I understand that the Welsh Highland Railway has reached its target of
raising 1 million in a very short time, and that the final phase of
extensions to Porthmadog via Beddgelert can now begin.

The completion of the fundraising unlocks the remainder of the grants
from various sources including the Lottery Heritage Fund, so that no
financial obstacles remain and the construction work can be started.

Now is the best time to enjoy the relative tranquility of Beddgelert
before the hordes of unwashed holiday camp dwellers arrive from
Porthmadog. 

;-)

Tony Polson wrote:

> I understand that the Welsh Highland Railway has reached its target of
> raising £1 million in a very short time, and that the final phase of
> extensions to Porthmadog via Beddgelert can now begin.
>
> The completion of the fundraising unlocks the remainder of the grants
> from various sources including the Lottery Heritage Fund, so that no
> financial obstacles remain and the construction work can be started.

>From the pictures on the RE and isengard websites, construction has

been going on for quite a time.

But this is jolly good news. I hope they let Russell take the first
train through.

Ian

>
> The completion of the fundraising unlocks the remainder of the grants
> from various sources including the Lottery Heritage Fund, so that no
> financial obstacles remain and the construction work can be started.
>


Do we know how they plan to interwork with Network Rail in order to
cross on the level with the Cambrian Coast line?

In message 
          Tony   Polson  wrote:


> Now is the best time to enjoy the relative tranquility of Beddgelert
> before the hordes of unwashed holiday camp dwellers arrive from
> Porthmadog. 
> 
> ;-) 

Oi!  I had a bath last New Year thank you very much.  Even though I
didn't need it!

Edward..

There will be a flat level crossing with interlocked signals. It will
be unique - the first heritage line to cross a Network Rail line on the
level.

Specifics are still being discussed with NR.

"Grumpy Old Man"  wrote in message
news:1126045472.285007.122870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> There will be a flat level crossing with interlocked signals. It will
> be unique - the first heritage line to cross a Network Rail line on the
> level.


Won't it be the first heritage line to cross a Network Rail line at all?


-- 
Ronnie
--
Have a great day...
....Have a Great Central day.
www.greatcentralrailway.com

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:bqhrh11d99a30mmaj5jb7hsffml53q4v8p@4ax.com...

>I understand that the Welsh Highland Railway has reached its target of
> raising 1 million in a very short time, and that the final phase of
> extensions to Porthmadog via Beddgelert can now begin.
>
> The completion of the fundraising unlocks the remainder of the grants
> from various sources including the Lottery Heritage Fund, so that no
> financial obstacles remain and the construction work can be started.
>
> Now is the best time to enjoy the relative tranquility of Beddgelert
> before the hordes of unwashed holiday camp dwellers arrive from
> Porthmadog.
>
> ;-)


At last the 'unwashed holiday camp dwellers' [who presumably have to travel 
by train from Pwllheli as there is no holiday camp in Porthmadog] may be 
using the WHR and not adding to the road traffic already clogging the narrow 
streets of Beddgelert.

Mick P

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 00:06:12, "Ronnie Clark"
 wrote:

>>
>> There will be a flat level crossing with interlocked signals. It will
>> be unique - the first heritage line to cross a Network Rail line on the
>> level.
>
>Won't it be the first heritage line to cross a Network Rail line at all?


Depends on the definition of a "heritage line".  The Ffestiniog
crosses the Cambrian Coast line at Minffordd.

Paul Harley


-- 
Remove "eeek" to contact me!

"mick pope"  wrote:

>
>At last the 'unwashed holiday camp dwellers' [who presumably have to travel 
>by train from Pwllheli as there is no holiday camp in Porthmadog] may be 
>using the WHR and not adding to the road traffic already clogging the narrow 
>streets of Beddgelert.



At present, the narrow and congested roads approaching (and within)
Beddgelert plus the tiny amount of car parking are enough to put many
of these people off visiting the town.  When the WHR is open, the only
thing stopping them will be the cost of fares.

I love Beddgelert.  Whether I will still feel the same way about the
town when the present clientele goes significantly downmarket is
another thing entirely.  

At least I will have the same option as with the Lake District, which
suffers from the same problem.  I just go out of season.  Even Bowness
and Ambleside are pleasant and refined in the autumn ... I am really
looking forward to my visit the week after next!

;-)

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 01:20:05 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>At least I will have the same option as with the Lake District, which
>suffers from the same problem.  I just go out of season.  Even Bowness
>and Ambleside are pleasant and refined in the autumn ... I am really
>looking forward to my visit the week after next!


When my sister was living in Ambleside, I was privileged to be able to
visit the Lake District (and stay with her) just before Christmas.
Lovely and quiet, and beautiful in a different way than in the summer.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Grumpy Old Man wrote:

> There will be a flat level crossing with interlocked signals. It will
> be unique - the first heritage line to cross a Network Rail line on the
> level.
>
> Specifics are still being discussed with NR.


I have read that the crossing is due to be installed next year, as part
of planned maintainance on the Coast line.

I have always found it surprising that the WHR seems to have obtained
the right to the level crossing with no fuss at all, at least in
public. Railtrack seemed to raise no objection that I am aware of, yet
one might have thought it's just the sort of thing they would have
fought against tooth and nail.

The only explanation that I can think of is that the present WHR has
inherited the right of the old WHR company (which I believe was never
wound up) to cross the standard gauge on the level..

Andy Kirkham

"Andy Kirkham"  wrote:


>I have read that the crossing is due to be installed next year, as part
>of planned maintainance on the Coast line.
>
>I have always found it surprising that the WHR seems to have obtained
>the right to the level crossing with no fuss at all, at least in
>public. Railtrack seemed to raise no objection that I am aware of, yet
>one might have thought it's just the sort of thing they would have
>fought against tooth and nail.



Why?  

What makes you think that Network Rail would have any reasonable
justification for refusing such a crossing? 

There's one at Newark, after all.  It is clearly visible from the A46.

wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:


>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 01:20:05 +0100, Tony   Polson 
>wrote:
>
>>At least I will have the same option as with the Lake District, which
>>suffers from the same problem.  I just go out of season.  Even Bowness
>>and Ambleside are pleasant and refined in the autumn ... I am really
>>looking forward to my visit the week after next!
>
>When my sister was living in Ambleside, I was privileged to be able to
>visit the Lake District (and stay with her) just before Christmas.
>Lovely and quiet, and beautiful in a different way than in the summer.



Absolutely.  Much more consistent weather too.

Tony Polson wrote:

> "Andy Kirkham"  wrote:
>
> >I have read that the crossing is due to be installed next year, as part
> >of planned maintainance on the Coast line.
> >
> >I have always found it surprising that the WHR seems to have obtained
> >the right to the level crossing with no fuss at all, at least in
> >public. Railtrack seemed to raise no objection that I am aware of, yet
> >one might have thought it's just the sort of thing they would have
> >fought against tooth and nail.
>
>
> Why?


It's an additional liability for them - a potential accident  site.


> What makes you think that Network Rail would have any reasonable
> justification for refusing such a crossing?


They could claim it was a safety risk, but they wouldn't necessarily
need a reasonable justification. They could just quote a ridiculously
high price to do the work. (perhaps they will!)


> There's one at Newark, after all.  It is clearly visible from the A46.


Yes, but they own and control both the routes at Newark. And I don't
imagine WHR trains will be fitted with TPWS.

One possible fact that might have a bearing on the issue is the fact 
that the historic crossing pre-dates Network Rail by a long time. In 
fact, the narrow gauge was there before the standard gauge...

Wasn't there a famous case based on this crossing that became case law?
People on this very newsgroup were quoting it with re. the Great Heck 
accident.


-- 
Richard Marsden
The LNER Encyclopedia
http://www.lner.info

Tony Polson wrote:

> "Andy Kirkham"  wrote:
>

> What makes you think that Network Rail would have any reasonable
> justification for refusing such a crossing?
>
> There's one at Newark, after all.  It is clearly visible from the A46.


Yes, but I think it's fair to say that there would no longer be one
there, if a way could be found to remove it. It's a tough engineering
proposition, as I recall. I'm sure you know about it, Tony :-)


-- 
Regards

Mike

"Planning is an unnatural process - it is much more fun to do something
else - and the nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as
a complete surprise, rather than being preceded by a period of worry
and depression".

Sir John Harvey Jones

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 17:49:01 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>I understand that the Welsh Highland Railway has reached its target of
>raising 1 million in a very short time, and that the final phase of
>extensions to Porthmadog via Beddgelert can now begin.
>

The 1 million is the second target set, after the original 600,000
target was passed last October. The appeal was launched in September
2004. The 600,000 is for the match funding to complete the route, the
400,000+, money is still coming in, for additional rolling stock.


>The completion of the fundraising unlocks the remainder of the grants
>from various sources including the Lottery Heritage Fund, so that no
>financial obstacles remain and the construction work can be started.


The Lottery Heritage Fund (Heritage Lottry Fund?) is not contributing
to the WHR. I think it has a policy of not contributing to
replicas/reinstatements. The 10.75 million scheme to complete the WHR
includes 5 million from Welsh Assembly Government budgets.


>Now is the best time to enjoy the relative tranquility of Beddgelert
>before the hordes of unwashed holiday camp dwellers arrive from
>Porthmadog. 
>


Why from Porthmadog? The biggest campsite in the area is already
located in Beddgelert Forest.

On 7 Sep 2005 01:38:08 -0700, "Andy Kirkham"
 wrote:


>
>I have always found it surprising that the WHR seems to have obtained
>the right to the level crossing with no fuss at all, at least in
>public. Railtrack seemed to raise no objection that I am aware of, yet
>one might have thought it's just the sort of thing they would have
>fought against tooth and nail.
>
>The only explanation that I can think of is that the present WHR has
>inherited the right of the old WHR company (which I believe was never
>wound up) to cross the standard gauge on the level..
>


Nothing to do with history, just that Railtrack as was (and HMRI)
accepted that such a crossing could be worked safely. My understanding
is that it will be interlocked with the level crossings either side
and that opperational clearances will be very generous in favour of
NR. Powers are contained in the 1999 WHR Transport & Works Order.

(The old WHR was wound up on 17th August 1999, the longest
receivership ever conducted by the Official Receiver.)

Andy Kirkham wrote:


> They could claim it was a safety risk, but they wouldn't necessarily
> need a reasonable justification. They could just quote a ridiculously
> high price to do the work. (perhaps they will!)
>


The WHR line(s) could be isolated from the NR line(s) by catch points
interlocked with signalling and controlled by Network Rail.

peter

"Peter Johnson"  wrote

>
> (The old WHR was wound up on 17th August 1999, the longest
> receivership ever conducted by the Official Receiver.)


Another lengthy railway receivership (though not by the Official Receiver)
was the Bishop's Castle Railway, which was operated by its receiver for 67
years - practically from the day it opened until it was closed in 1935.

Peter

"naked_draughtsman"  wrote:


>
>Andy Kirkham wrote:
>
>> They could claim it was a safety risk, but they wouldn't necessarily
>> need a reasonable justification. They could just quote a ridiculously
>> high price to do the work. (perhaps they will!)
>>
>
>The WHR line(s) could be isolated from the NR line(s) by catch points
>interlocked with signalling and controlled by Network Rail.



I have no doubt that the protection of Network Rail's line will be
done to a very high standard.

"m1ss_wh1te"  wrote:


>"Planning is an unnatural process - it is much more fun to do something
>else - and the nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as
>a complete surprise, rather than being preceded by a period of worry
>and depression".
>
>Sir John Harvey Jones



Harvey-Jones talked such eloquent rubbish.

;-)

"Mike Roebuck"  wrote:


>
>Tony Polson wrote:
>> "Andy Kirkham"  wrote:
>>
>
>> What makes you think that Network Rail would have any reasonable
>> justification for refusing such a crossing?
>>
>> There's one at Newark, after all.  It is clearly visible from the A46.
>
>Yes, but I think it's fair to say that there would no longer be one
>there, if a way could be found to remove it. It's a tough engineering
>proposition, as I recall. I'm sure you know about it, Tony :-)



Actually, no, I don't. But I do see it regularly as I pass on the A46.

;-)

Peter Johnson  wrote:

>
>Why from Porthmadog? The biggest campsite in the area is already
>located in Beddgelert Forest.



True.  But it attracts a rather different clientele.

Andy Kirkham wrote:



> I have read that the crossing is due to be installed next year, as part
> of planned maintainance on the Coast line.


That's what I heard, too. I also think I heard that the necessary
signalling changes will be happening earlier - this autumn - but that
could be a mis-hearing on my part.

At any rate, NR seem to be quite happy that a suitable system can be
devised, which is good news.

Ian

Andy Kirkham wrote:


> Yes, but they own and control both the routes at Newark. And I don't
> imagine WHR trains will be fitted with TPWS.


The main sticking point, I am told, is that NR need to know that a RE
train has cleared the crossing. That's relatively easily done when both
lines are NR, using track circuits, but harder in this case.

Ian

In message 
          Ian.usenet@talk21.com wrote:


> 
> Andy Kirkham wrote:
> 
> > Yes, but they own and control both the routes at Newark. And I don't
> > imagine WHR trains will be fitted with TPWS.
> 
> The main sticking point, I am told, is that NR need to know that a RE
> train has cleared the crossing. That's relatively easily done when both
> lines are NR, using track circuits, but harder in this case.
> 


Surely it's not difficult to fit track circuits to the relevant section of
the WHR.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

"Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
news:a7902ba74d%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...

> In message 
>          Ian.usenet@talk21.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Andy Kirkham wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, but they own and control both the routes at Newark. And I don't
>> > imagine WHR trains will be fitted with TPWS.
>>
>> The main sticking point, I am told, is that NR need to know that a RE
>> train has cleared the crossing. That's relatively easily done when both
>> lines are NR, using track circuits, but harder in this case.
>>
>
> Surely it's not difficult to fit track circuits to the relevant section of
> the WHR.
>

As I understand it, the relevant clearances will be proven using treadles, 
rather than track circuits, due to the difficulty of track circuiting the 
Welsh Highland's steel sleepers (custom made pads and biscuits as per main 
line would be prohibitively expensive in this situation) and the difficulty 
of track circuiting a near 90 degree crossing anyway. My impression of the 
planned possession for installation of the actual crossing is February 2006, 
although this isn't, AFAIK, set in stone - but it does coincide with a long 
planned possession for track renewals in Porthmadog. Signalling will 
probably be triggered (for NR trains) at the existing strike in for Traeth 
Mawr crossing in the Pwllelli bound direction, and by the existing TRTS / 
Level crossing switch for Porthmadog Crossing in the Harlech bound 
direction. WHR trains will trigger using treadles closer to the crossing, 
and it will almost certainly be first come first served on this basis. I 
believe that this is as safe as is possible, and surely part of Network 
Rail's acceptance of the crossing must be down to the expected paucity of 
trains on both lines.

Cheers,

John

The message 
from Tony   Polson  contains these words:


> I have no doubt that the protection of Network Rail's line will be
> done to a very high standard.


No doubt about that.  The side-on meeting of a Sprinter and a RE Garratt
wouldn't be in quite the same league as the meeting of a RH&DR loco and
a car.

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

"David Jackson"  wrote .

>
> No doubt about that.  The side-on meeting of a Sprinter and a RE Garratt
> wouldn't be in quite the same league as the meeting of a RH&DR loco and
> a car.
>

There used to be a flat crossing at Old Oak, where the WLR crosses the GWR.
In November 1855, because of a muddle with the signalling (like the GWR
signals weren't provided with lamps) a GWR freight ploughed through an LNW
freight. In 1860 the flat crossing was replaced with a bridge.

Peter

On 8/9/05 00:00, "Tony   Polson"  wrote:


> Peter Johnson  wrote:
>> 
>> Why from Porthmadog? The biggest campsite in the area is already
>> located in Beddgelert Forest.
> 
> True.  But it attracts a rather different clientele.


....the sort of people who ruin the character of small villages in beautiful
areas whilst believing they're somehow 'different to' or 'better than' other
tourists

Stimpy wrote:

> On 8/9/05 00:00, "Tony   Polson"  wrote:
>
> > Peter Johnson  wrote:
> >>
> >> Why from Porthmadog? The biggest campsite in the area is already
> >> located in Beddgelert Forest.
> >
> > True.  But it attracts a rather different clientele.
>
> ...the sort of people who ruin the character of small villages in beautiful
> areas whilst believing they're somehow 'different to' or 'better than' other
> tourists


Which reminds me of a sticker I saw on the back of a car some years ago
in Germany. It translated roughly as: "You're not *in* a traffic jam -
you *are* the traffic jam."

Andy Kirkham

In message <P%YTe.12924$vC4.5257@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>
          "John Savage"  wrote:


> 
> "Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
> news:a7902ba74d%rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> > In message 
> >          Ian.usenet@talk21.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Andy Kirkham wrote:
> >>
> >> > Yes, but they own and control both the routes at Newark. And I don't
> >> > imagine WHR trains will be fitted with TPWS.
> >>
> >> The main sticking point, I am told, is that NR need to know that a RE
> >> train has cleared the crossing. That's relatively easily done when both
> >> lines are NR, using track circuits, but harder in this case.
> >>
> >
> > Surely it's not difficult to fit track circuits to the relevant section of
> > the WHR.
> >
> As I understand it, the relevant clearances will be proven using treadles, 
> rather than track circuits, due to the difficulty of track circuiting the 
> Welsh Highland's steel sleepers (custom made pads and biscuits as per main 
> line would be prohibitively expensive in this situation) and the difficulty 
> of track circuiting a near 90 degree crossing anyway. My impression of the 
> planned possession for installation of the actual crossing is February 2006, 
> although this isn't, AFAIK, set in stone - but it does coincide with a long 
> planned possession for track renewals in Porthmadog. Signalling will 
> probably be triggered (for NR trains) at the existing strike in for Traeth 
> Mawr crossing in the Pwllelli bound direction, and by the existing TRTS / 
> Level crossing switch for Porthmadog Crossing in the Harlech bound 
> direction. WHR trains will trigger using treadles closer to the crossing, 
> and it will almost certainly be first come first served on this basis. I 
> believe that this is as safe as is possible, and surely part of Network 
> Rail's acceptance of the crossing must be down to the expected paucity of 
> trains on both lines.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> John 
> 
> 

The word here, in Port, is that this crossing will be like a
conventional level crossing, road-rail, in that gates will be normally
shut across the WHR line.  WHR will telephone Mach SB to request a
movement which Mach will permit provided the Harlech-Port section is
unoccupied.  NR line will be proved clear by the position of the gates.
Problem is that the length of section between Port and Harlech,
including 4(?) halts/stations will mean long waits until the section is
cleared.  WHR will have to construct their timetable with a copy of
ATW's one beside them.  I believe the occupation crossing for Minffordd
Granite Quarry is operated in the same way since an unfortunate incident
some years ago.

Edward..

naked_draughtsman wrote:

> Andy Kirkham wrote:
>
> > They could claim it was a safety risk, but they wouldn't necessarily
> > need a reasonable justification. They could just quote a ridiculously
> > high price to do the work. (perhaps they will!)
> >
>
> The WHR line(s) could be isolated from the NR line(s) by catch points
> interlocked with signalling and controlled by Network Rail.
>
> peter


A similar situation exists in the Queensland sugar-growing areas where
the main lines of Queensland Railways (3'6" gauge) are crossed by
various light tramways used for delivering sugar cane to the mills (ca.
2' 0" gauge).

One solution has been to use a drawbridge mechanism which raises and
lowers the tramway line *across* the main line, resting on steel
supports when lowered. The mechanism is interlocked with signals on the
main line.
See http://www.zelmeroz.com/albumquery/drawbridgex.htm for
illustrations.

If this solution were adopted by the WHR, a further adornment might be
considered, in the form of a Victorian Gothic archway complete with
portcullis and holes for pouring boiling oil through. That should not
only give additional protection to trains and add to the romantic
atmosphere of the scene, but also come in useful in repelling those
unwashed hordes from that holiday camp at Porthmadog.

Cordially,

Andrew Clarke
canberra

"Andrew Clarke"  wrote:


>If this solution were adopted by the WHR, a further adornment might be
>considered, in the form of a Victorian Gothic archway complete with
>portcullis and holes for pouring boiling oil through. That should not
>only give additional protection to trains and add to the romantic
>atmosphere of the scene, but also come in useful in repelling those
>unwashed hordes from that holiday camp at Porthmadog.



Boiling oil is too good for them.  They would probably take along
their pint glasses and drink the stuff - it surely can't be any worse
to drink than keg beer.

;-)