This has just been brought to our attention this evening; it has now been done:
I suspect he'll be ok given the relative inexperience by comparison to Sir Liam Fox of the candidate Labour have put forward. https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557240985915
I'd expect the announcement before the GE to help boost Dr Fox's seat.
Indeed - however, as stock is already too thin on the ground and there will also be a requirement for extra for the Mid-Cornwall metro, there is a requirement for extra stock - whether or not that actually ends up going to Portishead.
Not sure we're in Purdah till Parliament is dissolved, so a whole eight days to anounce anything ...
As it seems to have been a surprise to most in the government I would guess none of them are in a position to rush anything through.
Mr farrage spooked the tories I've seen mentioned quite a few times this morning
why does it need more studies and why dont we look at things holistically. Yes wildlife and bio diversity will be affected but do these protagonists not see how much road kill there is on the roads that would be avoided.
I don't understand why the road being relocated needs further work - I found a map here which already has a plan for the rerouted road. Wildlife I suppose the requirements change or the discover something nee
The five to three reduction would be shortsighted and just means disruption and extra costs when the platforms inevitably need lengthening in a few years. As they're only proposing an initial hourly service, it might lead to overcrowding on one or two trains at peaks if the poor frequency doesn't manage to put people off completely; the time honoured trick of coupling an extra unit for a few peak workings being unavailable with short platforms. Such a measure will only save a little on the physical platform construction itself, assuming future extensions will at least be safeguarded and passively or actively provided for in track and signalling layouts, so moving a few signs and just adding 50 odd metres of platform, lighting etc is all that would be required eventually. Hardly seems worth the saving when they'll have a contractor mobilised to build the stations. Getting another one engaged in (say) 5 years just to lengthen the platforms under a new project with all its admin and overheads will be an order of magnitude more expensive than the uplift if done as part of the initial opening, I would hazard a guess.
3-car platforms also sounds like an operational headache, as you couldn't even sub in a 2x2 v a 3-car if needed
I'd go for at least 130m for most new platforms on secondary lines today especially those for services doing suburban duties around major provincial cities. Sufficient for 5x cars of up to 26m (22x, 80x, 165, 166, Various Alstom things). Also 6x 20m vehicles. On busy non - London corridors I'd consider further safeguarding for at least 8x20m for any new platform construction. 4 car UK FLIRTs, plus their power pods, are the same total length as a traditional 4x20m unit such as GWRs Electrostars. Future Alstom Coradia-based alternatives will likely share a similar architecture and can no doubt be supplied in a similar length. So I'd say 100m should be a minimum anywhere to accommodate 4x20m, 5x20m 4x25m or a single modern FLIRT or Coradia. The next step would be 130m to allow small IETs and Voyagers as well. and various additional combinations of splinters and turbos.
I'm not sure 130m is that helpful, there is a suggestion that GWR is looking at 3car units for new Bristol metro stock (no more 2car units when the 33 year old 165s go)
Certainly feels like it.
A very, very long way.
