The line is due to reopen on Sat, although there is no news on the
long term plans for the Tesco store.

From the Chiltern website:

"Were delighted to inform you that it has now been declared safe to
run trains through the tunnel at Gerrards Cross. 
Network Rail are currently replacing the track and signalling that was
damaged when the tunnel collapsed. 
Once this work has been completed and all equipment has been tested,
well be able to operate our normal timetabled service again.

Were hoping that the first trains will run through Gerrards Cross on
Saturday 20 August. 

Please keep a lookout for further updates later this week to find out
how work is progressing. We'll be producing separate information about
exactly what caused the tunnel to collapse, what has been done to make
it safe again, and what is planned for the future."

Duncan

Duncan wrote:

> The line is due to reopen on Sat, although there is no news on the
> long term plans for the Tesco store.
>
> From the Chiltern website:
>
> "We're delighted to inform you that it has now been declared safe to
> run trains through the tunnel at Gerrards Cross.
> Network Rail are currently replacing the track and signalling that was
> damaged when the tunnel collapsed.
> Once this work has been completed and all equipment has been tested,
> we'll be able to operate our normal timetabled service again.
>
> We're hoping that the first trains will run through Gerrards Cross on
> Saturday 20 August.
>
> Please keep a lookout for further updates later this week to find out
> how work is progressing. We'll be producing separate information about
> exactly what caused the tunnel to collapse, what has been done to make
> it safe again, and what is planned for the future."
>
> Duncan



Oh fantastic, now i no longer have to suffer 2 and a half hours into
Euston on a hideously slow WCML. I'm sick of getting diverted to
Nuneaton on Sundays now. Shame it isn't running friday evening, again
it'd make things alot easier.

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:03:50 +0100, Duncan wrote:


> "We're hoping that the first trains will run through Gerrards Cross on
> Saturday 20 August. 
> 
> Please keep a lookout for further updates later this week to find out
> how work is progressing. We'll be producing separate information about
> exactly what caused the tunnel to collapse, what has been done to make
> it safe again, and what is planned for the future."


I think most folk might find it more comforting if that information were
to hand well before running restarts.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14104748.html
(47 002 at Llandudno Junction, 5 Jun 1985)

> "We're delighted to inform you that it has now been declared safe to
> run trains through the tunnel at Gerrards Cross.
> Network Rail are currently replacing the track and signalling that was
> damaged when the tunnel collapsed.
> Once this work has been completed and all equipment has been tested,
> we'll be able to operate our normal timetabled service again.
> We're hoping that the first trains will run through Gerrards Cross on
> Saturday 20 August.


Oh crumbs, awful news for those in Aylesbury.
Oh well, back to the shoddy service that we used to have :-(

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:02:35 GMT, Chris Tolley 
wrote:


>On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:03:50 +0100, Duncan wrote:
>
>> "We're hoping that the first trains will run through Gerrards Cross on
>> Saturday 20 August. 
>> 
>> Please keep a lookout for further updates later this week to find out
>> how work is progressing. We'll be producing separate information about
>> exactly what caused the tunnel to collapse, what has been done to make
>> it safe again, and what is planned for the future."
>
>I think most folk might find it more comforting if that information were
>to hand well before running restarts.


Whilst interesting, the cause of the collapse is not relevant tro
whether it is safe now for trains to go through because the status of
the structure now is.completely different from its pre-collapse state.
Personally I have every confidence that there will no further
collapse, based on observations (many), informal chats with
knowledgeable people and some understanding of the mechanics involved.
But I think it is very useful that Chiltern have taken it upon
themselves to make the public announcements - their customers probably
have considerable confidence in Chiltern whereas most will know
nothing about the trustworthiness of Network Rail.


Guy Gorton

Joe Patrick wrote:

>
> Oh crumbs, awful news for those in Aylesbury.
> Oh well, back to the shoddy service that we used to have :-(


I hardly think a half-hourly service is shoddy...

Guy Gorton  writes:


> Whilst interesting, the cause of the collapse is not relevant tro
> whether it is safe now for trains to go through because the status of
> the structure now is.completely different from its pre-collapse state.


Non sequitur. The status of the structure might be completely
different but the remaining parts could be still at risk of
collapsing.


> Personally I have every confidence that there will no further
> collapse, based on observations (many), informal chats with
> knowledgeable people and some understanding of the mechanics
> involved.


Which is?

Is the cause of the collapse known? Is the _mode_ of the collapse
finally known? 

  MJ

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:09:12 +0200, Michal Jankowski
 wrote:


>Guy Gorton  writes:
>
>> Whilst interesting, the cause of the collapse is not relevant tro
>> whether it is safe now for trains to go through because the status of
>> the structure now is.completely different from its pre-collapse state.
>
>Non sequitur. The status of the structure might be completely
>different but the remaining parts could be still at risk of
>collapsing.
>

No sir.  If you have a puncture in a tyre on your car - or bicycle -
it matters what caused it when deciding whether to repair it or
replace it.  Once repaired or replaced, it matters not what caused the
puncture in the first place, although you might want to avoid broken
glass or a bed of nails in futuire!  In this case all broken glass has
been removed. and beds of nails swept up.

Guy Gorton

>No sir.  If you have a puncture in a tyre on your car - or bicycle -
>it matters what caused it when deciding whether to repair it or
>replace it.  Once repaired or replaced, it matters not what caused the
>puncture in the first place, although you might want to avoid broken
>glass or a bed of nails in futuire!  In this case all broken glass has
>been removed. and beds of nails swept up.



Even if the structure is different, the factors affecting structures at
that location might still apply.

Once I have put in a brand new or repaired inner tube, it matters very
much that there is still a piece of glass lodged in the tyre.  This
will carry on causing punctures in new tubes until I remove that cause
of the problem.

Guy Gorton  writes:


> In this case all broken glass has been removed. and beds of nails
> swept up.


Some parts of the tunnel are still in place. 

  MJ

In article ,
   TheOneKEA  wrote:

> > Oh crumbs, awful news for those in Aylesbury.
> > Oh well, back to the shoddy service that we used to have :-(

> I hardly think a half-hourly service is shoddy...

Joe would still find something wrong if it was every ten minutes.

-- 
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:34:36 +0100, Guy Gorton wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:02:35 GMT, Chris Tolley 
>>I think most folk might find it more comforting if that information were
>>to hand well before running restarts.
> Whilst interesting, the cause of the collapse is not relevant tro
> whether it is safe now for trains to go through because the status of
> the structure now is.completely different from its pre-collapse state.


I would venture to suggest that most of the normal travelling public
would simply know that the tunnel at that spot (which no doubt they
trusted was safe) fell in, and would be a little wary of being on a
train going through it in case of a repeat.

Information about what has been done to prevent a recurrence would have
great reassurance value, and should be made available ASAP. Any other
course is likely to leave people wondering what TPTB have to hide.

Chris Tolley wrote:


> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:34:36 +0100, Guy Gorton wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:02:35 GMT, Chris Tolley 
>>
>>>I think most folk might find it more comforting if that information were
>>>to hand well before running restarts.
>>
>>Whilst interesting, the cause of the collapse is not relevant tro
>>whether it is safe now for trains to go through because the status of
>>the structure now is.completely different from its pre-collapse state.
> 
> 
> I would venture to suggest that most of the normal travelling public
> would simply know that the tunnel at that spot (which no doubt they
> trusted was safe) fell in, and would be a little wary of being on a
> train going through it in case of a repeat.
> 
> Information about what has been done to prevent a recurrence would have
> great reassurance value, and should be made available ASAP. Any other
> course is likely to leave people wondering what TPTB have to hide.


Logically, if trains didn't stop at GX, hence weren't slowing down or 
accelerating, they would be travelling faster through the tunnel, ergo 
less chance of another collapse hitting a train.

Brilliant !  I should work for the HSE :-)

(Or is it a myth, like getting less wet if you run whilst it is raining ?)

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:59:41 +0000 (UTC), matt wrote:

> Logically, if trains didn't stop at GX, hence weren't slowing down or 
> accelerating, they would be travelling faster through the tunnel, ergo 
> less chance of another collapse hitting a train.
> 
> Brilliant !  I should work for the HSE :-)
> 
> (Or is it a myth, like getting less wet if you run whilst it is raining ?)


Dunno. I've always wondered, with regard to PW speed restrictions
whether the main reason for slowing down at points where there is a
potential problem with the track was for the good of the track (more
speed = more energy into the track = more chance of failure) or for the
good of the train (less speed = less disastrous consequences if
something fails). I expect one of the engineers hereabouts will know.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683773.html
(144 013 at Harrogate, 29 May 1999)

>On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:59:41 +0000 (UTC), matt wrote:
>> Logically, if trains didn't stop at GX, hence weren't slowing down or 
>> accelerating, they would be travelling faster through the tunnel, ergo 
>> less chance of another collapse hitting a train.


You are Sir Henry Seagrave and I claim my five pounds.

(Seagrave - one time holder of the land speed record - had an 
idiosyncratic approach to road safety. Most accidents occurred
at junctions, so his idea was to minimise time spent in
the area of the junction. Deriving his solution is left as
an exercise for the student).

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		
		"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

"Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote in message
news:ddv9bl$41oq$1@central.aber.ac.uk...

> >On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:59:41 +0000 (UTC), matt wrote:
> >> Logically, if trains didn't stop at GX, hence weren't slowing down or
> >> accelerating, they would be travelling faster through the tunnel, ergo
> >> less chance of another collapse hitting a train.
>
> You are Sir Henry Seagrave and I claim my five pounds.
>
> (Seagrave - one time holder of the land speed record - had an
> idiosyncratic approach to road safety. Most accidents occurred
> at junctions, so his idea was to minimise time spent in
> the area of the junction. Deriving his solution is left as
> an exercise for the student).
>

On one occasion Professor Charles Babbage arranged to take his experimental
train out of Paddington, and was given a Wrong Line Order. His loco was not
ready, and before he could depart Brunel arrived on a light engine on the
line on which Babbage would have departed. On being asked what he would have
done if he perceived another engine meeting him upon his own line Brunel
said he would have put on all the steam he could command with a view to
driving off the opposite engine by the superior velocity of his own. -;)

(From 'Red for Danger' chapter 1).

Peter

In article <ddva02$rkt$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
Peter Masson  wrote:

>On one occasion Professor Charles Babbage arranged to take his experimental
>train out of Paddington, and was given a Wrong Line Order. His loco was not
>ready, and before he could depart Brunel arrived on a light engine on the
>line on which Babbage would have departed. On being asked what he would have
>done if he perceived another engine meeting him upon his own line Brunel
>said he would have put on all the steam he could command with a view to
>driving off the opposite engine by the superior velocity of his own. -;)


Well, that certainly explains his famous crash hat.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

> I hardly think a half-hourly service is shoddy


I am not moaning about the frequency. I am moaning about the crowding
and reliability, as well as the announcements of the platforms at
Marylebone.
Fortunately, I am moving to Bristol next week.

--- Guy Gorton said...



> No sir.  If you have a puncture in a tyre on your car - or bicycle -
> it matters what caused it when deciding whether to repair it or
> replace it.  Once repaired or replaced, it matters not what caused the
> puncture in the first place, although you might want to avoid broken
> glass or a bed of nails in futuire!  In this case all broken glass has
> been removed. and beds of nails swept up.
>


But you still need to **know** whether the puncture was caused by
broken glass and/or beds of nails, OR by something else.

e.g. If it turns out that the damage was caused by driving over a sharp
spikes embedded in the road surface, then as long as those spikes
remain in place, you'll still get punctured again no matter how much
glass and nails you sweep up!

Joe Patrick wrote:

>> I hardly think a half-hourly service is shoddy
>
> I am not moaning about the frequency. I am moaning about the crowding
> and reliability, as well as the announcements of the platforms at
> Marylebone.
> Fortunately, I am moving to Bristol next week.


Have the local TOCs been warned?

matt wrote:


> Logically, if trains didn't stop at GX, hence weren't slowing down
> or accelerating, they would be travelling faster through the
> tunnel, ergo less chance of another collapse hitting a train.
>
> Brilliant !  I should work for the HSE :-)
>
> (Or is it a myth, like getting less wet if you run whilst it is
> raining ?)


That's not a myth. Most research shows that in most conditions, you get
wetter by walking rather than running.  Put in your own data at
http://www.dctech.com/physics/features/0600.php

-- 
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:09:12 +0200, Michal Jankowski
 wrote:


>Guy Gorton  writes:
>
>> Personally I have every confidence that there will no further
>> collapse, based on observations (many), informal chats with
>> knowledgeable people and some understanding of the mechanics
>> involved.
>
>Which is?
>
>Is the cause of the collapse known? Is the _mode_ of the collapse
>finally known? 


Chiltern / Network Rail have published a leaflet at:
http://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/uploads/publications/119.pdf

Which contains the following text:

"The underlying cause of the accident is still subject to a Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) investigation, but initial views are that the
loading sequence used in the construction of the tunnel was the major
factor that caused the collapse.

Remedial works since 30 June
Over the last seven weeks, the site of the collapse has been cleared,
and damaged / potentially damaged arches have been taken down. In
addition, some undamaged arches were removed to enable robust tests to
be undertaken. The remaining arches have been examined by engineers
who have established they can remain in place.

Almost all the material along the top of the tunnel (some 27,000
tonnes) has also been removed, which has eliminated most of the load
on the tunnel roof. Once the tunnel was accepted as being perfectly
safe, Network Rail began replacing all the track and signalling
equipment that had been damaged by the collapse.

Next steps
Now that the load has been significantly reduced, the tunnel is stable
and safe for train services to resume on the line. The tunnel project
will only continue if Tesco can satisfy Network Rail and the Health &
Safety Executive that it can be done safely and without disrupting
services. This could take several months.

Your safety
It has taken seven weeks to re-open the line, which indicates the
scale of the investigations that have taken place to ensure the safety
of passengers and staff. Since the removal of the material above the
tunnel, extensive calculations - backed up by tests and measurements -
have shown that all remaining tunnel arches now have a factor of
safety far greater than would be normal for such a structure.
A number of independent safety inspectors have declared the remaining
infrastructure as structurally sound. As a result of this, Network
Rail and the Health & Safety Executive are satisfied that it is safe
to operate trains through the tunnel.

When the tunnel re-opens it will continue to be regularly checked."

Duncan

Richard J. wrote:


> matt wrote:
> 
> 
>>Logically, if trains didn't stop at GX, hence weren't slowing down
>>or accelerating, they would be travelling faster through the
>>tunnel, ergo less chance of another collapse hitting a train.
>>
>>Brilliant !  I should work for the HSE :-)
>>
>>(Or is it a myth, like getting less wet if you run whilst it is
>>raining ?)
> 
> 
> That's not a myth. Most research shows that in most conditions, you get
> wetter by walking rather than running.  Put in your own data at
> http://www.dctech.com/physics/features/0600.php
> 


Yeah but no but...

"The show Mythbusters on Discovery Channel solved this little question 
in its first episode last season. They set up a rain corridor inside, 
for a constant drizzle. Industrial sized fan for wind. Then, donning 
wetsuits, and pre-weighed coveralls, they ran and walked through the 
rain a set distance. They then weighed the coveralls again, and found 
that running through the rain gathered more water, and made them wetter."

Also something about running causing more sweat which doesn't evaporate 
as well when it's raining due to the humidity. Or something. Actually 
I've lost the will to care.

It was on TV, so it /must/ be true :-)

DERWENT Re: Gerrards Cross reopens on Sat
 Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:10:42 +0000 (UTC), matt
 


>Richard J. wrote:
>
>> matt wrote:
>> 
>> That's not a myth. Most research shows that in most conditions, you get
>> wetter by walking rather than running.  Put in your own data at
>> http://www.dctech.com/physics/features/0600.php
>> 
>
>Yeah but no but...
>
>"The show Mythbusters on Discovery Channel solved this little question 
>in its first episode last season. They set up a rain corridor inside, 
>for a constant drizzle. Industrial sized fan for wind. Then, donning 
>wetsuits, and pre-weighed coveralls, they ran and walked through the 
>rain a set distance. They then weighed the coveralls again, and found 
>that running through the rain gathered more water, and made them wetter."
>


The wind changes the conditions of the test so it's not suprising that
they got a different result. Did they try reversing the route to see
the effect?

PRAR
-- 
<http://www.i.am/prar/> and <http://prar.fotopic.net/>
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. --Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
 - If you must email me use the Reply to address and not prar@deadspam.com

DERWENT Re: Gerrards Cross reopens on Sat
 17 Aug 2005 05:44:24 -0700, "Joe Patrick"
 


>> I hardly think a half-hourly service is shoddy
>
>I am not moaning about the frequency. I am moaning about the crowding
>and reliability, as well as the announcements of the platforms at
>Marylebone.
>Fortunately, I am moving to Bristol next week.


Joe, from what I have seen in Bristol the grass is not going to be any
greener. 

PRAR
-- 
<http://www.i.am/prar/> and <http://prar.fotopic.net/>
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. --Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
 - If you must email me use the Reply to address and not prar@deadspam.com

In article ,
   PRAR  wrote:

>  17 Aug 2005 05:44:24 -0700, "Joe Patrick"
>  

> >> I hardly think a half-hourly service is shoddy
> >
> >I am not moaning about the frequency. I am moaning about the crowding
> >and reliability, as well as the announcements of the platforms at
> >Marylebone.
> >Fortunately, I am moving to Bristol next week.

> Joe, from what I have seen in Bristol the grass is not going to be any
> greener. 


It'll probably be a bit less green when Joe gets there. :-))

-- 
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband

Joe Patrick wrote:


>>I hardly think a half-hourly service is shoddy
> 
> 
> I am not moaning about the frequency. I am moaning about the crowding
> and reliability, as well as the announcements of the platforms at
> Marylebone.
> Fortunately, I am moving to Bristol next week.
> 


Lucky Chiltern ;)

Cheers,
Steve

"Duncan"  wrote in message
news:fvd4g15leoon2g6l3rj4id844c73n6dtb6@4ax.com...

>
> The line is due to reopen on Sat, although there is no news on the
> long term plans for the Tesco store.
>

The line reopened today (Friday), according to the NR site, bnecause of
signal problems at Amersham.

Peter