4. Better temperature protection (white paint etc.) ?
5. Better track detection to identify buckling (if there is even anything that detects buckling)?
6. Something else ?

 

[Revilo]

Is it more because of its remoteness and long signal headways ie if a train does get into trouble on the B&H is causes more difficulties to other trains and is more difficult to resolve?

 

[Taunton]

Is the difficulty on the "usual" stretch, between Somerton and Cogload, which GWR chief civil engineer Grierson never got right on opening in 1905, and the formation has never been sorted out, despite millions of tons of ballast and fill going in to the substructure over the decades.

 

[trebor79]

GWML is 125mph for much of the route. Therefore more substantial ballast shoulders and formation in general, making it less susceptible to buckling would be my guess.

 

[swt_passenger]

GWR services that run non-stop from Reading to Taunton are being diverted via Bristol today. I assume that is because the B&H is more prone to expansion problems than the GWML. Does anyone know why?

1. Fewer micro-climate hot spots ?
2. Better ground stability/permanent way standards to resist buckling ?
3. Fewer heavy freight (stone) trains and so less stress on the track (if that is even truly the case) ?
4. Better temperature protection (white paint etc.) ?
5. Better track detection to identify buckling (if there is even anything that detects buckling)?
6. Something else ?

I had to re-read this.

The way you’ve actually done this comparison is to list 6 possible reasons why the GWML is less prone to expansion problems than the B&H, your second sentence suggests the opposite.

 

[gnolife]

I had to re-read this.

The way you’ve actually done this comparison is to list 6 possible reasons why the GWML is less prone to expansion problems than the B&H, your second sentence suggests the opposite.

I think you've re-read it wrong - he's saying that the B&H is more prone to expansion problems than the GWML. In other words the GWML is less prone to expansion problems than the B&H.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think you've re-read it wrong - he's saying that the B&H is more prone to expansion problems than the GWML. In other words the GWML is less prone to expansion problems than the B&H.

If you leave that sentence the same then the 6 points below need reversing, eg the 3rd one should be about more heavy freight (on the B&H) causing more stress, etc…

 

[randyrippley]

Is the difficulty on the "usual" stretch, between Somerton and Cogload, which GWR chief civil engineer Grierson never got right on opening in 1905, and the formation has never been sorted out, despite millions of tons of ballast and fill going in to the substructure over the decades.

You know as well as I do that bog is effectively bottomless, it will never be filled. To stabilise the line properly it needs to be rafted, floated over the bog. Stephenson managed it 80 years earlier on the similar Lancashire mosses, it seems Grierson forgot history.
I suspect the risk at the moment is the ground drying and shrinking, leaving voids under the rails

 

[Chris Butler]

I had to re-read this.

The way you’ve actually done this comparison is to list 6 possible reasons why the GWML is less prone to expansion problems than the B&H, your second sentence suggests the opposite.

GWR services that run non-stop from Reading to Taunton are being diverted via Bristol today. I assume that is because the B&H is more prone to expansion problems than the GWML. Does anyone know why?

1. Fewer micro-climate hot spots ?
2. Better ground stability/permanent way standards to resist buckling ?
3. Fewer heavy freight (stone) trains and so less stress on the track (if that is even truly the case) ?
4. Better temperature protection (white paint etc.) ?

All I can say is that my sentence (in blue) and your sentence (in red) have exactly the same meaning. Anyway, everyone seems to have understood.