Nearly made me late for court.

[NM]

Some unfortunate managed, yet again, to get his curtainsider demolished
by the rail bridge across the A30 at Goss moor near Bodmin.

It's got markers all over it and signage for a good few miles leading
up to it yet every few weeks someone whacks it again. This lunchtimes
damage was spectacular, if you are going to fuck up do it well.

Made me 45 mins late but I still had to wait two hours when I got
there.

The tiny infrequent train (really it's a bus chassis on rail wheels)
going virtually empty to Padstow and back seems to be a waste of
rescources considering the regular damage and delays caused by this
bridge, seems to me it would be better to remove the bridge and the
railway and supply a bus route instead.

NM

[t***@onetel.net]

Padstow?? Newquay, you'll find. And the new dual-carriageway over Goss
Moor should be open before too long.
But it's an idiotic response to bad driving to penalize the rail user
- why the hell should they have to take a bus? It's a well-used service
ins ummer, and would do better if the government didn't keep forcing
cuts on the operator. But then it's the same government that's spending
millions on the A30.

Post by NM
Some unfortunate managed, yet again, to get his curtainsider demolished
by the rail bridge across the A30 at Goss moor near Bodmin.
It's got markers all over it and signage for a good few miles leading
up to it yet every few weeks someone whacks it again. This lunchtimes
damage was spectacular, if you are going to fuck up do it well.
Made me 45 mins late but I still had to wait two hours when I got
there.
The tiny infrequent train (really it's a bus chassis on rail wheels)
going virtually empty to Padstow and back seems to be a waste of
rescources considering the regular damage and delays caused by this
bridge, seems to me it would be better to remove the bridge and the
railway and supply a bus route instead.
NM

[NM]

Post by t***@onetel.net
Padstow?? Newquay, you'll find.

Wherever, maybe you are right, I've never used it, trains are far too
expensive for me.

And the new dual-carriageway over Goss

Post by t***@onetel.net
Moor should be open before too long.

Late 2007? Maybe.

Post by t***@onetel.net
But it's an idiotic response to bad driving to penalize the rail user

That's the whole point there are hardly any rail users, most people
can't afford the fares and take the bus, every, very infreuqent, time
I've seen the train it's been virtually empty, why should the road
users be subject to delays and damage to keep an anachoristic toy train
going for the benefit of anorak trainspotters.

Post by t***@onetel.net
- why the hell should they have to take a bus?

It's cheaper, more reliable and dosent cause so much upset.

It's a well-used service

Post by t***@onetel.net
in summer, and would do better if the government didn't keep forcing
cuts on the operator.

So for a couple of single carriage train loads of tourists during a few
months of the year we have to put up with constant delays.

But then it's the same government that's spending

Post by t***@onetel.net
millions on the A30.

Good, pity it hadn't come sooner.
NM

[Peter Masson]

Post by NM

Post by t***@onetel.net
Padstow?? Newquay, you'll find.

Wherever, maybe you are right, I've never used it, trains are far too
expensive for me.
And the new dual-carriageway over Goss

Post by t***@onetel.net
Moor should be open before too long.

Late 2007? Maybe.

Post by t***@onetel.net
But it's an idiotic response to bad driving to penalize the rail user

That's the whole point there are hardly any rail users, most people
can't afford the fares and take the bus, every, very infreuqent, time
I've seen the train it's been virtually empty, why should the road
users be subject to delays and damage to keep an anachoristic toy train
going for the benefit of anorak trainspotters.

Post by t***@onetel.net
- why the hell should they have to take a bus?

It's cheaper, more reliable and dosent cause so much upset.
It's a well-used service

Post by t***@onetel.net
in summer, and would do better if the government didn't keep forcing
cuts on the operator.

So for a couple of single carriage train loads of tourists during a few
months of the year we have to put up with constant delays.
But then it's the same government that's spending

Post by t***@onetel.net
millions on the A30.

Good, pity it hadn't come sooner.

Newquay gets a significant number of long distance rail passengers in the
Summer, especially on Saturdays, when it is served by long distance trains
of up to 8 or 9 coaches. These passengers would probably be lost to the
local economy if the trains didn't run - they wouldn't change to a bus
(which couldn't take their surfboards) but would go somewhere else instead.
Anyway, it wasn't the railway that vdelayed you - it was an incompetent road
user. I don't know which Court you were going to, but I hope the local
magistrates ban that driver.

Peter

[NM]

Anyway, it wasn't the railway that delayed you

Yes it was, they constructed a bridge that was too narrow and too low.

NM

[Brimstone]

Post by NM

Anyway, it wasn't the railway that delayed you

Yes it was, they constructed a bridge that was too narrow and too low.

Wrong, the bridge was constructed for the traffic of the time it was built.

It was an incompetent road user that tried to drive under it and caused
everyone delay.

[allan tracy]

Post by NM

Anyway, it wasn't the railway that delayed you

Yes it was, they constructed a bridge that was too narrow and too low.
NM

Yes, and too 100 years before things like trucks and cars arrived on
the scene.

And, it will stay that way unless road users would like to cough up
some more money.

Fact - according to DfT figures HGVs only pay in road taxes about half
of their direct infrastructure costs (i.e. are subsidised) whereas
those china clay trains round your way pay their way.

Another car driver who thinks the whole word should revolve around them
just because they managed to pass a one hour driving test.

[NM]

Post by allan tracy

Post by NM

Anyway, it wasn't the railway that delayed you

Yes it was, they constructed a bridge that was too narrow and too low.
NM

Yes, and too 100 years before things like trucks and cars arrived on
the scene

So why in 100 years have the rail companies not reticfied the problem??

Post by allan tracy
And, it will stay that way unless road users would like to cough up
some more money.

Why should we pay for modifications to your train set, it would be
cheaper and simpler to remove it completly.

Post by allan tracy
Fact - according to DfT figures HGVs only pay in road taxes about half
of their direct infrastructure costs (i.e. are subsidised) whereas
those china clay trains round your way pay their way.

There are exactly zero china clay trains on this line. Red herring
about HGV's noted and ignored,

Post by allan tracy
Another car driver who thinks the whole word should revolve around them
just because they managed to pass a one hour driving test.

Yes I drive a car amoungst other things, whats that to do with it, the
bridge is an obsolete obstruction and will remain so even if I drove a
train?

NM

[Peter Masson]

Post by NM
So why in 100 years have the rail companies not reticfied the problem??
Why should we pay for modifications to your train set, it would be
cheaper and simpler to remove it completly.

The bridge was put there, to those dimensions, by authority of an Act of
Parliament. The highway authority (the Department for Transport if it's a
Trunk Road, otherwise Cornwall County Council) are able to enlarge it, or
reroute the road (as I believe is happening). As things stand, Network Rail
are required by law to keep the railway open, and neither they nor the Train
Operating Companies which are required by law to operate passenger services
on the line, are funded to alter the bridge for the benefit of road users.
If you don't like the law you can stand for parliament at the next election,
and see if anyone will vote for you.

Peter

[NM]

Post by Peter Masson

Post by NM
So why in 100 years have the rail companies not reticfied the problem??
Why should we pay for modifications to your train set, it would be
cheaper and simpler to remove it completly.

The bridge was put there, to those dimensions, by authority of an Act of
Parliament. The highway authority (the Department for Transport if it's a
Trunk Road, otherwise Cornwall County Council) are able to enlarge it, or
reroute the road (as I believe is happening). As things stand, Network Rail
are required by law to keep the railway open, and neither they nor the Train
Operating Companies which are required by law to operate passenger services
on the line, are funded to alter the bridge for the benefit of road users.

Which all goes to prove the law is an ass. Here is clearly a problem
that causes massive delays and disruptions on a regular basis yet no
one has done anything about it in 100 years because it's 'the law'.

Post by Peter Masson
If you don't like the law you can stand for parliament at the next election,
and see if anyone will vote for you.

I expect I could garner quite a few votes from the many thousands who
have been unnecessarily held up by this nonsense.

[Brimstone]

Post by NM

Post by Peter Masson

Post by NM
So why in 100 years have the rail companies not reticfied the problem??
Why should we pay for modifications to your train set, it would be
cheaper and simpler to remove it completly.

The bridge was put there, to those dimensions, by authority of an
Act of Parliament. The highway authority (the Department for
Transport if it's a Trunk Road, otherwise Cornwall County Council)
are able to enlarge it, or reroute the road (as I believe is
happening). As things stand, Network Rail are required by law to
keep the railway open, and neither they nor the Train Operating
Companies which are required by law to operate passenger services on
the line, are funded to alter the bridge for the benefit of road
users.

Which all goes to prove the law is an ass. Here is clearly a problem
that causes massive delays and disruptions on a regular basis yet no
one has done anything about it in 100 years because it's 'the law'.

Nothing has been done because nothing needs to be done.

Post by NM

Post by Peter Masson
If you don't like the law you can stand for parliament at the next
election, and see if anyone will vote for you.

I expect I could garner quite a few votes from the many thousands who
have been unnecessarily held up by this nonsense.

"The nonsense" was caused by a dickhead who can't read, doesn't know how
high his vehicle or both.

[NM]

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Peter Masson

Post by NM
So why in 100 years have the rail companies not reticfied the problem??
Why should we pay for modifications to your train set, it would be
cheaper and simpler to remove it completly.

The bridge was put there, to those dimensions, by authority of an
Act of Parliament. The highway authority (the Department for
Transport if it's a Trunk Road, otherwise Cornwall County Council)
are able to enlarge it, or reroute the road (as I believe is
happening). As things stand, Network Rail are required by law to
keep the railway open, and neither they nor the Train Operating
Companies which are required by law to operate passenger services on
the line, are funded to alter the bridge for the benefit of road
users.

Which all goes to prove the law is an ass. Here is clearly a problem
that causes massive delays and disruptions on a regular basis yet no
one has done anything about it in 100 years because it's 'the law'.

Nothing has been done because nothing needs to be done.

Post by NM

Post by Peter Masson
If you don't like the law you can stand for parliament at the next
election, and see if anyone will vote for you.

I expect I could garner quite a few votes from the many thousands who
have been unnecessarily held up by this nonsense.

"The nonsense" was caused by a dickhead who can't read, doesn't know how
high his vehicle or both.

As I said employ lateral thinking, there appears to be an endless
supply of those you refer to as dickheads and no amount of signs or
warnings appear to make any difference, then for the sake of the many
many thousands of others who have their lives severly disrupted on a
regular basis, take the bridge away, end of problem, net gain lots, net
loosers a few train fanatics.

[Tim Dunne]

Post by NM
As I said employ lateral thinking, there appears to be an endless
supply of those you refer to as dickheads and no amount of signs or
warnings appear to make any difference, then for the sake of the many
many thousands of others who have their lives severly disrupted on a
regular basis, take the bridge away, end of problem, net gain lots,
net loosers a few train fanatics.

Are you a large man, perchance?

Tim

[Brimstone]

Post by Tim Dunne

Post by NM
As I said employ lateral thinking, there appears to be an endless
supply of those you refer to as dickheads and no amount of signs or
warnings appear to make any difference, then for the sake of the many
many thousands of others who have their lives severly disrupted on a
regular basis, take the bridge away, end of problem, net gain lots,
net loosers a few train fanatics.

Are you a large man, perchance?

Only his opinion of his own importance.

[Tim Dunne]

Post by Brimstone
Only his opinion of his own importance.

I reckon he's a big bloke, because all that shit wouldn't fit in a midget.

Tim

[NM]

Post by Brimstone
Only his opinion of his own importance.

Yesterday, when I posted this I was angry, as a result of being late I
had to wait two extra hours and I didn't get back to complete my
intended tasks for the day. I was letting off steam a bit but where we
differ is that although the trucker directly caused my delay the point
is that there is a constant queue of truckers who periodically do the
same, it's an on going problem that does not appear to be solved by
directing recources at the truckers, we don't need this line why not
just get rid of it?

Instead of bleating about me being a troll or having shit for brains
come up with a reason why it should be retained especially in view of
the substantial subsidy it needs to keep it open.

NM

[Peter Masson]

Post by NM
Instead of bleating about me being a troll or having shit for brains
come up with a reason why it should be retained especially in view of
the substantial subsidy it needs to keep it open.

You may not need this line, though I note from another ng that your
attendance in court was on a charge of a motoring offence, so if at any time
the beaks or the doctors deprive you of your licence (as they should the
lorry drivers who collide with the bridge) you may be glad of public
transport.

This line has the potential for much greater use. Newquay is an important
resort, relying on visitors travelling long distances. They may welcome
alternatives to driving, and on Summer Saturdays there are several long,
long distance trains on the branch. Next Summer there will be a daily long
train from London.

As we've tried to drum into you the problem is not the bridge, it is people
let loose on the roads who do not appear to know how to drive their
bvehicles. It was not a train that held you up, it was a road user. The
bridge did not jump out and hit the lorry - the lorry driver drove into it.
If your camper van was parked at the side of the road and someone drove into
it, you wouldn't blame yourself for parking there, you would blame the
driver who drove into it.

Peter

[Brimstone]

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Peter Masson

Post by NM
So why in 100 years have the rail companies not reticfied the problem??
Why should we pay for modifications to your train set, it would be
cheaper and simpler to remove it completly.

The bridge was put there, to those dimensions, by authority of an
Act of Parliament. The highway authority (the Department for
Transport if it's a Trunk Road, otherwise Cornwall County Council)
are able to enlarge it, or reroute the road (as I believe is
happening). As things stand, Network Rail are required by law to
keep the railway open, and neither they nor the Train Operating
Companies which are required by law to operate passenger services
on the line, are funded to alter the bridge for the benefit of road users.

Which all goes to prove the law is an ass. Here is clearly a problem
that causes massive delays and disruptions on a regular basis yet no
one has done anything about it in 100 years because it's 'the law'.

Nothing has been done because nothing needs to be done.

Post by NM

Post by Peter Masson
If you don't like the law you can stand for parliament at the next
election, and see if anyone will vote for you.

I expect I could garner quite a few votes from the many thousands
who have been unnecessarily held up by this nonsense.

"The nonsense" was caused by a dickhead who can't read, doesn't know
how high his vehicle or both.

As I said employ lateral thinking, there appears to be an endless
supply of those you refer to as dickheads and no amount of signs or
warnings appear to make any difference, then for the sake of the many
many thousands of others who have their lives severly disrupted on a
regular basis, take the bridge away, end of problem, net gain lots,
net loosers a few train fanatics.

You really are a sad little pillock if you think that the railway system is
there for a few trainspotters.

The only time there's disruption is because a dickhead tries to take his
vehicle where it doesn't fit.

As I've said elsewhere the solution to install a heavy steel beam across the
road with the underside slightly lower than the underside of the bridge.
Thus anyone failing to take take notice of the road signs get the roof
ripped off.

[NM]

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Peter Masson

Post by NM
So why in 100 years have the rail companies not reticfied the problem??
Why should we pay for modifications to your train set, it would be
cheaper and simpler to remove it completly.

The bridge was put there, to those dimensions, by authority of an
Act of Parliament. The highway authority (the Department for
Transport if it's a Trunk Road, otherwise Cornwall County Council)
are able to enlarge it, or reroute the road (as I believe is
happening). As things stand, Network Rail are required by law to
keep the railway open, and neither they nor the Train Operating
Companies which are required by law to operate passenger services
on the line, are funded to alter the bridge for the benefit of road users.

Which all goes to prove the law is an ass. Here is clearly a problem
that causes massive delays and disruptions on a regular basis yet no
one has done anything about it in 100 years because it's 'the law'.

Nothing has been done because nothing needs to be done.

Post by NM

Post by Peter Masson
If you don't like the law you can stand for parliament at the next
election, and see if anyone will vote for you.

I expect I could garner quite a few votes from the many thousands
who have been unnecessarily held up by this nonsense.

"The nonsense" was caused by a dickhead who can't read, doesn't know
how high his vehicle or both.

As I said employ lateral thinking, there appears to be an endless
supply of those you refer to as dickheads and no amount of signs or
warnings appear to make any difference, then for the sake of the many
many thousands of others who have their lives severly disrupted on a
regular basis, take the bridge away, end of problem, net gain lots,
net loosers a few train fanatics.

You really are a sad little pillock if you think that the railway system is
there for a few trainspotters.
The only time there's disruption is because a dickhead tries to take his
vehicle where it doesn't fit.
As I've said elsewhere the solution to install a heavy steel beam across the
road with the underside slightly lower than the underside of the bridge.
Thus anyone failing to take take notice of the road signs get the roof
ripped off.

It's already installed, rips trucks apart on a regular basis cusing
long delays whilst it's sorted that's the problem not the solution.

[Brimstone]

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Peter Masson

Post by NM
So why in 100 years have the rail companies not reticfied the problem??
Why should we pay for modifications to your train set, it would be
cheaper and simpler to remove it completly.

The bridge was put there, to those dimensions, by authority of an
Act of Parliament. The highway authority (the Department for
Transport if it's a Trunk Road, otherwise Cornwall County Council)
are able to enlarge it, or reroute the road (as I believe is
happening). As things stand, Network Rail are required by law to
keep the railway open, and neither they nor the Train Operating
Companies which are required by law to operate passenger services
on the line, are funded to alter the bridge for the benefit of road users.

Which all goes to prove the law is an ass. Here is clearly a problem
that causes massive delays and disruptions on a regular basis yet no
one has done anything about it in 100 years because it's 'the law'.

Nothing has been done because nothing needs to be done.

Post by NM

Post by Peter Masson
If you don't like the law you can stand for parliament at the next
election, and see if anyone will vote for you.

I expect I could garner quite a few votes from the many thousands
who have been unnecessarily held up by this nonsense.

"The nonsense" was caused by a dickhead who can't read, doesn't know
how high his vehicle or both.

As I said employ lateral thinking, there appears to be an endless
supply of those you refer to as dickheads and no amount of signs or
warnings appear to make any difference, then for the sake of the many
many thousands of others who have their lives severly disrupted on a
regular basis, take the bridge away, end of problem, net gain lots,
net loosers a few train fanatics.

You really are a sad little pillock if you think that the railway system is
there for a few trainspotters.
The only time there's disruption is because a dickhead tries to take his
vehicle where it doesn't fit.
As I've said elsewhere the solution to install a heavy steel beam across the
road with the underside slightly lower than the underside of the bridge.
Thus anyone failing to take take notice of the road signs get the roof
ripped off.

It's already installed, rips trucks apart on a regular basis cusing
long delays whilst it's sorted that's the problem not the solution.

It sounds like the solution to me, it's only the lorry driver that's causing
the problem.

[Conor]

Post by Brimstone
It sounds like the solution to me, it's only the lorry driver that's causing
the problem.

Yup. If it's well signed, there's no excuse. Might be an idea to create
a turning point just prior to the bridge for the clueless though.
Suppose the old "chains dangling from a pole across the road warning
system" could be put up as well. They seem to last a bit longer than
the elektrickery solutions.

[NM]

Post by Brimstone
You really are a sad little pillock if you think that the railway system is
there for a few trainspotters.

Thanks for the compliment, I wasn't referring to the railway system I
was referring to this particular small barely used heavily subsidised
branch line who's passing would only be mourned by trainspootters et al.

[Brimstone]

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone
You really are a sad little pillock if you think that the railway system is
there for a few trainspotters.

Thanks for the compliment, I wasn't referring to the railway system I
was referring to this particular small barely used heavily subsidised
branch line who's passing would only be mourned by trainspootters et al.

Try proposing to the business people of Newquay and the surrounding area
that the branch should be closed and let us know the reaction.

[NM]

Post by Brimstone
Try proposing to the business people of Newquay and the surrounding area
that the branch should be closed and let us know the reaction.

I don't need to, Newquay is so full in the summer that the amount of
'punters' drawn into that town by rail is really insignificant. there
is no excess capacity in the hotels and boarding houses, if the rail
service was withdrawn then the vacanted capacity would immediatly be
filled by those who arrived by other means, the local airport is
taking off (no pun intended) I can fly from there to London and back
for the same price as a train to plymouth (and quicker as well).

NM

[Brimstone]

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone
Try proposing to the business people of Newquay and the surrounding area
that the branch should be closed and let us know the reaction.

I don't need to, Newquay is so full in the summer that the amount of
'punters' drawn into that town by rail is really insignificant. there
is no excess capacity in the hotels and boarding houses, if the rail
service was withdrawn then the vacanted capacity would immediatly be
filled by those who arrived by other means, the local airport is
taking off (no pun intended) I can fly from there to London and back
for the same price as a train to plymouth (and quicker as well).

How do you know how people arrive, have you conducted a survey?

[NM]

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone
Try proposing to the business people of Newquay and the surrounding area
that the branch should be closed and let us know the reaction.

I don't need to, Newquay is so full in the summer that the amount of
'punters' drawn into that town by rail is really insignificant. there
is no excess capacity in the hotels and boarding houses, if the rail
service was withdrawn then the vacanted capacity would immediatly be
filled by those who arrived by other means, the local airport is
taking off (no pun intended) I can fly from there to London and back
for the same price as a train to plymouth (and quicker as well).

How do you know how people arrive, have you conducted a survey?

I am satisfied from observation that I am substantially right however
if you feel I am wrong you are welcome to undertake the survey you
suggested in order to prove your point. I eagerly await the results.
NM

[Brimstone]

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone
Try proposing to the business people of Newquay and the surrounding area
that the branch should be closed and let us know the reaction.

I don't need to, Newquay is so full in the summer that the amount of
'punters' drawn into that town by rail is really insignificant. there
is no excess capacity in the hotels and boarding houses, if the rail
service was withdrawn then the vacanted capacity would immediatly be
filled by those who arrived by other means, the local airport is
taking off (no pun intended) I can fly from there to London and back
for the same price as a train to plymouth (and quicker as well).

How do you know how people arrive, have you conducted a survey?

I am satisfied from observation that I am substantially right however
if you feel I am wrong you are welcome to undertake the survey you
suggested in order to prove your point. I eagerly await the results.

As usual, pass the buck. Expecting other people to do the work or suffer the
inconvenience because you want everything your way.

[NM]

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone
How do you know how people arrive, have you conducted a survey?

I am satisfied from observation that I am substantially right however
if you feel I am wrong you are welcome to undertake the survey you
suggested in order to prove your point. I eagerly await the results.

As usual, pass the buck. Expecting other people to do the work or suffer the
inconvenience because you want everything your way.

What buck? It's your suggestion, if you want a survey to prove your
assertion then make one, I'm satisfied what I said is substantially
true and as this preceeded your comments it's for you to disprove not
me to justify. I doubt if you can.

[Brimstone]

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone
How do you know how people arrive, have you conducted a survey?

I am satisfied from observation that I am substantially right
however if you feel I am wrong you are welcome to undertake the
survey you suggested in order to prove your point. I eagerly await
the results.

As usual, pass the buck. Expecting other people to do the work or
suffer the inconvenience because you want everything your way.

What buck? It's your suggestion, if you want a survey to prove your
assertion then make one, I'm satisfied what I said is substantially
true and as this preceeded your comments it's for you to disprove not
me to justify. I doubt if you can.

You want the bridge removed because you think it causes you inconvenience,
when in reality it's other road users who are causing the problem *not* the
people using the railway.

You make an unsubstantiated assertion and when invited to provide evidence
you insist that someone else does the work for you.

That's "what buck".

[NM]

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone
How do you know how people arrive, have you conducted a survey?

I am satisfied from observation that I am substantially right
however if you feel I am wrong you are welcome to undertake the
survey you suggested in order to prove your point. I eagerly await
the results.

As usual, pass the buck. Expecting other people to do the work or
suffer the inconvenience because you want everything your way.

What buck? It's your suggestion, if you want a survey to prove your
assertion then make one, I'm satisfied what I said is substantially
true and as this preceeded your comments it's for you to disprove not
me to justify. I doubt if you can.

You want the bridge removed because you think it causes you inconvenience,
when in reality it's other road users who are causing the problem *not* the
people using the railway.
You make an unsubstantiated assertion and when invited to provide evidence
you insist that someone else does the work for you.
That's "what buck".

Don't be such a silly man, if you have the idea that I'm going to
conduct a survey, which takes time and money, just to comfirm the
bleeding obvious and soley to justify the point to you then you live in
cloud cukoo land.
You suggested a survey, if you want one go ahead, I'm satisfied my
apprasial is substanally correct, if you disagree provide some contrary
arguments, the onus is on you it's your suggestion therefore your
invented 'buck'.
I await the results of your survey.

[Brimstone]

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone
How do you know how people arrive, have you conducted a survey?

I am satisfied from observation that I am substantially right
however if you feel I am wrong you are welcome to undertake the
survey you suggested in order to prove your point. I eagerly await
the results.

As usual, pass the buck. Expecting other people to do the work or
suffer the inconvenience because you want everything your way.

What buck? It's your suggestion, if you want a survey to prove your
assertion then make one, I'm satisfied what I said is substantially
true and as this preceeded your comments it's for you to disprove
not me to justify. I doubt if you can.

You want the bridge removed because you think it causes you
inconvenience, when in reality it's other road users who are causing
the problem *not* the people using the railway.
You make an unsubstantiated assertion and when invited to provide
evidence you insist that someone else does the work for you.
That's "what buck".

Don't be such a silly man, if you have the idea that I'm going to
conduct a survey, which takes time and money, just to comfirm the
bleeding obvious and soley to justify the point to you then you live
in cloud cukoo land.
You suggested a survey, if you want one go ahead, I'm satisfied my
apprasial is substanally correct, if you disagree provide some
contrary arguments, the onus is on you it's your suggestion therefore
your invented 'buck'.
I await the results of your survey.

The "silly man" is the one that started this thread.

[NM]

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone
How do you know how people arrive, have you conducted a survey?

I am satisfied from observation that I am substantially right
however if you feel I am wrong you are welcome to undertake the
survey you suggested in order to prove your point. I eagerly await
the results.

As usual, pass the buck. Expecting other people to do the work or
suffer the inconvenience because you want everything your way.

What buck? It's your suggestion, if you want a survey to prove your
assertion then make one, I'm satisfied what I said is substantially
true and as this preceeded your comments it's for you to disprove
not me to justify. I doubt if you can.

You want the bridge removed because you think it causes you
inconvenience, when in reality it's other road users who are causing
the problem *not* the people using the railway.
You make an unsubstantiated assertion and when invited to provide
evidence you insist that someone else does the work for you.
That's "what buck".

Don't be such a silly man, if you have the idea that I'm going to
conduct a survey, which takes time and money, just to comfirm the
bleeding obvious and soley to justify the point to you then you live
in cloud cukoo land.
You suggested a survey, if you want one go ahead, I'm satisfied my
apprasial is substanally correct, if you disagree provide some
contrary arguments, the onus is on you it's your suggestion therefore
your invented 'buck'.
I await the results of your survey.

The "silly man" is the one that started this thread.

Quite possibly but I'm certainly not unique with you around.

[Brimstone]

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone
How do you know how people arrive, have you conducted a survey?

I am satisfied from observation that I am substantially right
however if you feel I am wrong you are welcome to undertake the
survey you suggested in order to prove your point. I eagerly
await the results.

As usual, pass the buck. Expecting other people to do the work or
suffer the inconvenience because you want everything your way.

What buck? It's your suggestion, if you want a survey to prove
your assertion then make one, I'm satisfied what I said is
substantially true and as this preceeded your comments it's for
you to disprove not me to justify. I doubt if you can.

You want the bridge removed because you think it causes you
inconvenience, when in reality it's other road users who are
causing the problem *not* the people using the railway.
You make an unsubstantiated assertion and when invited to provide
evidence you insist that someone else does the work for you.
That's "what buck".

Don't be such a silly man, if you have the idea that I'm going to
conduct a survey, which takes time and money, just to comfirm the
bleeding obvious and soley to justify the point to you then you live
in cloud cukoo land.
You suggested a survey, if you want one go ahead, I'm satisfied my
apprasial is substanally correct, if you disagree provide some
contrary arguments, the onus is on you it's your suggestion
therefore your invented 'buck'.
I await the results of your survey.

The "silly man" is the one that started this thread.

Quite possibly but I'm certainly not unique with you around.

Oh dear, if that's that the best you can manage......

[NM]

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM
I await the results of your survey.

The "silly man" is the one that started this thread.

Quite possibly but I'm certainly not unique with you around.

Oh dear, if that's that the best you can manage......

Nothing more is required, the point is made, "You are the weakest link,
Goodbye".

[Brimstone]

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM
I await the results of your survey.

The "silly man" is the one that started this thread.

Quite possibly but I'm certainly not unique with you around.

Oh dear, if that's that the best you can manage......

Nothing more is required, the point is made, "You are the weakest
link, Goodbye".

It is said that talking to one's self is the first sign of madness. Perhaps
you need to see a doctor.

[NM]

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM
I await the results of your survey.

The "silly man" is the one that started this thread.

Quite possibly but I'm certainly not unique with you around.

Oh dear, if that's that the best you can manage......

Nothing more is required, the point is made, "You are the weakest
link, Goodbye".

It is said that talking to one's self is the first sign of madness. Perhaps
you need to see a doctor.

My sisters a doctor and I see her nearly every day.

[Brimstone]

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM
I await the results of your survey.

The "silly man" is the one that started this thread.

Quite possibly but I'm certainly not unique with you around.

Oh dear, if that's that the best you can manage......

Nothing more is required, the point is made, "You are the weakest
link, Goodbye".

It is said that talking to one's self is the first sign of madness.
Perhaps you need to see a doctor.

My sisters a doctor and I see her nearly every day.

Poor woman.

[Maneate]

Now now children, if you cannot play quietly you will be sent to your rooms.
:0)

J

[NM]

anyway, I'm going out in MY CAR for A DRIVE.

I've just come back from a drive in mine (well SWMBO's actually) we
went to Tesco's at Cambourne.

Hope you enjoy your drive.

[David Taylor]

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone
You want the bridge removed because you think it causes you inconvenience,
when in reality it's other road users who are causing the problem *not* the
people using the railway.
You make an unsubstantiated assertion and when invited to provide evidence
you insist that someone else does the work for you.
That's "what buck".

Don't be such a silly man, if you have the idea that I'm going to
conduct a survey, which takes time and money, just to comfirm the
bleeding obvious and soley to justify the point to you then you live in
cloud cukoo land.

To prove that your plan (to remove the railway line) has any viability,
you would need to do something.

Post by NM
You suggested a survey, if you want one go ahead, I'm satisfied my
apprasial is substanally correct, if you disagree provide some contrary
arguments, the onus is on you it's your suggestion therefore your
invented 'buck'.

_YOU_ suggested removing the railway. Everyone else, I believe, is
reasonably happy with the status quo. So either prove the railway
is unnecessary, or STFU.

Post by NM
I await the results of your survey.

There will be none, and thus no one will listen to a word YOU say.

[David Taylor]

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone
How do you know how people arrive, have you conducted a survey?

I am satisfied from observation that I am substantially right however
if you feel I am wrong you are welcome to undertake the survey you
suggested in order to prove your point. I eagerly await the results.

As usual, pass the buck. Expecting other people to do the work or suffer the
inconvenience because you want everything your way.

What buck? It's your suggestion, if you want a survey to prove your
assertion then make one

It is your assertion that needs proving.

Post by NM
I'm satisfied what I said is substantially true

Merely because you asserted it to be so?

Post by NM
and as this preceeded your comments it's for you to disprove not
me to justify. I doubt if you can.

Your comments came first, so they're true by default? That's not how
it works.

[NM]

Post by David Taylor

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone
How do you know how people arrive, have you conducted a survey?

I am satisfied from observation that I am substantially right however
if you feel I am wrong you are welcome to undertake the survey you
suggested in order to prove your point. I eagerly await the results.

As usual, pass the buck. Expecting other people to do the work or suffer the
inconvenience because you want everything your way.

What buck? It's your suggestion, if you want a survey to prove your
assertion then make one

It is your assertion that needs proving.

Post by NM
I'm satisfied what I said is substantially true

Merely because you asserted it to be so?

Post by NM
and as this preceeded your comments it's for you to disprove not
me to justify. I doubt if you can.

Your comments came first, so they're true by default? That's not how
it works.

Works for me, I refer to it as 'stating the bleeding obvious' therefore
no furthur proof is either required or will be forthcoming.

[David Taylor]

Post by NM
Works for me, I refer to it as 'stating the bleeding obvious' therefore
no furthur proof is either required or will be forthcoming.

Very well. If you want to use Usenet as a write only medium, be my
guest. I'm certainly not going to bother reading what you say if it's
merely what you assert to be true, and desire to be done.

[NM]

Post by David Taylor

Post by NM
Works for me, I refer to it as 'stating the bleeding obvious' therefore
no furthur proof is either required or will be forthcoming.

Very well. If you want to use Usenet as a write only medium, be my
guest. I'm certainly not going to bother reading what you say if it's
merely what you assert to be true, and desire to be done.

When I 'assert' a view I will back it up, when I 'assert' the bleeding
obvious I won't. Do you need it explaining again, perhaps not in joined
up writing?

[Maneate]

Post by NM

Post by David Taylor

Post by NM
Works for me, I refer to it as 'stating the bleeding obvious' therefore
no furthur proof is either required or will be forthcoming.

Very well. If you want to use Usenet as a write only medium, be my
guest. I'm certainly not going to bother reading what you say if it's
merely what you assert to be true, and desire to be done.

When I 'assert' a view I will back it up, when I 'assert' the bleeding
obvious I won't. Do you need it explaining again, perhaps not in joined
up writing?

A wise man will always bear in mind that what was 'bleeding obvious' to him,
may not be to others.

J

[NM]

Post by Maneate

Post by NM

Post by David Taylor

Post by NM
Works for me, I refer to it as 'stating the bleeding obvious' therefore
no furthur proof is either required or will be forthcoming.

Very well. If you want to use Usenet as a write only medium, be my
guest. I'm certainly not going to bother reading what you say if it's
merely what you assert to be true, and desire to be done.

When I 'assert' a view I will back it up, when I 'assert' the bleeding
obvious I won't. Do you need it explaining again, perhaps not in joined
up writing?

A wise man will always bear in mind that what was 'bleeding obvious' to him,
may not be to others.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
NM

[Brimstone]

Post by NM

Post by Maneate

Post by NM

Post by David Taylor

Post by NM
Works for me, I refer to it as 'stating the bleeding obvious'
therefore no furthur proof is either required or will be
forthcoming.

Very well. If you want to use Usenet as a write only medium, be my
guest. I'm certainly not going to bother reading what you say if
it's merely what you assert to be true, and desire to be done.

When I 'assert' a view I will back it up, when I 'assert' the
bleeding obvious I won't. Do you need it explaining again, perhaps
not in joined up writing?

A wise man will always bear in mind that what was 'bleeding obvious'
to him, may not be to others.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Presumably you struggle to see your face while shaving?

[NM]

Post by Brimstone
Presumably you struggle to see your face while shaving?

Don't need to I use an electric razor and check the fesults by feel.

More importantly this has only got off to a wrong foot because you have
obviously never been to Newquay in the height of summer, if you had you
would not have made the survey comment. You have to experience it to
appreciate just how many people are there, Have you been to Camden
market on a sunday for example, that's similar. A couple of, even full,
trainloads would be a piss in the ocean. That's what I meant by obvious.

[Conor]

Post by Brimstone
How do you know how people arrive, have you conducted a survey?

One merely needs to visit Newquay one weekend during the summer to work
it out.

[John Ruddy]

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone
Try proposing to the business people of Newquay and the surrounding area
that the branch should be closed and let us know the reaction.

I don't need to, Newquay is so full in the summer that the amount of
'punters' drawn into that town by rail is really insignificant. there
is no excess capacity in the hotels and boarding houses, if the rail
service was withdrawn then the vacanted capacity would immediatly be
filled by those who arrived by other means, the local airport is
taking off (no pun intended) I can fly from there to London and back
for the same price as a train to plymouth (and quicker as well).
NM

The local "airport" is actually an RAF base which is being threatened
with closure. The only way to keep it open is with massive subsidy,
which may be politically unacceptable due to the environmental concerns
about encouraging air travel.

[Alex W]

The only comment I can make on this whole affair is **** happens.

I live in Cornwall as well, and I fully understand the problems that
Bridge has caused, and certainly today it is the fault of the drivers
who hit it, as there is a very sophisticated detection and warning
system in place.

Yes, it's a pain in the back side, and indeed I have nearly missed a
Ferry to go on holiday because of the problems with that Bridge.

But, at the end of the day, the solution to the problem is being
actioned now. The new road is being built, and when finished it will be
a lot easier for everyone else. What I will put to you NM is I
appreciate the delays due to the Bridge strike, but how much more were
you delayed, and would you have been delayed by all the other work and
diversions in place to build the new road.

On the whole, I think it's quite sad everyone has let this post get
this far. Things like these happen in life. It certainly isnt the fault
of the railway, and not so long ago we would have just accepted the
embugerance and moved on. Lets all do that now.

[BH Williams]

Post by Alex W
The only comment I can make on this whole affair is **** happens.
I live in Cornwall as well, and I fully understand the problems that
Bridge has caused, and certainly today it is the fault of the drivers
who hit it, as there is a very sophisticated detection and warning
system in place.
Yes, it's a pain in the back side, and indeed I have nearly missed a
Ferry to go on holiday because of the problems with that Bridge.
But, at the end of the day, the solution to the problem is being
actioned now. The new road is being built, and when finished it will be
a lot easier for everyone else. What I will put to you NM is I
appreciate the delays due to the Bridge strike, but how much more were
you delayed, and would you have been delayed by all the other work and
diversions in place to build the new road.
On the whole, I think it's quite sad everyone has let this post get
this far. Things like these happen in life. It certainly isnt the fault
of the railway, and not so long ago we would have just accepted the
embugerance and moved on. Lets all do that now.

Giving the increasing reliance drivers are placing on GPS navigation, this
sort of incident is likely to become more and more common. Not only railway
bridges are affected, as villagers in various rural areas are finding to
their cost as HGVs (and sometimes coaches) become wedged solid in roads
which may well be the shortest route between A and B, but which are far too
narrow for anything bigger than a Land-Rover. There have even been instances
of drivers following routes to the edges of precipices and into roadworks. I
suppose we shouldn't expect anything better from a system originally
developed for the American military...
Brian

[Brimstone]

Post by BH Williams

Post by Alex W
The only comment I can make on this whole affair is **** happens.
I live in Cornwall as well, and I fully understand the problems that
Bridge has caused, and certainly today it is the fault of the drivers
who hit it, as there is a very sophisticated detection and warning
system in place.
Yes, it's a pain in the back side, and indeed I have nearly missed a
Ferry to go on holiday because of the problems with that Bridge.
But, at the end of the day, the solution to the problem is being
actioned now. The new road is being built, and when finished it will
be a lot easier for everyone else. What I will put to you NM is I
appreciate the delays due to the Bridge strike, but how much more
were you delayed, and would you have been delayed by all the other
work and diversions in place to build the new road.
On the whole, I think it's quite sad everyone has let this post get
this far. Things like these happen in life. It certainly isnt the
fault of the railway, and not so long ago we would have just
accepted the embugerance and moved on. Lets all do that now.

Giving the increasing reliance drivers are placing on GPS navigation,
this sort of incident is likely to become more and more common. Not
only railway bridges are affected, as villagers in various rural
areas are finding to their cost as HGVs (and sometimes coaches)
become wedged solid in roads which may well be the shortest route
between A and B, but which are far too narrow for anything bigger
than a Land-Rover. There have even been instances of drivers
following routes to the edges of precipices and into roadworks. I
suppose we shouldn't expect anything better from a system originally
developed for the American military...

Whilst I agree with your general comments, it's unfair to blame the
equipment because of the idiots that fail to apply a modicum of common sense
when using it.

[NM]

Alex W wrote:

What I will put to you NM is I

Post by Alex W
appreciate the delays due to the Bridge strike, but how much more were
you delayed, and would you have been delayed by all the other work and
diversions in place to build the new road.

I aware of the delays caused by the by-pass construction and as I pass
this way frequently I know when to expect the major delays so I plan
accordingly, I use different routes on occasions or delay the journey.
That is not an issue with me, the guys are beavering away to make
things eventually better so if I'm occasionally delayed a little that's
life. What pissed me off yesterday was that I had already allowed 30
minutes for possible construction delays then this tosser hit the
bridge.

I unreservedly call him a tosser, I drive 44 ton artics regularly down
this route, there are high tech warning devices, you would need to be
seriously asleep not to notice, yet, with monotonous regularity the
bridge appears to be invisible.

Post by Alex W
On the whole, I think it's quite sad everyone has let this post get
this far. Things like these happen in life. It certainly isnt the fault
of the railway, and not so long ago we would have just accepted the
embugerance and moved on. Lets all do that now.

I still think in view of the aggro caused over decades by this bridge
the 'service' offered by this sad little branch line dosen't warrant
it's existence. BUT when the by-pass is opened, the problem solved and:
if whoever is in charge of trains round there got it together: and as a
previous poster alluded, the old A30 road track is to be removed then
here is an opportunity to open another steam heritage nostalgia type
railway.

[NM]

Post by John Ruddy
The local "airport" is actually an RAF base which is being threatened
with closure. The only way to keep it open is with massive subsidy,
which may be politically unacceptable due to the environmental concerns
about encouraging air travel.

The RAF are going, the civillians report record numbers of passengers
and increases in flights. so much so that the local council slapped a 5
pound a head airport tax on all passengers, hardly a worthwhile move if
there was hardly any traffic.

[Maneate]

Post by NM
The RAF are going, the civillians report record numbers of passengers
and increases in flights. so much so that the local council slapped a 5
pound a head airport tax on all passengers, hardly a worthwhile move if
there was hardly any traffic.

Slapping a £5 a head tax on passengers does not necessarily suggest a high
number of passengers, only that the council thought it could see a way of
making a quick return for no outlay, and at little/no risk to them. If
there are lots of passengers going through the airport, they get lots of
easy money. If there are few/no passengers, they lose nothing.

J

[NM]

Post by Maneate

Post by NM
The RAF are going, the civillians report record numbers of passengers
and increases in flights. so much so that the local council slapped a 5
pound a head airport tax on all passengers, hardly a worthwhile move if
there was hardly any traffic.

Slapping a £5 a head tax on passengers does not necessarily suggest a high
number of passengers, only that the council thought it could see a way of
making a quick return for no outlay, and at little/no risk to them. If
there are lots of passengers going through the airport, they get lots of
easy money. If there are few/no passengers, they lose nothing.

AIUI the council will be/are the airport operators. I'll do a google on
it and get back to you.

[NM]

Post by NM

Post by Maneate

Post by NM
The RAF are going, the civillians report record numbers of passengers
and increases in flights. so much so that the local council slapped a 5
pound a head airport tax on all passengers, hardly a worthwhile move if
there was hardly any traffic.

Slapping a £5 a head tax on passengers does not necessarily suggest a high
number of passengers, only that the council thought it could see a way of
making a quick return for no outlay, and at little/no risk to them. If
there are lots of passengers going through the airport, they get lots of
easy money. If there are few/no passengers, they lose nothing.

AIUI the council will be/are the airport operators. I'll do a google on
it and get back to you.

This may help <http://www.newquay-airport.co.uk/>

[John Ruddy]

Post by NM
The RAF are going, the civillians report record numbers of passengers
and increases in flights. so much so that the local council slapped a 5
pound a head airport tax on all passengers, hardly a worthwhile move if
there was hardly any traffic.

I didnt mention anything about the levels of commercial traffic at the
base. When the RAF leave, the FULL cost of running the facility will
fall on the commercial traffic, making it uneconomical to operate the
airport. Hence the need for subsidy. Just like the railway.

[Paul Matthews]

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone
Try proposing to the business people of Newquay and the surrounding area
that the branch should be closed and let us know the reaction.

I don't need to, Newquay is so full in the summer that the amount of
'punters' drawn into that town by rail is really insignificant. there
is no excess capacity in the hotels and boarding houses, if the rail
service was withdrawn then the vacanted capacity would immediatly be
filled by those who arrived by other means, the local airport is
taking off (no pun intended) I can fly from there to London and back
for the same price as a train to plymouth (and quicker as well).
NM

I flew from the airport to London after the solar eclipse - Getting my bag
of the carosel took longer than the flight!

Paul

[NM]

Post by Paul Matthews

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone
Try proposing to the business people of Newquay and the surrounding area
that the branch should be closed and let us know the reaction.

I don't need to, Newquay is so full in the summer that the amount of
'punters' drawn into that town by rail is really insignificant. there
is no excess capacity in the hotels and boarding houses, if the rail
service was withdrawn then the vacanted capacity would immediatly be
filled by those who arrived by other means, the local airport is
taking off (no pun intended) I can fly from there to London and back
for the same price as a train to plymouth (and quicker as well).
NM

I flew from the airport to London after the solar eclipse - Getting my bag
of the carosel took longer than the flight!

That was London, no fault of the Cornish,

[Alex W]

NM wrote:
That was London, no fault of the Cornish

Too right!!

That said the money recouped from passengers at Newquay has started to
have a positive affect. I recently picked up a relative there, and her
flight was delayed. As such the Ryanair flight, and two Air South West
flights arrived together. It only took her 20 mins too get off the
plane and reclaim her luggage, despite there being probably three times
the normal demand on the airport. That I have to admit for Newquay was
impressive!!!!

[Maneate]

I was referring to this particular small barely used heavily subsidised
branch line

Is the branch line 'barely used' because of frequency of trains, or despite
frequency of trains? I am sure that the same argument was applied in the
past when closures of other 'barely used' lines were mooted, some of which
have, with the correct standard and frequency of service, have been almost
over used.

To extend the argument, would it be reasonable to apply the same standard to
public highways? There are hundreds, if not thousnds, of miles of minor
roads that carry little traffic yet are still maintained at the public
expense for a minimal volume of traffic. Should we also close these roads
as they are 'barely used and heavily subsidised'?

J

[NM]

Post by Maneate

I was referring to this particular small barely used heavily subsidised
branch line

Is the branch line 'barely used' because of frequency of trains, or despite
frequency of trains? I am sure that the same argument was applied in the
past when closures of other 'barely used' lines were mooted, some of which
have, with the correct standard and frequency of service, have been almost
over used.

My opinion is that the level of fares is prohibitive, that's the main
cause, added the crazy infrequent timetabling. In the summer when
holiday makers are the principal passengers (or should we call the
customers now) the level of fares is not so important because it's a
one off purchase absorbed into the holiday budget. If there were to be
a lot more frequent trains at about a quarter of the price... well who
knows, like, was it Finland or Sweeden tried in the seventies? Worked
then.

Post by Maneate
To extend the argument, would it be reasonable to apply the same standard to
public highways? There are hundreds, if not thousnds, of miles of minor
roads that carry little traffic yet are still maintained at the public
expense for a minimal volume of traffic. Should we also close these roads
as they are 'barely used and heavily subsidised'?

In effect this is starting now, the government is using money paid in
car tax and fuel tax or whatever vehicle based tax and using this as a
base level for the maintainance of the road system now they are
starting to charge an additional fee for using the higher trafficed
parts, this will certainly be enhanced and extended over the next few
decades. Thus with time your argument will stand.

[Chris Johns]

Post by NM

Post by Maneate
Is the branch line 'barely used' because of frequency of trains, or despite
frequency of trains? I am sure that the same argument was applied in the
past when closures of other 'barely used' lines were mooted, some of which
have, with the correct standard and frequency of service, have been almost
over used.

My opinion is that the level of fares is prohibitive, that's the main
cause, added the crazy infrequent timetabling. In the summer when

is it still something like 4 or 5 trains a day each way? It really does
have a crap service. Even the Looe line has (or had anyway) a better
service.

There were mutterings years ago about abandoning the Newquay - Par route,
and joining Newquay to St Austell instead, that seems to have been
abandoned now tho.

It's hard to see who can make use of the Newquay line. Theres nothing
early enough to get you to Plymouth for 9am (first train from Newquay
leaves after 10am) or even into Nequay for 9am (first arrival the same
train inbound, so also after 10am ) so its no use if you live in Newquay
and work in Plymouth, or live near any of the local stations and work in
Newquay.

While there is a 6pm departure from Plymouth to Newquay, thats not much
use if you can't get to Pymouth in the first place.

IMHO there's no real point in trying to get Newquay - Truro traffic by
rail, its just too much of a long way aroud to be of any use.

So apart from a few people might use it to get to/from Plymouth for a day
trip (get in at 12 and leave again at 6) its hard to see who actually uses
the line, apart from the summer long distance services.

Cheers

Chris

[GeoffC]

Post by Brimstone
The only time there's disruption is because a dickhead tries to take
his vehicle where it doesn't fit.

The warning signs do not always reflect the true height. I know of one
viaduct which is signed at 3.60m, however, 4.30m will fit under quite
happily. ( They always err on the safe side however).

Post by Brimstone
As I've said elsewhere the solution to install a heavy steel beam
across the road with the underside slightly lower than the underside
of the bridge. Thus anyone failing to take take notice of the road
signs get the roof ripped off.

Until something like this comes along:

Loading Image...

You will end up with either a large steel beam in the road (or on top of a
car). Or a lump of steel wedged so firmly under the beam it would take
cutting equipment to release it. Sea containers, I fear, would also not give
up their roofs that easily.
A "magic-eye" light beam trigger might be more practical.
Anyway, its a viaduct not a bridge. Innit??

--

Geoff

[Brimstone]

Post by GeoffC

Post by Brimstone
The only time there's disruption is because a dickhead tries to take
his vehicle where it doesn't fit.

The warning signs do not always reflect the true height. I know of one
viaduct which is signed at 3.60m, however, 4.30m will fit under quite
happily. ( They always err on the safe side however).

Quite.

Post by GeoffC

Post by Brimstone
As I've said elsewhere the solution to install a heavy steel beam
across the road with the underside slightly lower than the underside
of the bridge. Thus anyone failing to take take notice of the road
signs get the roof ripped off.

http://home.planet.nl/~visse716/ZTINFO/HoltropScania1.JPG

LOL, but there aren't too many of them using Cornish country lanes.

Post by GeoffC
You will end up with either a large steel beam in the road (or on
top of a car). Or a lump of steel wedged so firmly under the beam it
would take cutting equipment to release it. Sea containers, I fear,
would also not give up their roofs that easily.

The point is to protect the bridge and the railway's passengers. A lorry
hitting a bridge can displace it and move the track out of alignment.

Post by GeoffC
A "magic-eye" light beam trigger might be more practical.

It may well alert an oversize lorry driver to the problem but it won't stop
the vehicle hitting the bridge.

Post by GeoffC
Anyway, its a viaduct not a bridge. Innit??

Don't know the bridge in question.

[David Taylor]

Post by GeoffC
You will end up with either a large steel beam in the road (or on top of a
car). Or a lump of steel wedged so firmly under the beam it would take
cutting equipment to release it. Sea containers, I fear, would also not give
up their roofs that easily.
A "magic-eye" light beam trigger might be more practical.

They've installed those "magic-eye" sensors around a low railway bridge
here.

After one being stuck on 24 hours a day for a while, I've never seen them
trigger, so I don't know if they actually work correctly, or whether someone
that misses all the signs (and the bridge itself) would actually be
stopped by a flashing "OVERSIZED VEHICLE - DIVERT" sign...

[GeoffC]

Post by David Taylor

Post by GeoffC
You will end up with either a large steel beam in the road (or on
top of a car). Or a lump of steel wedged so firmly under the beam it
would take cutting equipment to release it. Sea containers, I fear,
would also not give up their roofs that easily.
A "magic-eye" light beam trigger might be more practical.

They've installed those "magic-eye" sensors around a low railway
bridge here.
After one being stuck on 24 hours a day for a while, I've never seen
them trigger, so I don't know if they actually work correctly, or
whether someone that misses all the signs (and the bridge itself)
would actually be
stopped by a flashing "OVERSIZED VEHICLE - DIVERT" sign...

Yes, further investigation reveals that Goss Moor has them too.

http://www.simulation-systems.co.uk/A30GossMoor.php

Don't seem to work very well do they?
In fact if they don't work properly it could be making the situation worse.

--

Geoff

[Mark Robinson]

Post by NM
As I said employ lateral thinking, there appears to be an endless
supply of those you refer to as dickheads and no amount of signs or
warnings appear to make any difference,

Here's some lateral thinking: why not hang the dickheads on gibbets
next to the bridge. Might make the remaining dickheads pay some
attention to their surroundings for a change.

Cheers

mark-r

[If you're going to feed the trolls, you might as well feed them
trollbait]

[Paul Matthews]

Post by NM
As I said employ lateral thinking, there appears to be an endless
supply of those you refer to as dickheads and no amount of signs or
warnings appear to make any difference, then for the sake of the many
many thousands of others who have their lives severly disrupted on a
regular basis, take the bridge away, end of problem, net gain lots, net
loosers a few train fanatics.

I'd be interested to know how your logic works with these circumstances: I
and many thousands of other people have been held up (for hours on more than
few occasions) on the M25 due to accidents / shredded tyres / lorry fires -
all because these "dickheads" arn't able to keep their vehicles from
crashing into other vehicles or the crash barriers or because their vehicles
are improperly maintained death traps.

Also my journeys along the M25 are disrupted when there are no accidents
simply due to the volume of traffic. If the freight was taken off the
motorways then presumably I and the many thousands of others who have their
lives severly disrupted on a regular basis wouldn't be?

Paul

[Conor]

In article <***@eclipse.net.uk>, Paul Matthews
says...

Post by Paul Matthews

Post by NM
As I said employ lateral thinking, there appears to be an endless
supply of those you refer to as dickheads and no amount of signs or
warnings appear to make any difference, then for the sake of the many
many thousands of others who have their lives severly disrupted on a
regular basis, take the bridge away, end of problem, net gain lots, net
loosers a few train fanatics.

I'd be interested to know how your logic works with these circumstances: I
and many thousands of other people have been held up (for hours on more than
few occasions) on the M25 due to accidents / shredded tyres / lorry fires -
all because these "dickheads" arn't able to keep their vehicles from
crashing into other vehicles or the crash barriers or because their vehicles
are improperly maintained death traps.

How right you are. Shame the Govts stats show lorries as the safest
group.

Post by Paul Matthews
Also my journeys along the M25 are disrupted when there are no accidents
simply due to the volume of traffic. If the freight was taken off the
motorways then presumably I and the many thousands of others who have their
lives severly disrupted on a regular basis wouldn't be?

True...because you'd not be able to get to the motorway in the first
place due to the long procession of HGVs. HGVs that'll be clogging up
your town, polluting the air and destroying the buildings.

[NM]

Post by Paul Matthews
Also my journeys along the M25 are disrupted when there are no accidents
simply due to the volume of traffic. If the freight was taken off the
motorways then presumably I and the many thousands of others who have their
lives severly disrupted on a regular basis wouldn't be?

That's true, your journey would not be disrupted because you wouldn't
be making that journey, all the shops and fuel stations would be empty,
you would have no food or petrol/diesel. In short you would starve.
NM

[Pyromancer]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as NM

Post by NM

Post by Peter Masson

Post by NM
So why in 100 years have the rail companies not reticfied the problem??

Because it's not their problem. Suppose someone decided they wanted to
get large trucks past your house and doing so required part of the house
to be knocked down and the upper floor held up by beams. Would you be
happy if you found you were expected to pay for the alterations?

Post by NM

Post by Peter Masson
The bridge was put there, to those dimensions, by authority of an Act of
Parliament. The highway authority (the Department for Transport if it's a
Trunk Road, otherwise Cornwall County Council) are able to enlarge it, or
reroute the road (as I believe is happening). As things stand, Network Rail
are required by law to keep the railway open, and neither they nor the Train
Operating Companies which are required by law to operate passenger services
on the line, are funded to alter the bridge for the benefit of road users.

Which all goes to prove the law is an ass. Here is clearly a problem
that causes massive delays and disruptions on a regular basis yet no
one has done anything about it in 100 years because it's 'the law'.

In this case the problem is that the law is not penalising the
incompetents who drive oversized vehicles into the bridge despite all
the signage. Were those incompetents to be fined the replacement cost
of the trucks they wreck *plus* the costs to the railway engineers to
safety-check it each time, plus ban said incompetents from ever driving
again, the problem would rapidly diminish.

Post by NM

Post by Peter Masson
If you don't like the law you can stand for parliament at the next election,
and see if anyone will vote for you.

I expect I could garner quite a few votes from the many thousands who
have been unnecessarily held up by this nonsense.

A few possibly. The majority are slowly coming to realise that the
environmental cost of endless motoring for all isn't really sustainable
in the longer term.

[NM]

Pyromancer wrote:
. Would you be

Post by Pyromancer
happy if you found you were expected to pay for the alterations?

No but I would expect to be duly compensated or compulsory purchased,
so that's a red herring.

Post by Pyromancer
In this case the problem is that the law is not penalising the
incompetents who drive oversized vehicles into the bridge despite all
the signage. Were those incompetents to be fined the replacement cost
of the trucks they wreck *plus* the costs to the railway engineers to
safety-check it each time, plus ban said incompetents from ever driving
again, the problem would rapidly diminish.

There are girders, sign, prosecutions etc.etc. none of this works
wheras taking the bridge away would.

NM

[Brimstone]

Post by Pyromancer
. Would you be

Post by Pyromancer
happy if you found you were expected to pay for the alterations?

No but I would expect to be duly compensated or compulsory purchased,
so that's a red herring.

Post by Pyromancer
In this case the problem is that the law is not penalising the
incompetents who drive oversized vehicles into the bridge despite all
the signage. Were those incompetents to be fined the replacement cost
of the trucks they wreck *plus* the costs to the railway engineers to
safety-check it each time, plus ban said incompetents from ever driving
again, the problem would rapidly diminish.

There are girders, sign, prosecutions etc.etc. none of this works
wheras taking the bridge away would.

The alternative is to lower the road, as has been done in other places.
Presumably that's too much of a compromise for you?

[NM]

Post by Brimstone
The alternative is to lower the road, as has been done in other places.
Presumably that's too much of a compromise for you?

Excellent solution were it to have been applied many years ago, this is
still a very narrow bridge.

A by-pass is on the way then the problem will solve itself as far as
the main A30 goes, I still predict bridge strikes by local traffic to
the nearby industrial estates especially by delivery drivers who are
unfamilliar with the area. however this should not cause the regular
megga hold ups.

[Mark B]

Post by NM

Post by Brimstone
The alternative is to lower the road, as has been done in other places.
Presumably that's too much of a compromise for you?

Excellent solution were it to have been applied many years ago, this is
still a very narrow bridge.
A by-pass is on the way then the problem will solve itself as far as
the main A30 goes, I still predict bridge strikes by local traffic to
the nearby industrial estates especially by delivery drivers who are
unfamilliar with the area. however this should not cause the regular
megga hold ups.

It won't - the old road is to be lifted

[NM]

Post by Mark B
It won't - the old road is to be lifted

Good, shame it took so long.

[Chris Johns]

Post by NM

Post by Pyromancer
of the trucks they wreck *plus* the costs to the railway engineers to
safety-check it each time, plus ban said incompetents from ever driving
again, the problem would rapidly diminish.

There are girders, sign, prosecutions etc.etc. none of this works
wheras taking the bridge away would.

As would shutting the road.

[David Taylor]

Post by NM
There are girders, sign, prosecutions etc.etc. none of this works
wheras taking the bridge away would.

Yep. Just fill the hole under the bridge with concrete, and there'll
be no more delayed trains.

[Mark B]

Post by NM

Anyway, it wasn't the railway that delayed you

Yes it was, they constructed a bridge that was too narrow and too low.
NM

So you are saying they should have allowed for a bigger road? The bridge
was built for what it crossed at the time.

Heres a good one for you, on the A38 some of the overbridges where minor
roads cross now have height restrictions. They were built to the
standards of the time, so are you saying that all of those should be
closed and demolished? Or the motorway underpass with a height
restriction, should the motorway be closed?

By the way there were plans to close the section of line over the iron
bridge and divert the line to so it didn't need to cross the road. The
government refused the plans.

[Clive George]

Post by NM
Made me 45 mins late but I still had to wait two hours when I got
there.

How did it go?

clive

[Paul Matthews]

Post by Clive George

Post by NM
Made me 45 mins late but I still had to wait two hours when I got
there.

How did it go?
clive

He passes sentance tomorrow.

Paul

[NM]

Post by Paul Matthews

Post by Clive George

Post by NM
Made me 45 mins late but I still had to wait two hours when I got
there.

How did it go?
clive

He passes sentance tomorrow.
Paul

No it's over I'll post the results in UK.Transport.

[JP]

Post by NM
Some unfortunate managed, yet again, to get his curtainsider demolished
by the rail bridge across the A30 at Goss moor near Bodmin.
It's got markers all over it and signage for a good few miles leading
up to it yet every few weeks someone whacks it again. This lunchtimes
damage was spectacular, if you are going to fuck up do it well.
Made me 45 mins late but I still had to wait two hours when I got
there.
The tiny infrequent train (really it's a bus chassis on rail wheels)
going virtually empty to Padstow and back seems to be a waste of
rescources considering the regular damage and delays caused by this
bridge, seems to me it would be better to remove the bridge and the
railway and supply a bus route instead.
NM

10 vehicle HST'S are not single coach trains. Most likely half wit
truck driver who thinks the sat-nav compensates for not reading road
signs.

[NM]

Post by JP
10 vehicle HST'S are not single coach trains.

Never seen a 'train' of more than two carriages on this line and they
are EMPTY,

Most likely half wit

Post by JP
truck driver who thinks the sat-nav compensates for not reading road
signs.

Probably driving on autopilot, I'm not making excuses for him all I'm
saying is that if a problem (bridgestrike) keeps repeating itself over
and over again then it's time for some lateral thinking, like remove
the bridge.

NM

[Tim Dunne]

Post by NM
Probably driving on autopilot, I'm not making excuses for him all I'm
saying is that if a problem (bridgestrike) keeps repeating itself over
and over again then it's time for some lateral thinking, like remove
the bridge.

Especially if there's a troll living under it...

Tim

[NM]

Post by Tim Dunne

Post by NM
Probably driving on autopilot, I'm not making excuses for him all I'm
saying is that if a problem (bridgestrike) keeps repeating itself over
and over again then it's time for some lateral thinking, like remove
the bridge.

Especially if there's a troll living under it...

Insufficient room

[David Taylor]

Post by NM

Post by Tim Dunne

Post by NM
Probably driving on autopilot, I'm not making excuses for him all I'm
saying is that if a problem (bridgestrike) keeps repeating itself over
and over again then it's time for some lateral thinking, like remove
the bridge.

Especially if there's a troll living under it...

Insufficient room

So _that_ is why you're so upset... You want a bigger bridge to live under.

[Brimstone]

Post by David Taylor

Post by NM

Post by Tim Dunne

Post by NM
Probably driving on autopilot, I'm not making excuses for him all
I'm saying is that if a problem (bridgestrike) keeps repeating
itself over and over again then it's time for some lateral
thinking, like remove the bridge.

Especially if there's a troll living under it...

Insufficient room

So _that_ is why you're so upset... You want a bigger bridge to live under.

Perhaps it's Mrs Troll who's giving him ear ache about the miniscule, damp
bridge they're having to put up with at the moment?

[Brimstone]

Post by NM

Post by JP
10 vehicle HST'S are not single coach trains.

Never seen a 'train' of more than two carriages on this line and they
are EMPTY,
Most likely half wit

Post by JP
truck driver who thinks the sat-nav compensates for not reading road
signs.

Probably driving on autopilot, I'm not making excuses for him all I'm
saying is that if a problem (bridgestrike) keeps repeating itself over
and over again then it's time for some lateral thinking, like remove
the bridge.

No, the solution is to erect a substantial beam across the road, slightly
lower than the underside of the bridge, so that any overheight vehicle gets
it's roof ripped off.

[DB.]

Post by Brimstone

Post by NM

Post by JP
10 vehicle HST'S are not single coach trains.

Never seen a 'train' of more than two carriages on this line and they
are EMPTY,
Most likely half wit

Post by JP
truck driver who thinks the sat-nav compensates for not reading road
signs.

Probably driving on autopilot, I'm not making excuses for him all I'm
saying is that if a problem (bridgestrike) keeps repeating itself over
and over again then it's time for some lateral thinking, like
remove
the bridge.

No, the solution is to erect a substantial beam across the road,
slightly lower than the underside of the bridge, so that any
overheight vehicle gets it's roof ripped off.

This thread has been going 4hours 29mins. (20 posts, at least)
before you, Brimstone, put forward the obvious (substantial beam)
solution.
That the OP should put forward his original suggestion on
uk.railway immediately marked him out as a troll.

[asdf]

Post by DB.
This thread has been going 4hours 29mins. (20 posts, at least)
before you, Brimstone, put forward the obvious (substantial beam)
solution.
That the OP should put forward his original suggestion on
uk.railway immediately marked him out as a troll.

Indeed. Crossposts to uk.rec.driving and uk.railway, and a far-fetched
attempt to set up a road vs rail conflict where none exists. 1/10 for
subtlety.

[Waldviertler]

I am trying to work out why NM was trying to use the "bus on train
wheels" to start with. He obviously has such a beef about using trains,
why did he not use road based transport ? After all if he has to travel
in a bus type vehicle, better to pay bus type fares ?

Happy Days !!!!!!
Phil

[NM]

Post by Waldviertler
I am trying to work out why NM was trying to use the "bus on train
wheels" to start with. He obviously has such a beef about using trains,
why did he not use road based transport ? After all if he has to travel
in a bus type vehicle, better to pay bus type fares ?

I have no choice about using trains, I can't, they mostly don't go
where I want to go and on the occasions they do my timetable is
unworkable around their schedules and on the rare occasions all the
preceeding is perfect the fares put them way out of my reach. (Me,
partner, partners daughter, two teenage grandchildren and an infant 4
stops on a similar toytown train to the beach and back for a day out,
total diatance less then 9 miles, even with all the various discounts,
22 pounds or half a gallon of diesel in the car, you do the maths).

The reference to the bus on train wheels was to the units used which
have a very lightweight body and a truck/bus engine slung underneath
and I believe there is so much traffic that if you want it to stop at
your station or halt you put your hand out like you stop a bus
similarly to alight you press the bell to alert the driver. That seems
to me like a bus on train wheels.
NM

[Chris Johns]

Post by NM
It's got markers all over it and signage for a good few miles leading
up to it yet every few weeks someone whacks it again. This lunchtimes
damage was spectacular, if you are going to fuck up do it well.
Made me 45 mins late but I still had to wait two hours when I got
there.

Why not sue the "stupid trucker" who drove into the bridge for
compensation?

[Paul Rigg]

Post by Chris Johns

Post by NM
It's got markers all over it and signage for a good few miles leading
up to it yet every few weeks someone whacks it again. This lunchtimes
damage was spectacular, if you are going to fuck up do it well.
Made me 45 mins late but I still had to wait two hours when I got
there.

Why not sue the "stupid trucker" who drove into the bridge for
compensation?
--
Chris Johns

They will, or they will threaten to. It's a legitimate third party motor
insurance claim and the costs will be paid.

[John Ruddy]

Post by Paul Rigg

Post by Chris Johns

Post by NM
It's got markers all over it and signage for a good few miles leading
up to it yet every few weeks someone whacks it again. This lunchtimes
damage was spectacular, if you are going to fuck up do it well.
Made me 45 mins late but I still had to wait two hours when I got
there.

Why not sue the "stupid trucker" who drove into the bridge for
compensation?
--
Chris Johns

They will, or they will threaten to. It's a legitimate third party motor
insurance claim and the costs will be paid.

And course, its all the other law abiding motorists who will pay through
increased premiums.....

[Paul Rigg]

Post by John Ruddy

Post by Paul Rigg

Post by Chris Johns

Post by NM
It's got markers all over it and signage for a good few miles leading
up to it yet every few weeks someone whacks it again. This lunchtimes
damage was spectacular, if you are going to fuck up do it well.
Made me 45 mins late but I still had to wait two hours when I got
there.

Why not sue the "stupid trucker" who drove into the bridge for
compensation?
--
Chris Johns

They will, or they will threaten to. It's a legitimate third party motor
insurance claim and the costs will be paid.

And course, its all the other law abiding motorists who will pay through
increased premiums.....

well of course, that's what insurance is. However it could well have some
considerable bearing on the premium paid by the owner of the lorry in
question as the claim is likely to be a substantial one.

At any rate the costs will not come out of Network Rail's pocket,