Prototype for everything corner.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

8 hours ago, Hesperus said:

Trains delayed by... tortoise!

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tortoise-solomon-network-rail-train-turtle-escape-b2583982.html

Point motor issues?

[papagolfjuliet]

A fun formation to model: Terrier with Isettas.

[Wickham Green too]

10 hours ago, Hesperus said:

... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tortoise-solomon-network-rail-train-turtle-escape-b2583982.html

“We also ask that our lineside neighbours ensure that their fencing is secure to prevent human, or animal incursions onto the track.” ........... is it no longer the railway company's responsibility to look after lineside fencing ??!?

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

“We also ask that our lineside neighbours ensure that their fencing is secure to prevent human, or animal incursions onto the track.” ........... is it no longer the railway company's responsibility to look after lineside fencing ??!?

A tortoise could easily get through the sort of fencing provided on the majority of linesides as such fencing has never been legally required to prevent a tortoise gaining access to the railway

[Hroth]

2 hours ago, papagolfjuliet said:

A fun formation to model: Terrier with Isettas.

 

3 or 4 Isettas to a conflat?

Excellent parking!

 

[The Stationmaster]

6 minutes ago, Hroth said:

 

3 or 4 Isettas to a conflat?

Excellent parking!

 

They're Lows, not Conflats.

[KeithHC]

3 hours ago, papagolfjuliet said:

A fun formation to model: Terrier with Isettas.

And all products of Brighton works. Never saw one in improved engine Green.

 

Keith

[25kV]

On 17/07/2024 at 20:22, Mol_PMB said:

When you buy your Mk2s from different manufacturers and the stripes on the livery don’t match up:

Look closely. All four are different!
 

From Dave Sallery on Flickr

Usefully highlighting the colour band dimensional differences between Provincial / Regional Railways (37 and rear coach), which was designed to accommodate the depth of Mk1 windows, and InterCity/ScotRail (first coach, modified to Provincial/RR blues) which was not.

[Wickham Green too]

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

A tortoise could easily get through the sort of fencing provided on the majority of linesides as such fencing has never been legally required to prevent a tortoise gaining access to the railway

Indeed - but Network Fail don't specify any sort of animal ( elephants might be a problem too - as would be some types of sub-human who they, presumably, include )  ..... but the implication seems to be that the fence is the legal responsibility of the landowners outside that fence rather than "the railway" who had to provide it in the first place !

[96701]

1 hour ago, Wickham Green too said:

Indeed - but Network Fail don't specify any sort of animal ( elephants might be a problem too - as would be some types of sub-human who they, presumably, include )  ..... but the implication seems to be that the fence is the legal responsibility of the landowners outside that fence rather than "the railway" who had to provide it in the first place !

Why the disparaging name for Network Rail? What have they done wrong?

[Bri.dolan]

For people that lack space for a full length HST ,here’s the branch line version 

 

heading south on the north midland mainline through Cudworth station area Southyorkshire

one of my late uncle John slack’s pictures 

 

 

 

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, 96701 said:

Why the disparaging name for Network Rail? What have they done wrong?

They seem to be failing to take responsibility for maintaining the fences that their predecessors were required to erect in accordance with appropriate Acts of Parliament before each line could be built.

[John Isherwood]

9 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

They seem to be failing to take responsibility for maintaining the fences that their predecessors were required to erect in accordance with appropriate Acts of Parliament before each line could be built.

 

Agreed - BR always maintained their boundary fences, and I'd be VERY surprised if NR have not inherited that responsibility.

 

CJI.

[96701]

1 minute ago, Wickham Green too said:

They seem to be failing to take responsibility for maintaining the fences that their predecessors were required to erect in accordance with appropriate Acts of Parliament before each line could be built.

My last job before I retired from Network Rail was Maintenance Compliance and Assurance Advisor in Wales Route. One of the items on my radar was boundary inspections. Whilst I was there the handheld devices were just coming in so that the inspectors could record not only the security and condition of the boundary measures, but also among other things adjacent land use and the type of boundary measures. The high risk areas of adjacent land use are schools, recreation areas and known vandalism and trespass zones. The results from the handhelds are uploaded into the maintenance management system. Reports from this system are produced and ranked according to risk.

 

Adjacent land use includes grazing for animals which are also risk ranked with cattle and horses being higher risk than sheep.  

 

These reports are perused by the Operational Risk Advisors who are independent of the maintenance function and make recommendations to the Route Asset Managers who prioritise boundary measure renewals.

 

Pardon me if I take exception to your misnomer.

[rab]

3 minutes ago, 96701 said:

Pardon me if I take exception to your misnomer.

This is not the first time the term "Network Fail" has appeared on this form.

The "misnomer" has been around for some time

[96701]

7 minutes ago, rab said:

This is not the first time the term "Network Fail" has appeared on this form.

The "misnomer" has been around for some time

Still no excuse for being disparaging.

[John Isherwood]

39 minutes ago, 96701 said:

My last job before I retired from Network Rail was Maintenance Compliance and Assurance Advisor in Wales Route. One of the items on my radar was boundary inspections. Whilst I was there the handheld devices were just coming in so that the inspectors could record not only the security and condition of the boundary measures, but also among other things adjacent land use and the type of boundary measures. The high risk areas of adjacent land use are schools, recreation areas and known vandalism and trespass zones. The results from the handhelds are uploaded into the maintenance management system. Reports from this system are produced and ranked according to risk.

 

Adjacent land use includes grazing for animals which are also risk ranked with cattle and horses being higher risk than sheep.  

 

These reports are perused by the Operational Risk Advisors who are independent of the maintenance function and make recommendations to the Route Asset Managers who prioritise boundary measure renewals.

 

Pardon me if I take exception to your misnomer.

 

All this does not explain why NR were requesting (above) that landowners maintain the security of THEIR railway boundary fences.

 

CJI.

[96701]

7 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

All this does not explain why NR were requesting (above) that landowners maintain the security of THEIR railway boundary fences.

 

CJI.

I can only assume that the tortoise proof fence is on the owner's land parallel and next to Network Rail's fence. I assume the adjacent land use will be domestic gardens.

[John Isherwood]

Just now, 96701 said:

I can only assume that the tortoise proof fence is on the owner's land parallel and next to Network Rail's fence. I assume the adjacent land use will be domestic gardens.

 

The tortoise element is exceptional - it is not the responsibility of landowners to fence their land.

 

As I'm sure that you know, it is NR's responsibility to maintain its fences according to adjacent land-use; (tortoises excepted).

 

CJI.

[Wickham Green too]

The phrase used was “We also ask that our lineside neighbours ensure that their fencing is secure to prevent human, or animal incursions onto the track.” .......... so would seem to apply to ALL adjacent landowners and not specifically those who keep tortoises.

[billbedford]

It's not clear from the clipping whether that quote was the official NR position or something made up by the Indie. 

[Wickham Green too]

It's attributed to 'A Network Rail Wessex Spokesperson' ..... who SHOULD be speaking the official NR speak !

[96701]

I'll try and explain again. There are some householders who put fencing up on their own property , particularly where their back gardens border onto the railway to supplement whatever boundary measure the railway put in place. This may be to enhance their own security, to improve the view from their garden, or to secure their own property to prevent pets escaping. The railway boundary is there mainly to prevent unauthorised access by people and to prevent large boned animals escaping their field to partake of the vegetation on the lineside. I doubt very much that any Network Rail boundary measure will prevent small animals entering the railway.

 

I assume that the tortoise owner has their own fence on their property, and the tortoise has breached the homeowners fence (designed to keep the tortoise in) and the NR boundary measure (designed to keep people and large boned animals off the railway). The NR spokesperson will be referring to the homeowner's fence that allowed the perpetrator onto the lineside.

[The Stationmaster]

14 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

All this does not explain why NR were requesting (above) that landowners maintain the security of THEIR railway boundary fences.

 

CJI.

Possible answers -

1 Somebody in NR's PR machine doesn't understand the legal requirements in respect of construction and maintenance of railway boundary fences (which is completely different from the requirement in respect road boundary fences etc), or

2.  Tortoise proof fencing is considered to be the landowners responsibility, or

3.  As on our local branch, the actual fencing situation deviates so much from the legal requirements that the nearest fence to the railway has been put there by someone other than the railway and they have not maintained it, or

4.  Again as on our branch (and the certain part of the GWML) the fence line is so totally surrounded by, and buried within,  undergrowth that nobody really knows what is there or who owns it and there might be an assumption that it might well have been fenced beyond the railway boundary by the land owner.

 

The choice is yours but No.1 strikes me as a good bet.

[96701]

3 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Possible answers -

1 Somebody in NR's PR machine doesn't understand the legal requirements in respect of construction and maintenance of railway boundary fences (which is completely different from the requirement in respect road boundary fences etc), or

2.  Tortoise proof fencing is considered to be the landowners responsibility, or

3.  As on our local branch, the actual fencing situation deviates so much from the legal requirements that the nearest fence to the railway has been put there by someone other than the railway and they have not maintained it, or

4.  Again as on our branch (and the certain part of the GWML) the fence line is so totally surrounded by, and buried within,  undergrowth that nobody really knows what is there or who owns it and there might be an assumption that it might well have been fenced beyond the railway boundary by the land owner.

 

The choice is yours but No.1 strikes me as a good bet.

No 2 strikes me as a better bet.