Sadly, the death toll has now risen to 'at least 64', as well as many more injured.

I have amended the heading of this topic accordingly.

CfN.

 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwj342k62exyo

 
Bridge data: the site below is useful, as canal bridge numbers, on maps, can be elusive/absent.

Thinking back a couple of years, a phone call from people on the boat to the effect 'We've passed bridge 122 on the 15 mile pound, see you later' caused some head scratching while I found out exactly where bridge 122 might be.

The site below doesn't help with the two Sydney Gardens structures, mind. I recall checking the identification of the tunnel with the issue, and not using A.I. either. K&A bridge numbers are numbered east to west, and, these two structures are numbered west to east... apparently, Bruce Tunnel, on the summit, is referred to as number 3, so the numbering of the two in Sydney Gardens may be... questionable, but cast in stone.

https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/3bad9280-3167-4a8f-ad12-4fa93297bf51/bridges

 
Thank you for that confirmation that you and Lisa are safe, grahame. 

Sadly, the death toll is increasing. From the BBC live news report (which does contain some upsetting scenes):


CfN.

 

I'd not be surprised in the least bit if the Western management wanted to throttle the Southern road to Exeter (The Mule).  You have only to look at what they did to their own lines with closure of stations and routes wholesale, and singling to "save money".  The S&D was wiped out without much thought.

Having encountered some of the senior management through the 1970s and their unimaginative attitudes, it's quite believable that they just wanted to unburden themselves of loss-making routes and stations.  They were all true believers in the numbers that the closure-orientated accountants came up with.  It's widely understood that the books were cooked to help make the case for closures.

The easy thing to do was to propose closures.  In preference to producing imaginative ways of using the assets and infrastructure to operate the railway less expensively and boost income.

The theory would have been that singling The Mule (with a starting point exactly on the regional boundary at Wilton) and reduction of the service on that route would drive more traffic onto the Western line.  I'm not sure how much that happened.  I suspect that people would have either tolerated the thin service or resorted to their cars for the full journey, rather than bookend a journey to/from London with car or 'bus travel to/from a station remote from where they were starting from or wanted to be

 
For the absence of doubt, Lisa and I are safe in Portugal.  May be interesting getting home as that's potentially on a line we would have used.

 
Are you sure about that? 

 
More likely I've got it wrong. It's either 1 or 2 though.

 
Live reporting, from the BBC:

 
Castle Cary to Dorchester singled May 1868

 
Update here: https://bathnewseum.com/2026/10/27/canal-tunnel-update/

BTW it says "Officially known as the Bath Number 1 tunnel" - have they got that wrong?

 

Damn!

In my keenness to plough ahead with digging and equipping my bunker I overlooked the rather obvious possibility of my waterworks being blown up by the enemy....................back to the drawing board!

(I have however picked up some discounted gherkins, marmalade and garlic as of yesterday thanks to the generosity of the Chancellor so my hard tack and salted beef may be a little more palatable as I await the sounding of the all clear, I am hoping for similar reductions in the duty on certain fortified wines later so that I can stock up a little more) 

 

Possibly explains the need for reinforcement work to the embankments?

 

I am NOT an expert on what happened and what didn't ... but I do note that 1967 was also when Thngley Junction to Bradford Junction and Swindon to Kemble were singled, so the singling looks like it was part of a wider process;  whether there was any bias towards being more Draconian on the Salisbury to Exeter line, I know not.

When was Castle Cary to Dorchester singled?

 


This page is - VERY MUCH used, and thank you for continued modernisations / updates.

A couple of days ago, I made some security updates that set a net slightly too wide, and I have had a number of reports of people being forbidden from the page.   I have put in an update - a tunnel through the new, added security and it should be working again.   https://www.firstgreatwestern.info/acronyms.html

 
It would NOT have to be nuclear bomb to require use of a reserve of water..
Mechanical failures, water works blown up the enemy, power failure etc. are other possibilities

 
No, I didn't go for such an £18.50 'stroll', in the end. I'm sure they still managed very well without me.

 
I take your point, ChrisB.

I have therefore amended (yet again) the heading of this topic.

CfN.

 

I know: that's why I got the excellent Faresaver X34 10:27 bus service from Melksham into Chippenham this morning - and free, with my 'old git' bus pass.

 
With respect, you are rather assuming that the loft's water container will survive the 'survival incident'.

Personally, I would prefer the basement. Big problem:- I don't have a basement; nor a hectare out the back to dig a bunker.

I live within 2 miles of an active secret RAF base, that mainly flies helicopters, and I expect it to be high on the target list of our country's enemies.  I know it is here, and its co-ordinates, and so does Ivan.

My food stockpile will be accessed if: 1: Ivan's rockets have had all of their guidance systems reservoirs depleted of their operational ethanol operating environment (oh, and also tritium with its rather short half life), 2: their rocket propulsion systems work as originally planned (given years of planned maintenance), and 3: their navigation is top notch (dodgy from past performance).

I will be either Ground Zero or looking for window glass replacement.

I have a wind-up radio.

But most of all, a sensible view of what happens if the balloon goes up. My initial survival might be the worst option..

 

In cases like these, where the professionals actually do the naming, I would strongly suggest that we report what they do, not what the press would like them to do!

 
I've never understood how singling an existing line gives any significant saving, except in the short-term if track needs imminent replacement or a problem such as subsidence can be avoided by taking one track out of use.  Longer term there will be minor savings such as less track to inspect, but double track would broadly deteriorate at half the speed with each line only having half the usage, and the track is less complex with fewer sets of points to maintain or go wrong at passing places.  Knock-on delays if one train is late and more widely the lack of flexibility in timetabling when trains can only pass at specific points on single tracks will also incur costs.

 

It is possible to install a reserve water supply, using cheap mains water, do this as follows.
Install a cold water tank in the loft, filled automatically from the mains water supply via a ball valve.
Connect an outlet this tank about half way up, use this to supply toilet flushing and the washing machine this will ensure regular use of the water and avoid stagnation.
Connect a second outlet near the bottom of the tank, and use microbore copper pipe, supply a hidden tap for reserve drinking water. Copper pipe is preferable to plastic as it is slightly anti bacterial.
 This innvolves a fair bit of DIY but it ensures a reserve of fresh water forever.

 
Born in Crewkerne and lived there until the late 1960s. My recollection that the WR took over the running of the train service at the change of timetable in autumn 1964. One week it was virtually all steam bar a couple of services. With the timetable change in September the Warships had taken over, with a couple of other working by Hymek and dmu. The two surveys we took seem to confirm that.
The Warships were working over the line before that. In August 1964,  D816 was on the 07.30 Exeter Waterloo on the 29th of August. On the same date the 09.30 Exmouth -Waterloo was hauled by D831. The 10.33 Exeter-Yeovil was a dmu, as was its return working to Exeter. D831 returned on the Brighton Plymouth, changing from a Pacific at Salisbury. D816 returned on the 13.00 Waterloo. The Yeovil shuttle was 6430. (Traffic survey at Yeovil Junction 07.30 to 21.44)
On December 24 1964 at Salisbury from 08.20 to 17.00.
 D816 06.20 Exd to Wat, D824 07.30 Exd to Wat, D804 09.00 Wat to Exd, dmu 09.48 Exd to Sal, D810 10.30 Exd to Sal and 34051 to Wat. D869 11.00 Wat to Exd, D813 Brighton to Plymouth (34039 from Brighton). Dmu 10.05 Okehampton to Salisbury, D816 13.00 Wat to Exd, D7046 10.55 Plymouth to Brighton/Portsmouth, change to 34039 at Salisbury. Train to Ilfracombe at 16.20 34012 change to D7046 to the west. D815 14.30 Exd to Wat. D824 15.00 Wat to Exd
All the SR services were steam hauled.
Feinnes p99 onwards gives his side of the story.
Singling took place in 1967 but it was realised that more double track was needed. Luckily the line between Yeovil and Templecombe was still double track so the closed line was reopened.

http://www.trainweb.org/railwest/railco/sr/se1967.html for further detail.

 

Delays to services between London Paddington and Reading

Following trespassers on the railway between London Paddington and Reading all lines have now reopened.

Train services running to and from these stations are returning to normal. Disruption is expected until the end of the day.

 

 
I am on a suburban train to Porto (so please excuse any typos)  - been to Braga for a couple of hours.  And coming back to the station, I knew there was a train about every hour.  With that frequency, I hadn't bothered to check on my return train simple turning up at the station.  Murphy's law applied, and I walked into an empty Braga station just after the train had left.   Never mind - for an occasional journey, a 58 minute wait wasn't a problem and my laptop, a chance to observe, and a cup of coffee the time soon passed.   No rush to do anything back in Porto.

So - what IS sufficient frequency for a service? 

A service with gaps significnatly longer than an hour only works for a very small proportion of people (and - Melksham note - thats a gap between when trains run and not when they are timetabled but get cancelled as both the 08:02 and 10:02 were this morning).

With a passing loop around Beanacre, an hourly passenger service could be supported - that's double the current service, and running "clock face".  And today I have received a notification that FIRST Great Western Limited is replaced as operator Great Western Railway Limited from 13th December - nationalisation that we have known is coming.  I - hope - that the reliability issues (trains running to timetable) will be sorted out, but I lack any convictions that they will be for that reason.

What the loop WOULD do is double the service and halve the delay when things go wrong.   Actually, it could be rather better - trains out of step including freights would have much shorter (and less obstructive tendencies) waits when something coming the other way is held up - freight trains are REALLY unreliable to the timetabble - often early or late. Futhemore, only 2 trains would be needed to provide the hourly Swindon to Westbury service; without a loop (and without frwight) it would need 3 trains as they have to pass somewhere, and could not do so on the single line.

Currenly trains leave Swindon at 06:03, 08:45, 11:05, 13:14, 15:14, 17:45, 18:44 20:12 and 22:31 and leave Westbury at 07:05, 07:45, 09:45, 12:17, 14:18, 16:23, 18:37 20:06 and 21:16. Just imagine if they left BOTH ends at those time - so that's from Swindon at 06:03, 07:05, 07:45, 08:45, 09:45, 11:05, 12:17, 13:14, 14:18, 15:14, 16:23, 17:45, 18:40, 20:12, 21:16 and 22:31 and Westbury at 06:03, 07:05, 07:45, 08:45, 09:45, 11:05, 12:17, 13:14, 14:18, 15:14, 16:23, 17:45, 18:40, 20:06, 21:16 and 22:31 ... look at all the gaps filled!



Pictured - the HOURLY train from Porto has just arrived in Braga and - oh look - the crowds are flowimg odd. It works!

 
It was interesting to see how these members of the House of Lords could sit around the committee table, and (notwithstanding their different political allegiances) have a civilised and constructive discussion with a remarkable degree of cross-party agreement. Possibly it was easier for milords Young, Grayling and Harper to support this freed from the departmental and Treasury pressures of office?

But, notwithstanding Lord Hendy's commitment, it is difficult to see priority being given to the constructive re-use or devotion of much valuable resource to these assets if they do end up in GBR's ownership. I have had recent experience of dealing with CRT on a "legacy" site, and temper my disappointment with the slowness of their actions by the thought of the vast estate of current and former canal assets (quite a few of which carry considerable potential liability if something fails, as has happened on more than one occasion in recent years) for which they are responsible. I am not sure that moving assets from one balance sheet to another does much to help safeguard them in a world when cost is king, and there are many calls on resources.

 
Many thanks for all the inputs.     Whilst 100% of you visit from the UK ... at least some of the time ... there's a substantial number from time to time outside the UK and all sorts of technological elements too.    Traffic has been very heavy of late, with numerous automated accesses failing to admit that they are automated - rather faking what type or browser that are, and doing in via all sorts of distributed places.  I am saying "oy" to a number of these - purely to keep traffic down and prevent congestion / gridlock but they are so hard to identify ...

 
From my email ...


and