|
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
|
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In message , at
17:58:00 on Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: Darwin's vehicle's insurers should still have to pay damages. What sort of insurance does a farm tractor carry? I would expect a farm to have a package of insurance to cover its various activities. If not, sue the farm owner, and if necessary bankrupt him and sell the land. -- Roland Perry |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
Peter Masson wrote: "Graeme Wall" wrote in message ... In message "Peter Masson" wrote: [snip] To be pedantic, only platform 4A was added in 1965, and used for Waterloo trains. 'North Downs' trains (then Tadpoles, with some 33+3 loco hauled) ran into the main part of Reading General, often using platform 6. Platform 4B was added some years later, converting what had been 4A into an island. I'm pretty certain it was in existance by 1969 which is when I started using Reading regularly for travelling between Evesham and Wokingham I've checked a 1967 WTT, in which EMUs are all shown as using platform 4A. Off-peak, when the EMUs were 4-car, DMUs off the Tonbridge line sometimes joined them in 4A, otherwise they went up the spur and used one of the platforms (often No. 6 Bay) in the main part of the station. So when was 4B added? Peter It was certainly after 1978 and before 1987 as I was the local beat officer from that year and helped with the traffic control when the heavy cranes used for extending and stabilising the embankment for the extra track were brought in. The garage using the old SR Station building was demolished at the same time. A new entrance to the then car park was opened up. Later of course the big pink office development was built over he car park which was replaced by the muti-storey north of the tracks. The whole area is criss-crossed with tunnels originally used to wheel items from the post office and the old Huntley and Palmers factory to both the SR and GWR stations. These were exposed during the building of the office block. The local villainy knew all about these tunnels and I often had to give chase when shoplifters ran out of stores in Friar Street, or Broad Street, alongside the old GPO (now a wine bar) and down into the tunnel network towards the station area. |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (John Rowland) wrote: I still think that the best solution would be a Crossrail branch from Wormwood Scrubs to Richmond, taking over most of the Windsor Lines services out from there. There is room for four tracks on the ground for most if not all of this part of the NLL. The Richmond to Clapham Junction line could then easily handle the remaining local services. How does that meet the considerable Putney traffic needs? That's the Richmond to Clapham Junction bit, i think. AIUI, John suggests building a crossrail spur from Old Oak Common (Wormwood Scrubs, as he puts it) to Richmond, along the route of the NLL, then transferring the far end of the Windsor line (everything beyond Richmond) to that, leaving a stub of the Windsor line running Richmond - Putney - Clapham Junction - Waterloo. If anything, this would serve Putney better, by relieving the Windsor line services. tom -- It's Brains you want! |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Richard J. wrote:
As in many parts of London, the railways are a significant constraint on the free movement of people and goods. That's funny. I've always found railways to be very helpful in the free movement of people and goods. Motor traffic, on the other hand ... tom -- It's Brains you want! |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Tom Anderson) wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (John Rowland) wrote: I still think that the best solution would be a Crossrail branch from Wormwood Scrubs to Richmond, taking over most of the Windsor Lines services out from there. There is room for four tracks on the ground for most if not all of this part of the NLL. The Richmond to Clapham Junction line could then easily handle the remaining local services. How does that meet the considerable Putney traffic needs? That's the Richmond to Clapham Junction bit, i think. AIUI, John suggests building a crossrail spur from Old Oak Common (Wormwood Scrubs, as he puts it) to Richmond, along the route of the NLL, then transferring the far end of the Windsor line (everything beyond Richmond) to that, leaving a stub of the Windsor line running Richmond - Putney - Clapham Junction - Waterloo. If anything, this would serve Putney better, by relieving the Windsor line services. It would hardly justify 10 trains an hour as now, though. Perhaps not - but if that was the case, then that would be because Putney's traffic needs were not quite as considerable as you might have thought. Yes, this would be a loss for Putneyites, but i have a hard time seeing scaling back of overprovision as a Bad Thing. tom -- Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, and then perhaps we will learn the truth. -- Friedrich Kekule |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message (Nick Cooper) wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 11:31:44 +0000, Paul Terry wrote: I've never understood how more trains could be projected down the line between Barnes and Twickenham, given the frequency of the existing services and the constraints of three level crossings on the way. Radical thought: Three bridges?! That's one hell of a detour to go via Three Bridges surely? On the Southall to Brentford Line? Has some possibilities, but won't help with Putney to Richmond. Colin McKenzie |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
Paul Terry wrote:
In message , ab writes Even more radical thought - Six Cul-de-sacs?! No. As I have already said, the level crossings provide the only alternative to the already near-gridlocked South Circular for large parts of the borough - which already has some of the poorest emergency response times in London because of this problem. Create six cul-de-sacs and you might as well not bother to respond to many 999 calls! Cul-de-sacs would not help at all. Is it so difficult to base vehicles on both sides of the line, so that they rarely if ever have to go through the bottleneck? Oh I forgot - we must have the absolute minimum number of bases, and their operating zones must match borough boundaries. Colin McKenzie |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In article , (Tom Anderson) wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (Tom Anderson) wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (John Rowland) wrote: I still think that the best solution would be a Crossrail branch from Wormwood Scrubs to Richmond, taking over most of the Windsor Lines services out from there. There is room for four tracks on the ground for most if not all of this part of the NLL. The Richmond to Clapham Junction line could then easily handle the remaining local services. How does that meet the considerable Putney traffic needs? That's the Richmond to Clapham Junction bit, i think. AIUI, John suggests building a crossrail spur from Old Oak Common (Wormwood Scrubs, as he puts it) to Richmond, along the route of the NLL, then transferring the far end of the Windsor line (everything beyond Richmond) to that, leaving a stub of the Windsor line running Richmond - Putney - Clapham Junction - Waterloo. If anything, this would serve Putney better, by relieving the Windsor line services. It would hardly justify 10 trains an hour as now, though. Perhaps not - but if that was the case, then that would be because Putney's traffic needs were not quite as considerable as you might have thought. Yes, this would be a loss for Putneyites, but i have a hard time seeing scaling back of overprovision as a Bad Thing. Putney's service level has increased to 10 trains an hour since I ceased living there because of the large numbers commuting into Putney. I don't know where they travel from but the railway planners clearly think there are enough to justify the numbers of trains. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
"Peter Masson"
So when was 4B added? According to "Reading to Guildford" by Mitchell & Smith: - Platform 4a was brought into use on 6th September 1965 (when obviously the 4 platform Reading Southern was taken out of use), with the view that the one platform would suit all services from the SR, with diesel services having the ability to use main line platforms via the spur, or occasionally one of the northern platforms using the 'drive-under'. - Platform 4b was added (by making the then current platform 4a into an island) and brought into use on 4th May 1975, which came about when issues relating to both the Waterloo EMUs and Tonbridge DEMUs into the same platform simultaneously (as was intended) negated the need for extra platforms. Presumably once 4b was added, there was much less need for the drive-under, and probably contributed to it's downfall - it was taken out of use on 30th April 1979. You can still clearly see that 4b was a add-on to 4a in the fact that there is a line running up the middle and certain features in the construction running across the platforms don't match up. Also there is the fact that there is a single section of track as it passes over the Vastern Road bridge. This would suggest that the bridge was rebuilt between the '65 and '75. I don't know when it was rebuilt, but if it was closer to 1975 it's a shame the building of 4b couldn't be accelerated (or forethought of the need), which would have resulted in a wider bridge - cutting out a major constraint for that part of the station. Interestingly in August 1987 they say that platform 4a was de-energised, in order for work to take place on foundations for the footbridge for the new station. And at the time it was customary for North Downs services to use platform 4b and 4a was therefore generally used for Waterloo services (which was obviously reversed during the time of the work). Cheers Clive |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In message
"Clivester" wrote: "Peter Masson" So when was 4B added? According to "Reading to Guildford" by Mitchell & Smith: [snip] - Platform 4b was added (by making the then current platform 4a into an island) and brought into use on 4th May 1975, which came about when issues relating to both the Waterloo EMUs and Tonbridge DEMUs into the same platform simultaneously (as was intended) negated the need for extra platforms. [snip] My memory is definitely going, I have no recollection of 4b not being there before 75. On the other hand I would always have been looking at the main line as we arrived from Bracknell so obviously just ignored the south side. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Tom Anderson) wrote: On Sat, 31 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (Tom Anderson) wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (John Rowland) wrote: I still think that the best solution would be a Crossrail branch from Wormwood Scrubs to Richmond, taking over most of the Windsor Lines services out from there. There is room for four tracks on the ground for most if not all of this part of the NLL. The Richmond to Clapham Junction line could then easily handle the remaining local services. How does that meet the considerable Putney traffic needs? That's the Richmond to Clapham Junction bit, i think. AIUI, John suggests building a crossrail spur from Old Oak Common (Wormwood Scrubs, as he puts it) to Richmond, along the route of the NLL, then transferring the far end of the Windsor line (everything beyond Richmond) to that, leaving a stub of the Windsor line running Richmond - Putney - Clapham Junction - Waterloo. If anything, this would serve Putney better, by relieving the Windsor line services. It would hardly justify 10 trains an hour as now, though. Perhaps not - but if that was the case, then that would be because Putney's traffic needs were not quite as considerable as you might have thought. Yes, this would be a loss for Putneyites, but i have a hard time seeing scaling back of overprovision as a Bad Thing. Putney's service level has increased to 10 trains an hour since I ceased living there because of the large numbers commuting into Putney. I don't know where they travel from but the railway planners clearly think there are enough to justify the numbers of trains. Well, in that case, the level of demand at Putney is evidently enough to justify 10 tph, and so John's proposal wouldn't lead the reduction you fear! tom -- People don't want nice. People want London. -- Al |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In article , (Tom Anderson) wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jan 2006, Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (Tom Anderson) wrote: On Sat, 31 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (Tom Anderson) wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (John Rowland) wrote: I still think that the best solution would be a Crossrail branch from Wormwood Scrubs to Richmond, taking over most of the Windsor Lines services out from there. There is room for four tracks on the ground for most if not all of this part of the NLL. The Richmond to Clapham Junction line could then easily handle the remaining local services. How does that meet the considerable Putney traffic needs? That's the Richmond to Clapham Junction bit, i think. AIUI, John suggests building a crossrail spur from Old Oak Common (Wormwood Scrubs, as he puts it) to Richmond, along the route of the NLL, then transferring the far end of the Windsor line (everything beyond Richmond) to that, leaving a stub of the Windsor line running Richmond - Putney - Clapham Junction - Waterloo. If anything, this would serve Putney better, by relieving the Windsor line services. It would hardly justify 10 trains an hour as now, though. Perhaps not - but if that was the case, then that would be because Putney's traffic needs were not quite as considerable as you might have thought. Yes, this would be a loss for Putneyites, but i have a hard time seeing scaling back of overprovision as a Bad Thing. Putney's service level has increased to 10 trains an hour since I ceased living there because of the large numbers commuting into Putney. I don't know where they travel from but the railway planners clearly think there are enough to justify the numbers of trains. Well, in that case, the level of demand at Putney is evidently enough to justify 10 tph, and so John's proposal wouldn't lead the reduction you fear! Except that John's proposal wouldn't leave room for them West of Richmond! -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
... In article , (Tom Anderson) wrote: On Sun, 1 Jan 2006, Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (Tom Anderson) wrote: On Sat, 31 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (Tom Anderson) wrote: On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (John Rowland) wrote: I still think that the best solution would be a Crossrail branch from Wormwood Scrubs to Richmond, taking over most of the Windsor Lines services out from there. There is room for four tracks on the ground for most if not all of this part of the NLL. The Richmond to Clapham Junction line could then easily handle the remaining local services. How does that meet the considerable Putney traffic needs? That's the Richmond to Clapham Junction bit, i think. AIUI, John suggests building a crossrail spur from Old Oak Common (Wormwood Scrubs, as he puts it) to Richmond, along the route of the NLL, then transferring the far end of the Windsor line (everything beyond Richmond) to that, leaving a stub of the Windsor line running Richmond - Putney - Clapham Junction - Waterloo. If anything, this would serve Putney better, by relieving the Windsor line services. It would hardly justify 10 trains an hour as now, though. Perhaps not - but if that was the case, then that would be because Putney's traffic needs were not quite as considerable as you might have thought. Yes, this would be a loss for Putneyites, but i have a hard time seeing scaling back of overprovision as a Bad Thing. Putney's service level has increased to 10 trains an hour since I ceased living there because of the large numbers commuting into Putney. I don't know where they travel from but the railway planners clearly think there are enough to justify the numbers of trains. Well, in that case, the level of demand at Putney is evidently enough to justify 10 tph, and so John's proposal wouldn't lead the reduction you fear! Thanks to Tom for typing most of what I was thinking! Except that John's proposal wouldn't leave room for them West of Richmond! I am sure that in the long run, points west of Richmond would be better off with direct trains to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR, Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf than they would be with direct trains to Waterloo. The loss of direct trains to Putney is unlikely to inspire widespread wristslashing in the streets of Staines. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
|
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (John Rowland) wrote: Except that John's proposal wouldn't leave room for them West of Richmond! I am sure that in the long run, points west of Richmond would be better off with direct trains to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR, Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf than they would be with direct trains to Waterloo. The loss of direct trains to Putney is unlikely to inspire widespread wristslashing in the streets of Staines. What about people from West of Richmond who work in Putney? Why would they want to go to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR, Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf, pray? Where does the demand for 10 trains an hour come from then? Those who don't think that Putney is the centre of the universe. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In article , (Richard J.) wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (John Rowland) wrote: Except that John's proposal wouldn't leave room for them West of Richmond! I am sure that in the long run, points west of Richmond would be better off with direct trains to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR, Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf than they would be with direct trains to Waterloo. The loss of direct trains to Putney is unlikely to inspire widespread wristslashing in the streets of Staines. What about people from West of Richmond who work in Putney? Why would they want to go to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR, Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf, pray? Where does the demand for 10 trains an hour come from then? Those who don't think that Putney is the centre of the universe. Someone must or they wouldn't have increased the stopping services there to 10 an hour (since I moved out). -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Richard J.) wrote: Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (John Rowland) wrote: Except that John's proposal wouldn't leave room for them West of Richmond! I am sure that in the long run, points west of Richmond would be better off with direct trains to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR, Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf than they would be with direct trains to Waterloo. The loss of direct trains to Putney is unlikely to inspire widespread wristslashing in the streets of Staines. What about people from West of Richmond who work in Putney? Why would they want to go to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR, Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf, pray? Where does the demand for 10 trains an hour come from then? Those who don't think that Putney is the centre of the universe. Someone must or they wouldn't have increased the stopping services there to 10 an hour (since I moved out). Only 2 of those could be considered as a special favour to Putney, namely the limited-stop services from Windsor. The other 8 stop at all stations on their routes in Greater London. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In article , (Richard J.) wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (Richard J.) wrote: Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (John Rowland) wrote: Except that John's proposal wouldn't leave room for them West of Richmond! I am sure that in the long run, points west of Richmond would be better off with direct trains to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR, Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf than they would be with direct trains to Waterloo. The loss of direct trains to Putney is unlikely to inspire widespread wristslashing in the streets of Staines. What about people from West of Richmond who work in Putney? Why would they want to go to Paddington, Bond Street, TCR, Farringdon, Liverpool Street and Canary Wharf, pray? Where does the demand for 10 trains an hour come from then? Those who don't think that Putney is the centre of the universe. Someone must or they wouldn't have increased the stopping services there to 10 an hour (since I moved out). Only 2 of those could be considered as a special favour to Putney, namely the limited-stop services from Windsor. The other 8 stop at all stations on their routes in Greater London. There weren't always 8. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
(Roland Perry) wrote: remarked: (snip) What's happening at North Sheen? They only have half a footbridge. It's an island platform with a level crossing adjacent but passengers from one side have to cross the line by the level crossing to reach the footbridge to access the platforms. The MP has been complaining there is no money to restore the other half of the footbridge. And that's a *highways* problem?? Only because so much money is being spent on highways and not the railway. By that logic you could say it's an NHS problem, an assylum seekers problem or an Iraq war problem, depending on which newspaper you read... How much does it cost Network Rail and the TOCs involved every time yet another lorry hits the underbridge at Ely? It's the third most struck bridge in the country. It is sheer incomptence that bridges are struck so frequently that people can identify what the thrid most struck bridge in the country is! All you need to do to prevent that sort of incident is install a clunk bar in front of the bridge. If the truck doesn't get to the bridge, it can't cause any damage. -- Aidan Stanger http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
John Rowland wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote... 2005, Paul Terry remarked: Possibly Rocks Lane (actually a pair of crossings) I think you mean Vine Road? could be closed - but ironically that is the only one with adjacent land that might make a bridge possible. Bridges are the only (expensive) alternative to the other two. Why can't the railway be put in a shallow concrete sided cutting? Because the Beverley Brook would be in the way. But if you want an underground construction megaproject, why not build a faster straighter new line and at the same time bring a railway to part of London that doesn't have any: a new tunnel from just after Clapham, with stations at Roehampton and Twickenham, surfacing somewhere around Feltham? I still think that the best solution would be a Crossrail branch from Wormwood Scrubs to Richmond, taking over most of the Windsor Lines services out from there. There is room for four tracks on the ground for most if not all of this part of the NLL. The Richmond to Clapham Junction line could then easily handle the remaining local services. Last time I travelled on that stretch of NLL I came to the opposite conclusion. Looking at aerial photographs, I can't see how there could be room for four tracks. In some parts of Acton (around Acton Lane and the Acton Central LC) there doesn't even seem to be room for three! Unfortunately I think getting a Crossrail line to take over any of the Windsor Lines services will either require a lot of tunnelling or a route via Heathrow (as featured in the Superlink plan). -- Aidan Stanger http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
|
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In message , at
07:41:00 on Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: It is sheer incomptence that bridges are struck so frequently that people can identify what the thrid most struck bridge in the country is! It's more than incompetence. It's unfair road competition in the freight industry. Not sure what you mean. Sounds like you are saying one trucking company is deliberately bashing the bridge to harm another trucking company. -- Roland Perry |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 07:41:00 on Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: It's more than incompetence. It's unfair road competition in the freight industry. Not sure what you mean. Sounds like you are saying one trucking company is deliberately bashing the bridge to harm another trucking company. I think Colin meant that one freight industry (road freight) has an unfair advantage because the financial cost of a 'bridge bash' is unfairly borne by another frieght industry (rail freight). Even though a 'bridge bash' is usually (always?) the fault of the road feight operator. If the true cost (including the cost of delay to many trains) of the bridge bash was borne by the trucker - or more likely the trucker's insurance - then the operating costs of road freight would increase. It is, of course, based on the hypothis that railtrack doesn't sue truckers insurance to recover the costs... which I doubt, 'cos it's an obvious move on their part. -- RIP Morph (1977-2005) |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In message , at 19:16:29 on Fri,
6 Jan 2006, Mike Bristow remarked: It's more than incompetence. It's unfair road competition in the freight industry. Not sure what you mean. Sounds like you are saying one trucking company is deliberately bashing the bridge to harm another trucking company. I think Colin meant that one freight industry (road freight) has an unfair advantage because the financial cost of a 'bridge bash' is unfairly borne by another frieght industry (rail freight). Even though a 'bridge bash' is usually (always?) the fault of the road feight operator. If the true cost (including the cost of delay to many trains) of the bridge bash was borne by the trucker - or more likely the trucker's insurance - then the operating costs of road freight would increase. It is, of course, based on the hypothis that railtrack doesn't sue truckers insurance to recover the costs... which I doubt, 'cos it's an obvious move on their part. Exactly. I've never seen anyone explain why Railtrack don't claim the costs. The perpetrator is hardly difficult to identify! -- Roland Perry |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
|
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In message , at
00:12:00 on Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: I've never seen anyone explain why Railtrack don't claim the costs. The perpetrator is hardly difficult to identify! They may not have the witnesses. What, next to Ely Station? And the whole country is laced with CCTV. Perhaps they should move the one from the Ely station waiting room (where it seems to spend most of its time monitoring a pair of very uncomfortable and empty bench seats) and stick it next to the bridge... -- Roland Perry |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel wrote: They may not have the witnesses. The Motor Insurers' Bureau should cover the cost, then. -- RIP Morph (1977-2005) |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
Mike Bristow ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying : They may not have the witnesses. The Motor Insurers' Bureau should cover the cost, then. Maybe the truck's insurers are alleging that it wasn't the truck driver's fault? Perhaps the bridge just ran out into the road in front of the truck? |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
|
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
In message , at
20:14:00 on Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: I've never seen anyone explain why Railtrack don't claim the costs. The perpetrator is hardly difficult to identify! They may not have the witnesses. What, next to Ely Station? And the whole country is laced with CCTV. Perhaps they should move the one from the Ely station waiting room (where it seems to spend most of its time monitoring a pair of very uncomfortable and empty bench seats) and stick it next to the bridge... Yes. look at the road more carefully next time you're in Ely. My recollection is that it (the crossing) is close to the station, so moving the CCTV would be quite easy. You wouldn't need an easement on public land, if that's what you are confirming. -- Roland Perry |
Airtrack to beat Crossrail to Heathrow?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk