Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts!
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts!
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
On 24/01/2026 12:48, Graeme Wall wrote:
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts!
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
With storms likely to become increasingly ferocious, how long before the Dawlish & Teignmouth seafronts & railway are washed away ?
20 or 200 years, or more ?
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts!
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
A train window got damaged on Friday night.
The glass though broken remained reasonably in place but the structure
around the window was badly deformed .
Sorry its a Reach link, can?t find another one.
<https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/ultra-rare-black-alert-issued-10774504.amp>
On 24/01/2026 14:33, Bevan Price wrote:
On 24/01/2026 12:48, Graeme Wall wrote:
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts!
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
With storms likely to become increasingly ferocious, how long before the
Dawlish & Teignmouth seafronts & railway are washed away ?
20 or 200 years, or more ?
From what I saw of the storm last night it is more likely to 20
years... If that long.
The decision not to create an alternative route seems more stupid each year.
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts!
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
On 24/01/2026 15:27, Marland wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts!A train window got damaged on Friday night.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
The glass though broken remained reasonably in place but the structure
around the window was badly deformed .
Sorry its a Reach link, can?t find another one.
<https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/ultra-rare-black-alert-issue >>d-10774504.amp>
It is now been announced that the line will not be opened today but
they're not saying why.
In message <10l2f2m$nlr5$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:48:22 on Sat, 24 Jan
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts!
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
No mention of East Anglia!
"A Met Office yellow warning for rain is in place across Devon,
Cornwall, south-west Somerset, west Dorset and South Wales until 22:00
GMT. The Environment Agency said flood warnings were in place across the south Devon and south Cornwall coasts."
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10l2f2m$nlr5$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:48:22 on Sat, 24 Jan
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts!
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
No mention of East Anglia!
"A Met Office yellow warning for rain is in place across Devon,
Cornwall, south-west Somerset, west Dorset and South Wales until 22:00
GMT. The Environment Agency said flood warnings were in place across the
south Devon and south Cornwall coasts."
So is there a lot of rain in East Anglia? Have the Met Office and NR got
it wrong again?
In message <10l321t$10stl$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:12:13 on Sat, 24 Jan
2026, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10l2f2m$nlr5$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:48:22 on Sat, 24 Jan
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts!
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
No mention of East Anglia!
"A Met Office yellow warning for rain is in place across Devon,
Cornwall, south-west Somerset, west Dorset and South Wales until 22:00
GMT. The Environment Agency said flood warnings were in place across the >>> south Devon and south Cornwall coasts."
So is there a lot of rain in East Anglia?ÿ Have the Met Office and NR got
it wrong again?
Whoosh!
On 24/01/2026 18:26, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l321t$10stl$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:12:13 on Sat, 24
Jan 2026, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10l2f2m$nlr5$2@dont-email.me>, at 12:48:22 on Sat, 24 Jan
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts!
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
No mention of East Anglia!
"A Met Office yellow warning for rain is in place across Devon,
Cornwall, south-west Somerset, west Dorset and South Wales until 22:00 >>>> GMT. The Environment Agency said flood warnings were in place across the >>>> south Devon and south Cornwall coasts."
So is there a lot of rain in East Anglia?? Have the Met Office and NR got >>> it wrong again?
Whoosh!
Since this severe weather was not in Ely or Cambridge or wherever you
are living you obviously don't care. You are the most fucking selfish >person I've come across in my life.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts!
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
A train window got damaged on Friday night.
The glass though broken remained reasonably in place but the structure
around the window was badly deformed .
Sorry its a Reach link, can?t find another one.
<https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/ultra-rare-black-alert-issued-10774504.amp>
GH
On 24/01/2026 15:27, Marland wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts!
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
A train window got damaged on Friday night.
The glass though broken remained reasonably in place but the structure
around the window was badly deformed .
Sorry itsÿÿ a Reach link, can?t find another one.
<https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/ultra-rare-black-alert-issued-10774504.amp>
GH
Some pictures here that do not seem to be behind a paywall.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/flying-debris-smashes-trains-window-33294064
On 24/01/2026 14:33, Bevan Price wrote:
On 24/01/2026 12:48, Graeme Wall wrote:
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts!
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
With storms likely to become increasingly ferocious, how long before the
Dawlish & Teignmouth seafronts & railway are washed away ?
20 or 200 years, or more ?
From what I saw of the storm last night it is more likely to 20
years... If that long.
The decision not to create an alternative route seems more stupid each year.
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 24/01/2026 14:33, Bevan Price wrote:
On 24/01/2026 12:48, Graeme Wall wrote:
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts!
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
With storms likely to become increasingly ferocious, how long before the >> Dawlish & Teignmouth seafronts & railway are washed away ?
20 or 200 years, or more ?
From what I saw of the storm last night it is more likely to 20
years... If that long.
The decision not to create an alternative route seems more stupid each year.
There is some talk about a breakwater. Wouldn?t that be a lot cheaper than
a new railway?
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 16:51:32 +0000
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 24/01/2026 14:33, Bevan Price wrote:
On 24/01/2026 12:48, Graeme Wall wrote:
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts!
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
With storms likely to become increasingly ferocious, how long before
the Dawlish & Teignmouth seafronts & railway are washed away ?
20 or 200 years, or more ?
From what I saw of the storm last night it is more likely to 20
years...ÿ If that long.
The decision not to create an alternative route seems more stupid each
year.
And would cost a tiny fraction of HS2.
On 25/01/2026 08:27, JMB99 wrote: >https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/flying-debris-smashes-trains-window-
33294064
Pay up-or we will fill your computer with c**p.
On 25/01/2026 09:07, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 16:51:32 +0000
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 24/01/2026 14:33, Bevan Price wrote:
On 24/01/2026 12:48, Graeme Wall wrote:
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts!
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
With storms likely to become increasingly ferocious, how long before
the Dawlish & Teignmouth seafronts & railway are washed away ?
20 or 200 years, or more ?
From what I saw of the storm last night it is more likely to 20
years...ÿ If that long.
The decision not to create an alternative route seems more stupid each
year.
And would cost a tiny fraction of HS2.
Even cheaper to abandon the railway west of Exeter.
On 25/01/2026 09:07, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 16:51:32 +0000
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 24/01/2026 14:33, Bevan Price wrote:
On 24/01/2026 12:48, Graeme Wall wrote:
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts!
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
With storms likely to become increasingly ferocious, how long
before the Dawlish & Teignmouth seafronts & railway are washed away ?
20 or 200 years, or more ?
From what I saw of the storm last night it is more likely to 20 >>>years...? If that long.
The decision not to create an alternative route seems more stupid
each year.
And would cost a tiny fraction of HS2.
Even cheaper to abandon the railway west of Exeter.
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:02:41 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/01/2026 08:27, JMB99 wrote:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/flying-debris-smashes-
trains-window-
33294064
Pay up-or we will fill your computer with c**p.
Pictures wouldn't load for me anyway. Had a quick look at the page source, usual load of auto generated over complicated unnecessary crap that
clearly doesn't work properly.
On 25/01/2026 09:13, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:02:41 +0000Auntie has some pictures here:- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8gldd9zyyo
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/01/2026 08:27, JMB99 wrote:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/flying-debris-smashes-
trains-window-
33294064
Pay up-or we will fill your computer with c**p.
Pictures wouldn't load for me anyway. Had a quick look at the page
source,
usual load of auto generated over complicated unnecessary crap that
clearly doesn't work properly.
The text is out of date as all trains are now using the up line.
As you can see from the pictures the Subject is incorrect and the
seawall has *NOT* collapsed.ÿ All that has collapsed is a wall between
the railway line and the footpath on top of the sea defences.
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:09:52 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/01/2026 09:07, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 16:51:32 +0000
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 24/01/2026 14:33, Bevan Price wrote:
On 24/01/2026 12:48, Graeme Wall wrote:
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts! >>>>>>
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
With storms likely to become increasingly ferocious, how long before >>>>> the Dawlish & Teignmouth seafronts & railway are washed away ?
20 or 200 years, or more ?
From what I saw of the storm last night it is more likely to 20
years...ÿ If that long.
The decision not to create an alternative route seems more stupid each >>>> year.
And would cost a tiny fraction of HS2.
Even cheaper to abandon the railway west of Exeter.
Or just bin the entire UK railway system.
Meanwhile, opening the closed section from Oakhampton via Tavistock would
not only provide a diversionary route but would be a great benefit to the people who live in Tavistock. Looking at google maps almost all of the route from Meldon - the current limit of the track - via Tavistock to Bere Alston looks in situ so in the scheme of things should cost buttons to reopen unless one of the viaducts is about to fall down.
Looking at google maps almost all of the route from Meldon - the
current limit of the track - via Tavistock to Bere Alston looks in situ
so in the scheme of things should cost buttons to reopen unless one of
the viaducts is about to fall down.
Auntie has some pictures here:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8gldd9zyyo
The text is out of date as all trains are now using the up line.
As you can see from the pictures the Subject is incorrect and the >>seawall has *NOT* collapsed.? All that has collapsed is a wall between
the railway line and the footpath on top of the sea defences.
In what sense is that wall not part of the seawall?
In message <10l4n8o$1h9ab$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:20:24 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Looking at google maps almost all of the route from Meldon - the
current limit of the track - via Tavistock to Bere Alston looks in situ
so in the scheme of things should cost buttons to reopen unless one of
the viaducts is about to fall down.
Oddly enough, Network Rail has published a detailed report called "West
of Exeter Route Resilience Study".
Meanwhile the Meldon viaduct which was originally built as a single
line, and doubled in 1879, had speed and weight restrictions. It
reverted to single track, with the 20 miles between Meldon Quarry and Okehampton being lifted in the late 60's.
The viaduct was "condemned" in the early 90's and is now part of the "Granite Trail" cycling route. There are some of the NIMBYs who would
have step aside should there be any re-opening of the *line*. A brand
new viaduct would have to be built.
The council has taken over maintenance of the viaduct, and estimates œ3m needs to be spent fairly soon, just to keep it a cycle route.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10l4n8o$1h9ab$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:20:24 on Sun, 25 Jan 2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Looking at google maps almost all of the route from Meldon - the
current limit of the track - via Tavistock to Bere Alston looks in situ >> so in the scheme of things should cost buttons to reopen unless one of
the viaducts is about to fall down.
Oddly enough, Network Rail has published a detailed report called "West
of Exeter Route Resilience Study".
Meanwhile the Meldon viaduct which was originally built as a single
line, and doubled in 1879, had speed and weight restrictions. It
reverted to single track, with the 20 miles between Meldon Quarry and Okehampton being lifted in the late 60's.
Was the track lifted in the late 60s? If so, how did the quarry continue
to use it? How did I get to Meldon Viaduct station by direct train from London in 2006, and again in 2017?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/33127611040/in/album-72157681556601715
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/51228575486/in/album-72157712799947003
In fact, the track was lifted on the viaduct and westward, but not between Meldon and Okehampton.
The viaduct was "condemned" in the early 90's and is now part of the "Granite Trail" cycling route. There are some of the NIMBYs who would
have step aside should there be any re-opening of the *line*. A brand
new viaduct would have to be built.
They wouldn?t like that either, as it would obscure the views of the scheduled monument.
Meanwhile the Meldon viaduct which was originally built as a single
line, and doubled in 1879, had speed and weight restrictions. It
reverted to single track, with the 20 miles between Meldon Quarry and
Okehampton being lifted in the late 60's.
Was the track lifted in the late 60s? If so, how did the quarry continue
to use it? How did I get to Meldon Viaduct station by direct train from >London in 2006, and again in 2017?
In message <cmndR.12181$eEW.6192@fx16.ams1>, at 11:44:08 on Sun, 25 Jan 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Meanwhile the Meldon viaduct which was originally built as a single
line, and doubled in 1879, had speed and weight restrictions. It
reverted to single track, with the 20 miles between Meldon Quarry and
Okehampton being lifted in the late 60's.
Was the track lifted in the late 60s? If so, how did the quarry continue
to use it? How did I get to Meldon Viaduct station by direct train from
London in 2006, and again in 2017?
I copying from a Facebook posting earlier today by James Vine of "Great Western Railway Enthusiasts". Perhaps you should ask him.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <cmndR.12181$eEW.6192@fx16.ams1>, at 11:44:08 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Meanwhile the Meldon viaduct which was originally built as a single
line, and doubled in 1879, had speed and weight restrictions. It
reverted to single track, with the 20 miles between Meldon Quarry and
Okehampton being lifted in the late 60's.
Was the track lifted in the late 60s? If so, how did the quarry continue >>> to use it? How did I get to Meldon Viaduct station by direct train from >>> London in 2006, and again in 2017?
I copying from a Facebook posting earlier today by James Vine of "Great
Western Railway Enthusiasts". Perhaps you should ask him.
No, the you?re the one who posted the falsehood. The buck stops with you.
If you choose to use unattributed, unreliable sources, that?s your problem. >But it just confirms that your postings are usually wrong and so can?t be >believed.
In message <10l4ml0$1gu82$2@dont-email.me>, at 09:09:52 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 09:07, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 16:51:32 +0000
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> gabbled:
On 24/01/2026 14:33, Bevan Price wrote:
On 24/01/2026 12:48, Graeme Wall wrote:
Perhaps it is just as well that NR paid attention to the forecasts! >>>>>>
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qp5ydq0zqo>
With storms likely to become increasingly ferocious, how long
beforeÿ the Dawlish & Teignmouth seafronts & railway are washed away ? >>>>>
20 or 200 years, or more ?
From what I saw of the storm last night it is more likely to 20
years...ÿ If that long.
The decision not to create an alternative route seems more stupid
eachÿ year.
ÿAnd would cost a tiny fraction of HS2.
Even cheaper to abandon the railway west of Exeter.
Back in the day when railways were first privatised, someone made a bet
with me that within a couple of years the line beyond Plymouth would be abandoned as uneconomic. Sadly I couldn't collect my winnings because I forgot who they were!
As for the alternative inland route, why don't we make a bargain - we'll build it cheaply and quickly, as long as every single NIMBY who objects
to the part near them is ignored. Even if it means bulldozing their house.
In message <6_ndR.25638$s_zc.9068@fx15.ams1>, at 12:26:42 on Sun, 25 Jan 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <cmndR.12181$eEW.6192@fx16.ams1>, at 11:44:08 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Meanwhile the Meldon viaduct which was originally built as a single
line, and doubled in 1879, had speed and weight restrictions. It
reverted to single track, with the 20 miles between Meldon Quarry and >>>> Okehampton being lifted in the late 60's.
Was the track lifted in the late 60s? If so, how did the quarry continue >>> to use it? How did I get to Meldon Viaduct station by direct train from >>> London in 2006, and again in 2017?
I copying from a Facebook posting earlier today by James Vine of "Great
Western Railway Enthusiasts". Perhaps you should ask him.
No, the you?re the one who posted the falsehood. The buck stops with you.
If you choose to use unattributed, unreliable sources, that?s your problem. >But it just confirms that your postings are usually wrong and so can?t be >believed.
Here I am trying to be helpful, quoting a source (also repeated by the
local tourist agency).
Anyway, put a sock back in that potty-mouth of yours, and reflect on
whether the problem here is that he meant "Bere Alston", at which point
all the rest is consistent.
The main take-away is that the viaduct is out of use as a railway,
barely even safe for cyclists, and the track's lifted for the next
twenty miles south.
In message <6_ndR.25638$s_zc.9068@fx15.ams1>, at 12:26:42 on Sun, 25 Jan >2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <cmndR.12181$eEW.6192@fx16.ams1>, at 11:44:08 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Meanwhile the Meldon viaduct which was originally built as a single
line, and doubled in 1879, had speed and weight restrictions. It
reverted to single track, with the 20 miles between Meldon Quarry and >>>>> Okehampton being lifted in the late 60's.
Was the track lifted in the late 60s? If so, how did the quarry continue >>>> to use it? How did I get to Meldon Viaduct station by direct train from >>>> London in 2006, and again in 2017?
I copying from a Facebook posting earlier today by James Vine of "Great
Western Railway Enthusiasts". Perhaps you should ask him.
No, the you?re the one who posted the falsehood. The buck stops with you.
If you choose to use unattributed, unreliable sources, that?s your problem. >>But it just confirms that your postings are usually wrong and so can?t be >>believed.
Here I am trying to be helpful, quoting a source (also repeated by the
local tourist agency).
Anyway, put a sock back in that potty-mouth
of yours, and reflect on
whether the problem here is that he meant "Bere Alston", at which point
all the rest is consistent.
The main take-away is that the viaduct is out of use as a railway,
barely even safe for cyclists, and the track's lifted for the next
twenty miles south.
On 25/01/2026 09:13, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:02:41 +0000Auntie has some pictures here:- >https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8gldd9zyyo
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/01/2026 08:27, JMB99 wrote:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/flying-debris-smashes-
trains-window-
33294064
Pay up-or we will fill your computer with c**p.
Pictures wouldn't load for me anyway. Had a quick look at the page source, >> usual load of auto generated over complicated unnecessary crap that
clearly doesn't work properly.
The text is out of date as all trains are now using the up line.
As you can see from the pictures the Subject is incorrect and the
seawall has *NOT* collapsed. All that has collapsed is a wall between
the railway line and the footpath on top of the sea defences.
The overall problem we face now is the extreme right wing politicians of >Reform and the Conservatives and the such like don't believe in global >warming at all. Labour is so right wing I don't think many of their >politicians believe in global warming either as demonstrated by their >watering down of green policies. The result is our sea defences are
starved of money.
Mind you if Dawlish was in the home counties money would be poured into it.
I was surprised at what I saw on the Dawlish webcams. Some of the waves >were so close that the following waves did overtop the defences and
crossed both the railway and adjacent road.
Line is reported to have re-opened now. Damage appears to be superficial (but a couple of short bits of wall will need rebuilding).
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <6_ndR.25638$s_zc.9068@fx15.ams1>, at 12:26:42 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <cmndR.12181$eEW.6192@fx16.ams1>, at 11:44:08 on Sun, 25 Jan >> >> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Meanwhile the Meldon viaduct which was originally built as a single
line, and doubled in 1879, had speed and weight restrictions. It
reverted to single track, with the 20 miles between Meldon Quarry and >> >>>> Okehampton being lifted in the late 60's.
Was the track lifted in the late 60s? If so, how did the quarry continue
to use it? How did I get to Meldon Viaduct station by direct train from >> >>> London in 2006, and again in 2017?
I copying from a Facebook posting earlier today by James Vine of "Great >> >> Western Railway Enthusiasts". Perhaps you should ask him.
No, the you?re the one who posted the falsehood. The buck stops with you. >> >
If you choose to use unattributed, unreliable sources, that?s your problem. >> >But it just confirms that your postings are usually wrong and so can?t be >> >believed.
Here I am trying to be helpful, quoting a source (also repeated by the
local tourist agency).
Anyway, put a sock back in that potty-mouth of yours, and reflect on
whether the problem here is that he meant "Bere Alston", at which point
all the rest is consistent.
The main take-away is that the viaduct is out of use as a railway,
barely even safe for cyclists, and the track's lifted for the next
twenty miles south.
The A30 manages to cross the valley without needing a viaduct, so I suspect
a new line could run parallel with that and skip the viaduct completely.
The route is a cycle path for a good part, which means it's more or less >intact. You Just (TM) need to have a fight with the cyclists to use it.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <6_ndR.25638$s_zc.9068@fx15.ams1>, at 12:26:42 on Sun, 25 Jan 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <cmndR.12181$eEW.6192@fx16.ams1>, at 11:44:08 on Sun, 25 Jan >> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Meanwhile the Meldon viaduct which was originally built as a single >>>> line, and doubled in 1879, had speed and weight restrictions. It
reverted to single track, with the 20 miles between Meldon Quarry and >>>> Okehampton being lifted in the late 60's.
Was the track lifted in the late 60s? If so, how did the quarry continue
to use it? How did I get to Meldon Viaduct station by direct train from
London in 2006, and again in 2017?
I copying from a Facebook posting earlier today by James Vine of "Great >> Western Railway Enthusiasts". Perhaps you should ask him.
No, the you?re the one who posted the falsehood. The buck stops with you.
If you choose to use unattributed, unreliable sources, that?s your problem.
But it just confirms that your postings are usually wrong and so can?t be >believed.
Here I am trying to be helpful, quoting a source (also repeated by the local tourist agency).
Anyway, put a sock back in that potty-mouth of yours, and reflect on whether the problem here is that he meant "Bere Alston", at which point all the rest is consistent.
The main take-away is that the viaduct is out of use as a railway,
barely even safe for cyclists, and the track's lifted for the next
twenty miles south.
The A30 manages to cross the valley without needing a viaduct, so I suspect
a new line could run parallel with that and skip the viaduct completely.
Back in the day when railways were first privatised, someone made aThe decision not to create an alternative route seems more stupid >>>>>each? year.
?And would cost a tiny fraction of HS2.
Even cheaper to abandon the railway west of Exeter.
bet with me that within a couple of years the line beyond Plymouth
would be abandoned as uneconomic. Sadly I couldn't collect my
winnings because I forgot who they were!
As for the alternative inland route, why don't we make a bargain -
we'll build it cheaply and quickly, as long as every single NIMBY who >>objects to the part near them is ignored. Even if it means bulldozing >>their house.
Bulldoze houses? That is in contrast to an earlier posting "Looking at >google maps almost all of the route from Meldon - the current limit of
the track - via Tavistock to Bere Alston looks in situ so in the scheme
of things should cost buttons to reopen unless one of the viaducts is
about to fall down."
I do not know how true either the above or your post are true. But you, >Roland, are just trying to inflame opinions rather than contributing to
the thread.
On 25/01/2026 10:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Line is reported to have re-opened now. Damage appears to be
superficial (but a couple of short bits of wall will need rebuilding).
Up to 80 feet of damaged wall, I understand.
In message <10l4n8o$1h9ab$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:20:24 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Looking at google maps almost all of the route from Meldon - the
current limit of the track - via Tavistock to Bere Alston looks in situ
so in the scheme of things should cost buttons to reopen unless one of
the viaducts is about to fall down.
Oddly enough, Network Rail has published a detailed report called "West
of Exeter Route Resilience Study".
Meanwhile the Meldon viaduct which was originally built as a single
line, and doubled in 1879, had speed and weight restrictions. It
reverted to single track, with the 20 miles between Meldon Quarry and Okehampton being lifted in the late 60's.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10l4n8o$1h9ab$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:20:24 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Looking at google maps almost all of the route from Meldon - the
current limit of the track - via Tavistock to Bere Alston looks in situ >>> so in the scheme of things should cost buttons to reopen unless one of
the viaducts is about to fall down.
Oddly enough, Network Rail has published a detailed report called "West
of Exeter Route Resilience Study".
Meanwhile the Meldon viaduct which was originally built as a single
line, and doubled in 1879, had speed and weight restrictions. It
reverted to single track, with the 20 miles between Meldon Quarry and
Okehampton being lifted in the late 60's.
That doesn?t sound right, track is still laid from Okehampton to Meldon
even though it isn?t used and its about 2 and a bit miles not 20 . Sounds >like someone meant the missing and lifted section between Meldon and Bere >Alston.
One track of the viaduct was lifted circa 1970 and a flat surface laid
that could take lorries carrying materials for the construction of Meldon
Dam some sourced from the quarry , the other remained connected and served >as a headshunt for Meldon Quarry until the 1990?s when it was decided the >Viaduct was now too weak to carry rail movements.
Even when the line was open the Viaduct created operational problems , its >curved so had a considerable speed restriction due the forces travelling >around a curve creates and it also had weight limits even then . Double >headed trains were prohibited and the viaduct was one of the reasons some
of Bullieids lighter West Country/BOB Pacifics survived. in their original >form, the rebuilds were too heavy . Merchant Navies were too heavy even in >original form so did not normally work beyond Exeter Central.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10l4n8o$1h9ab$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:20:24 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Looking at google maps almost all of the route from Meldon - the
current limit of the track - via Tavistock to Bere Alston looks in situ
so in the scheme of things should cost buttons to reopen unless one of
the viaducts is about to fall down.
Oddly enough, Network Rail has published a detailed report called "West
of Exeter Route Resilience Study".
Meanwhile the Meldon viaduct which was originally built as a single
line, and doubled in 1879, had speed and weight restrictions. It
reverted to single track, with the 20 miles between Meldon Quarry and
Okehampton being lifted in the late 60's.
That doesn?t sound right, track is still laid from Okehampton to Meldon
even though it isn?t used and its about 2 and a bit miles not 20 . Sounds >like someone meant the missing and lifted section
between Meldon and Bere Alston.
One track of the viaduct was lifted circa 1970 and a flat surface laid
that could take lorries carrying materials for the construction of Meldon
Dam some sourced from the quarry , the other remained connected and served >as a headshunt for Meldon Quarry until the 1990?s when it was decided the >Viaduct was now too weak to carry rail movements.
Even when the line was open the Viaduct created operational problems , its >curved so had a considerable speed restriction due the forces travelling >around a curve creates and it also had weight limits even then .
Double headed trains were prohibited and the viaduct was one of the
reasons some of Bullieids lighter West Country/BOB Pacifics survived.
in their original form, the rebuilds were too heavy . Merchant Navies
were too heavy even in original form so did not normally work beyond
Exeter Central.
That doesn?t sound right, track is still laid from Okehampton to Meldon >>even though it isn?t used and its about 2 and a bit miles not 20 . Sounds >>like someone meant the missing and lifted section between Meldon and Bere >>Alston.
Yes, Roland subsequently admitted
he was quoting
(or misquoting?) from FB.
I don't know if the person he was quoting was wrong,
or if Roland simply quoted him incorrectly? My money is on the
latter...
In message <itbcnk9grijc1679o2tbd2ssef7pdfsno7@4ax.com>, at 15:01:57 on
Sun, 25 Jan 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
That doesn?t sound right, track is still laid from Okehampton to Meldon >>>even though it isn?t used and its about 2 and a bit miles not 20 . Sounds >>>like someone meant the missing and lifted section between Meldon and Bere >>>Alston.
Yes, Roland subsequently admitted
Indeed, although I'd use a slightly less prejudicial verb. Such as >"*volunteered* [the information that]"
he was quoting
Yes. The vast majority of things reported here, by all and sundry, are >quotes from others.
(or misquoting?) from FB.
See below.
I don't know if the person he was quoting was wrong,
Even though I said: reflect on whether the problem here is that he meant >"Bere Alston"? He, which in case you didn't realise, is the person who >posted on FB.
or if Roland simply quoted him incorrectly? My money is on the
latter...
Then you'd be wrong. Again.
In message <10l57vf$1mnfd$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:05:33 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
ÿBack in the day when railways were first privatised, someone made aThe decision not to create an alternative route seems more stupid >>>>>> eachÿ year.
ÿAnd would cost a tiny fraction of HS2.
Even cheaper to abandon the railway west of Exeter.
betÿ with me that within a couple of years the line beyond Plymouth
would beÿ abandoned as uneconomic. Sadly I couldn't collect my
winnings because Iÿ forgot who they were!
ÿAs for the alternative inland route, why don't we make a bargain -
we'llÿ build it cheaply and quickly, as long as every single NIMBY
who objectsÿ to the part near them is ignored. Even if it means
bulldozing their house.
Bulldoze houses? That is in contrast to an earlier posting "Looking at
google maps almost all of the route from Meldon - the current limit of
the track - via Tavistock to Bere Alston looks in situ so in the
scheme of things should cost buttons to reopen unless one of the
viaducts is about to fall down."
That wasn't me, and of course even if that track is still there [and my interpretation of Google Maps is that it's not], the next section
northeast and over the viaduct, isn't.
I do not know how true either the above or your post are true. But
you, Roland, are just trying to inflame opinions rather than
contributing to the thread.
You didn't notice me contributing lots of useful information to the
thread, about why the line isn't at all easy to re-open? And it's not uncommon for houses to be built on the old trackbed (but really it's a
wider metaphor for the displacement of a range of assets when re-opening).
Try Wilminstone, and see if you agree with me there's some houses there.
The route is a cycle path for a good part, which means it's more or less >>intact. You Just (TM) need to have a fight with the cyclists to use it.
Yes
On 25/01/2026 11:14, Coffee wrote:
On 25/01/2026 09:13, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:02:41 +0000Auntie has some pictures here:-
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/01/2026 08:27, JMB99 wrote:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/flying-debris-smashes-
trains-window-
33294064
Pay up-or we will fill your computer with c**p.
Pictures wouldn't load for me anyway. Had a quick look at the page
source,
usual load of auto generated over complicated unnecessary crap that
clearly doesn't work properly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8gldd9zyyo
The text is out of date as all trains are now using the up line.
As you can see from the pictures the Subject is incorrect and the
seawall has *NOT* collapsed.ÿ All that has collapsed is a wall between
the railway line and the footpath on top of the sea defences.
In what sense is that wall not part of the seawall?
On 25/01/2026 11:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 25/01/2026 11:14, Coffee wrote:
On 25/01/2026 09:13, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:02:41 +0000Auntie has some pictures here:-
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/01/2026 08:27, JMB99 wrote:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/flying-debris-smashes-
trains-window-
33294064
Pay up-or we will fill your computer with c**p.
Pictures wouldn't load for me anyway. Had a quick look at the page
source,
usual load of auto generated over complicated unnecessary crap that
clearly doesn't work properly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8gldd9zyyo
The text is out of date as all trains are now using the up line.
As you can see from the pictures the Subject is incorrect and the
seawall has *NOT* collapsed.ÿ All that has collapsed is a wall between
the railway line and the footpath on top of the sea defences.
In what sense is that wall not part of the seawall?
It is simply a wall between the path and railway and serves no other purpose. The seawall at this point is below the path.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Meanwhile, opening the closed section from Oakhampton via Tavistock would
not only provide a diversionary route but would be a great benefit to the
people who live in Tavistock. Looking at google maps almost all of the route >> from Meldon - the current limit of the track - via Tavistock to Bere Alston >> looks in situ so in the scheme of things should cost buttons to reopen unless
one of the viaducts is about to fall down.
The most obvious problem is the Meldon Viaduct, a scheduled monument. That
As you can see from the pictures the Subject is incorrect and the
seawall has *NOT* collapsed.? All that has collapsed is a wall between >>>> the railway line and the footpath on top of the sea defences.
In what sense is that wall not part of the seawall?
It is simply a wall between the path and railway and serves no other
purpose. The seawall at this point is below the path.
It does contain the ballast
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 11:21:51 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Meanwhile, opening the closed section from Oakhampton via Tavistock would >>> not only provide a diversionary route but would be a great benefit to the >>> people who live in Tavistock. Looking at google maps almost all of the route
from Meldon - the current limit of the track - via Tavistock to Bere Alston >>> looks in situ so in the scheme of things should cost buttons to reopen unless
one of the viaducts is about to fall down.
The most obvious problem is the Meldon Viaduct, a scheduled monument. That
Perhaps it should be unscheduled and replaced then, its hardly stonehenge.
Or if the heritage buffs start wibbling divert the route a few metres one >side or the other and build the replacement there. Anyway, hardly an >insurmoutable issue.
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 25/01/2026 11:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 25/01/2026 11:14, Coffee wrote:
On 25/01/2026 09:13, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:02:41 +0000Auntie has some pictures here:-
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/01/2026 08:27, JMB99 wrote:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/flying-debris-smashes- >>>>>> trains-window-
33294064
Pay up-or we will fill your computer with c**p.
Pictures wouldn't load for me anyway. Had a quick look at the page
source,
usual load of auto generated over complicated unnecessary crap that >>>>> clearly doesn't work properly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8gldd9zyyo
The text is out of date as all trains are now using the up line.
As you can see from the pictures the Subject is incorrect and the
seawall has *NOT* collapsed.ÿ All that has collapsed is a wall between >>>> the railway line and the footpath on top of the sea defences.
In what sense is that wall not part of the seawall?
It is simply a wall between the path and railway and serves no other
purpose. The seawall at this point is below the path.
It does contain the ballast
In message <10l5f2b$1p7fl$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:06:35 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 11:21:51 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Meanwhile, opening the closed section from Oakhampton via Tavistock would >>>> not only provide a diversionary route but would be a great benefit to the >>>> people who live in Tavistock. Looking at google maps almost all of the >route
from Meldon - the current limit of the track - via Tavistock to Bere Alston
Perhaps it should be unscheduled and replaced then, its hardly stonehenge. >>Or if the heritage buffs start wibbling divert the route a few metres one >>side or the other and build the replacement there. Anyway, hardly an >>insurmoutable issue.looks in situ so in the scheme of things should cost buttons to reopen >unless
one of the viaducts is about to fall down.
The most obvious problem is the Meldon Viaduct, a scheduled monument. That >>
It's one of only two examples in the country, so won't be 'unscheduled'.
In message <9p9cnkld6ktu2bve5ap8dpe829i5uc8m9q@4ax.com>, at 14:23:55 on
Sun, 25 Jan 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
The route is a cycle path for a good part, which means it's more or less >>> intact. You Just (TM) need to have a fight with the cyclists to use it.
Yes
Hence my earlier comments about NIMBYs. One of the things which almost scuppered the NET2 project in Nottingham was a section of old embankment
and cutting which had become a footpath used by dog walkers.
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 16:22:43 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10l5f2b$1p7fl$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:06:35 on Sun, 25 Jan >>2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 11:21:51 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> gabbled:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
Meanwhile, opening the closed section from Oakhampton via Tavistock would >>>>> not only provide a diversionary route but would be a great benefit to the >>>>> people who live in Tavistock. Looking at google maps almost all of the >>route
from Meldon - the current limit of the track - via Tavistock to >>>>>Bere Alston
Perhaps it should be unscheduled and replaced then, its hardly stonehenge. >>>Or if the heritage buffs start wibbling divert the route a few metres one >>>side or the other and build the replacement there. Anyway, hardly an >>>insurmoutable issue.looks in situ so in the scheme of things should cost buttons to reopen >>unless
one of the viaducts is about to fall down.
The most obvious problem is the Meldon Viaduct, a scheduled monument. That >>>
It's one of only two examples in the country, so won't be 'unscheduled'.
If its in the national interest anything can be unscheduled. Its hardly
Iron Bridge, just an ugly viaduct.
On 25/01/2026 14:34, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l57vf$1mnfd$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:05:33 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
ÿBack in the day when railways were first privatised, someone made aThe decision not to create an alternative route seems more stupid >>>>>>> eachÿ year.
ÿAnd would cost a tiny fraction of HS2.
Even cheaper to abandon the railway west of Exeter.
betÿ with me that within a couple of years the line beyond Plymouth
would beÿ abandoned as uneconomic. Sadly I couldn't collect my
winnings because Iÿ forgot who they were!
ÿAs for the alternative inland route, why don't we make a bargain -
we'llÿ build it cheaply and quickly, as long as every single NIMBY
who objectsÿ to the part near them is ignored. Even if it means
bulldozing their house.
Bulldoze houses? That is in contrast to an earlier posting "Looking
at google maps almost all of the route from Meldon - the current
limit of the track - via Tavistock to Bere Alston looks in situ so in
the scheme of things should cost buttons to reopen unless one of the
viaducts is about to fall down."
That wasn't me, and of course even if that track is still there [and
my interpretation of Google Maps is that it's not], the next section
northeast and over the viaduct, isn't.
I do not know how true either the above or your post are true. But
you, Roland, are just trying to inflame opinions rather than
contributing to the thread.
You didn't notice me contributing lots of useful information to the
thread, about why the line isn't at all easy to re-open? And it's not
uncommon for houses to be built on the old trackbed (but really it's a
wider metaphor for the displacement of a range of assets when re-
opening).
Try Wilminstone, and see if you agree with me there's some houses there.
Nope. There are a couple of warehouses or similar to the east of the
village which are either alongside the old line or built on it,
(difficult to say with the tree growth) but no other buildings,
certainly not houses.
Not sure about the driveway to Viggers Hall so that may have been
realigned with the old track, but suspect not as the track is elevated
(as seen on the approach to the Hall). https://maps.app.goo.gl/pVB9dTAeNBDoGZum6
In message <10l590b$1mo4b$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:23:07 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 10:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Line is reported to have re-opened now. Damage appears to be
superficialÿ (but a couple of short bits of wall will need rebuilding).
Up to 80 feet of damaged wall, I understand.
<Subthread convergence> not quoting your source, tut tut.
Please don't take that personally, it's just a reminder to recliner that it's far from uncommon in discussions here.
I've seen some pictures on Facebook, and in the media, which broadly
agree that you are correct. There's two or three separate breaches.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 25/01/2026 11:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 25/01/2026 11:14, Coffee wrote:
On 25/01/2026 09:13, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:02:41 +0000Auntie has some pictures here:-
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/01/2026 08:27, JMB99 wrote:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/flying-debris-smashes- >>>>>>> trains-window-
33294064
Pay up-or we will fill your computer with c**p.
Pictures wouldn't load for me anyway. Had a quick look at the page >>>>>> source,
usual load of auto generated over complicated unnecessary crap that >>>>>> clearly doesn't work properly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8gldd9zyyo
The text is out of date as all trains are now using the up line.
As you can see from the pictures the Subject is incorrect and the
seawall has *NOT* collapsed.ÿ All that has collapsed is a wall between >>>>> the railway line and the footpath on top of the sea defences.
In what sense is that wall not part of the seawall?
It is simply a wall between the path and railway and serves no other
purpose. The seawall at this point is below the path.
It does contain the ballast
Am I right in thinking/hoping that the rebuilt sections were not damaged?
On 25/01/2026 11:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 25/01/2026 11:14, Coffee wrote:
On 25/01/2026 09:13, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:02:41 +0000Auntie has some pictures here:-
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/01/2026 08:27, JMB99 wrote:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/flying-debris-smashes-
trains-window-
33294064
Pay up-or we will fill your computer with c**p.
Pictures wouldn't load for me anyway. Had a quick look at the page
source,
usual load of auto generated over complicated unnecessary crap that
clearly doesn't work properly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8gldd9zyyo
The text is out of date as all trains are now using the up line.
As you can see from the pictures the Subject is incorrect and the
seawall has *NOT* collapsed.ÿ All that has collapsed is a wall
between the railway line and the footpath on top of the sea defences.
In what sense is that wall not part of the seawall?
It is simply a wall between the path and railway and serves no other purpose.ÿ The seawall at this point is below the path.
In message <10l5eub$1p62q$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:04:28 on Sun, 25 Jan
It is simply a wall between the path and railway and serves no other
purpose. The seawall at this point is below the path.
It does contain the ballast
Yes, that's what you'd expect such a wall to do. If it was just to keep pedestrians off the tracks, they might have erected a fence.
In what sense is that wall not part of the seawall?
It is simply a wall between the path and railway and serves no other >>purpose.? The seawall at this point is below the path.
As a retired mariner / harbourmaster I would consider that wall to be
part and parcel of the seawall.
In message <10l5m9g$1rqrq$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:09:52 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
In what sense is that wall not part of the seawall?
ÿIt is simply a wall between the path and railway and serves no other
purpose.ÿ The seawall at this point is below the path.
As a retired mariner / harbourmaster I would consider that wall to be
part and parcel of the seawall.
The seawall is a quite different structure, and the damaged construction next to the tracks is now being referred to as a "dividing wall".
On 25/01/2026 16:41, Recliner wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 25/01/2026 11:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 25/01/2026 11:14, Coffee wrote:
On 25/01/2026 09:13, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:02:41 +0000Auntie has some pictures here:-
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/01/2026 08:27, JMB99 wrote:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/flying-debris-smashes- >>>>>>>> trains-window-
33294064
Pay up-or we will fill your computer with c**p.
Pictures wouldn't load for me anyway. Had a quick look at the page >>>>>>> source,
usual load of auto generated over complicated unnecessary crap that >>>>>>> clearly doesn't work properly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8gldd9zyyo
The text is out of date as all trains are now using the up line.
As you can see from the pictures the Subject is incorrect and the
seawall has *NOT* collapsed.ÿ All that has collapsed is a wall between >>>>>> the railway line and the footpath on top of the sea defences.
In what sense is that wall not part of the seawall?
It is simply a wall between the path and railway and serves no other
purpose. The seawall at this point is below the path.
It does contain the ballast
Am I right in thinking/hoping that the rebuilt sections were not damaged?
There has been no reports.
it's not uncommon for houses to be built on the old trackbed (but >>>really it's a wider metaphor for the displacement of a range of
assets when re- opening).
Try Wilminstone, and see if you agree with me there's some houses there.
Nope. There are a couple of warehouses or similar to the east of the >>village which are either alongside the old line or built on it,
(difficult to say with the tree growth) but no other buildings,
certainly not houses.
Not sure about the driveway to Viggers Hall so that may have been >>realigned with the old track, but suspect not as the track is elevated
(as seen on the approach to the Hall).
Apart from cost, buildings in the way are not a problem when a new
motorway is planned, and need not be a problem if reopening a railway
is decreed to be in the national interest.
I'm told that in the USA projects like this involve giving householders one months notice of compulsory purchase, and if they aren't gone just
bulldoze. Shades of Mr Prosser, of course.
On 26/01/2026 08:41, Roland Perry wrote:
I'm told that in the USA projects like this involve giving
householders one months notice of compulsory purchase, and if they
aren't gone just bulldoze. Shades of Mr Prosser, of course.
"By January 2013, the state had not acquired a single parcel, delaying >overall construction start to 2015. By 2019, less than 310 parcels out
of 1859 required had been acquired"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10l5eub$1p62q$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:04:28 on Sun, 25 Jan
It is simply a wall between the path and railway and serves no other
purpose. The seawall at this point is below the path.
It does contain the ballast
Yes, that's what you'd expect such a wall to do. If it was just to keep
pedestrians off the tracks, they might have erected a fence.
I have looked before at various sections of the route around there and >thought it must be one of the few places you don?t have a fence between you
and the running gear of a train, yes you have the wall but it looks fairly
easy to be able to walk on the top. ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Devon_Railway_sea_wall>
Sydney Gardens in Bath had a similar situation till recently but I believe >safety concerns has seen some fencing erected.
GH
On 25/01/2026 19:51, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l5m9g$1rqrq$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:09:52 on Sun, 25
Jan 2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
In what sense is that wall not part of the seawall?
?It is simply a wall between the path and railway and serves no
other purpose.? The seawall at this point is below the path.
As a retired mariner / harbourmaster I would consider that wall to
be part and parcel of the seawall.
The seawall is a quite different structure, and the damaged
construction next to the tracks is now being referred to as a
"dividing wall".
That is your view. Not that of a marine professional.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <9p9cnkld6ktu2bve5ap8dpe829i5uc8m9q@4ax.com>, at 14:23:55 on
Sun, 25 Jan 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
The route is a cycle path for a good part, which means it's more or less >>>> intact. You Just (TM) need to have a fight with the cyclists to use it. >>>Yes
Hence my earlier comments about NIMBYs. One of the things which almost
scuppered the NET2 project in Nottingham was a section of old embankment
and cutting which had become a footpath used by dog walkers.
I don?t know if they are actually Nimbys but when this issue arose last
time some of the people who were concerned about a possible line reopening >were living in the former stations, one was Brentor ISTR which though a >private dwelling has been sympathetically restored to look like it is still
a station .
. One of the others Tavistock North upon closure the Station Master
retired and carried on living there there until he died ,as did his Widow >until 1999.
He for many years went through the motions of running the station as if >expecting trains that would never come. ><https://youtu.be/HZMx_orLNt0?si=l5278lpgbN5r55vI>
It is now holiday lets.
On 25/01/2026 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l590b$1mo4b$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:23:07 on Sun, 25
Jan 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 10:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Line is reported to have re-opened now. Damage appears to be >>>>superficial? (but a couple of short bits of wall will need rebuilding).
Up to 80 feet of damaged wall, I understand.
<Subthread convergence> not quoting your source, tut tut.
One of the TV news reports, cannot remember which.
Please don't take that personally, it's just a reminder to recliner
that it's far from uncommon in discussions here.
I've seen some pictures on Facebook, and in the media, which broadly >>agree that you are correct. There's two or three separate breaches.
In message <10l66fu$21t4n$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:46:21 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 19:51, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l5m9g$1rqrq$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:09:52 on Sun, 25
Janÿ 2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
In what sense is that wall not part of the seawall?
ÿIt is simply a wall between the path and railway and serves no
otherÿ purpose.ÿ The seawall at this point is below the path.
As a retired mariner / harbourmaster I would consider that wall to
beÿ part and parcel of the seawall.
ÿThe seawall is a quite different structure, and the damaged
constructionÿ next to the tracks is now being referred to as a
"dividing wall".
That is your view. Not that of a marine professional.
See the wikipedia pictures posted at 18:20, especially the one with the
red mobile platform. The dividing wall of which some sections failed
last week is that very shallow one next to the tracks.
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 25/01/2026 16:41, Recliner wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 25/01/2026 11:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 25/01/2026 11:14, Coffee wrote:
On 25/01/2026 09:13, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:02:41 +0000Auntie has some pictures here:-
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/01/2026 08:27, JMB99 wrote:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/flying-debris-smashes- >>>>>>>>> trains-window-
33294064
Pay up-or we will fill your computer with c**p.
Pictures wouldn't load for me anyway. Had a quick look at the page >>>>>>>> source,
usual load of auto generated over complicated unnecessary crap that >>>>>>>> clearly doesn't work properly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8gldd9zyyo
The text is out of date as all trains are now using the up line. >>>>>>>
As you can see from the pictures the Subject is incorrect and the >>>>>>> seawall has *NOT* collapsed.ÿ All that has collapsed is a wall between >>>>>>> the railway line and the footpath on top of the sea defences.
In what sense is that wall not part of the seawall?
It is simply a wall between the path and railway and serves no other >>>>> purpose. The seawall at this point is below the path.
It does contain the ballast
Am I right in thinking/hoping that the rebuilt sections were not damaged? >>>
There has been no reports.
So, perhaps we could take a glass half full approach, and say that the
heavy investment in rebuilding the track, footpath and sea wall along the most vulnerable stretch has paid off? It?s stood up to this latest storm much better than it would have in the past. Perhaps this is one project
that NR is handling well?
On 26/01/2026 07:13, Recliner wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 25/01/2026 16:41, Recliner wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 25/01/2026 11:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 25/01/2026 11:14, Coffee wrote:
On 25/01/2026 09:13, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:02:41 +0000Auntie has some pictures here:-
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/01/2026 08:27, JMB99 wrote:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/flying-debris-smashes- >>>>>>>>>> trains-window-
33294064
Pay up-or we will fill your computer with c**p.
Pictures wouldn't load for me anyway. Had a quick look at the page >>>>>>>>> source,
usual load of auto generated over complicated unnecessary crap that >>>>>>>>> clearly doesn't work properly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8gldd9zyyo
The text is out of date as all trains are now using the up line. >>>>>>>>
As you can see from the pictures the Subject is incorrect and the >>>>>>>> seawall has *NOT* collapsed.ÿ All that has collapsed is a wall between >>>>>>>> the railway line and the footpath on top of the sea defences.
In what sense is that wall not part of the seawall?
It is simply a wall between the path and railway and serves no other >>>>>> purpose. The seawall at this point is below the path.
It does contain the ballast
Am I right in thinking/hoping that the rebuilt sections were not damaged? >>>>
There has been no reports.
So, perhaps we could take a glass half full approach, and say that the
heavy investment in rebuilding the track, footpath and sea wall along the
most vulnerable stretch has paid off? It?s stood up to this latest storm
much better than it would have in the past. Perhaps this is one project
that NR is handling well?
See the third picture down.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8gldd9zyyo
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 26/01/2026 07:13, Recliner wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 25/01/2026 16:41, Recliner wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 25/01/2026 11:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 25/01/2026 11:14, Coffee wrote:
On 25/01/2026 09:13, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:02:41 +0000Auntie has some pictures here:-
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/01/2026 08:27, JMB99 wrote:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/flying-debris-smashes- >>>>>>>>>>> trains-window-
33294064
Pay up-or we will fill your computer with c**p.
Pictures wouldn't load for me anyway. Had a quick look at the page >>>>>>>>>> source,
usual load of auto generated over complicated unnecessary crap that >>>>>>>>>> clearly doesn't work properly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8gldd9zyyo
The text is out of date as all trains are now using the up line. >>>>>>>>>
As you can see from the pictures the Subject is incorrect and the >>>>>>>>> seawall has *NOT* collapsed.ÿ All that has collapsed is a wall between
the railway line and the footpath on top of the sea defences. >>>>>>>>>
In what sense is that wall not part of the seawall?
It is simply a wall between the path and railway and serves no other >>>>>>> purpose. The seawall at this point is below the path.
It does contain the ballast
Am I right in thinking/hoping that the rebuilt sections were not damaged? >>>>>
There has been no reports.
So, perhaps we could take a glass half full approach, and say that the
heavy investment in rebuilding the track, footpath and sea wall along the >>> most vulnerable stretch has paid off? It?s stood up to this latest storm >>> much better than it would have in the past. Perhaps this is one project
that NR is handling well?
See the third picture down.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8gldd9zyyo
That?s not what the rebuilt section looks like:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/our-work/our-routes/western/south-west-rail-resilience-programme/dawlish-sea-wall/
On 26/01/2026 09:56, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l66fu$21t4n$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:46:21 on Sun, 25
Jan 2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 19:51, Roland Perry wrote:See the wikipedia pictures posted at 18:20, especially the one with
In message <10l5m9g$1rqrq$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:09:52 on Sun, 25 >>>>Jan? 2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
In what sense is that wall not part of the seawall?
?It is simply a wall between the path and railway and serves no >>>>>>other? purpose.? The seawall at this point is below the path.
As a retired mariner / harbourmaster I would consider that wall to >>>>>be? part and parcel of the seawall.
?The seawall is a quite different structure, and the damaged >>>>construction? next to the tracks is now being referred to as a >>>>"dividing wall".
That is your view. Not that of a marine professional.
the red mobile platform. The dividing wall of which some sections
failed last week is that very shallow one next to the tracks.
Have a look at the picture at the top of this article (the article is >irrelevant). It is clear that the wall is part and parcel of the
seawall.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0vexdr479po
On 26/01/2026 07:13, Recliner wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 25/01/2026 16:41, Recliner wrote:So, perhaps we could take a glass half full approach, and say that
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 25/01/2026 11:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 25/01/2026 11:14, Coffee wrote:
On 25/01/2026 09:13, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 09:02:41 +0000Auntie has some pictures here:-
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 25/01/2026 08:27, JMB99 wrote:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/flying-debris-smashes- >>>>>>>>>> trains-window-
33294064
Pay up-or we will fill your computer with c**p.
Pictures wouldn't load for me anyway. Had a quick look at the page >>>>>>>>> source,
usual load of auto generated over complicated unnecessary crap that >>>>>>>>> clearly doesn't work properly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8gldd9zyyo
The text is out of date as all trains are now using the up line. >>>>>>>>
As you can see from the pictures the Subject is incorrect and the >>>>>>>> seawall has *NOT* collapsed.ÿ All that has collapsed is a wall between >>>>>>>> the railway line and the footpath on top of the sea defences.
In what sense is that wall not part of the seawall?
It is simply a wall between the path and railway and serves no other >>>>>> purpose. The seawall at this point is below the path.
It does contain the ballast
Am I right in thinking/hoping that the rebuilt sections were not damaged? >>>>
There has been no reports.
the
heavy investment in rebuilding the track, footpath and sea wall along the
most vulnerable stretch has paid off? It?s stood up to this latest storm
much better than it would have in the past. Perhaps this is one project
that NR is handling well?
See the third picture down.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8gldd9zyyo
In message <10l5hjc$1q5g0$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:49:48 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
If its in the national interest anything can be unscheduled. Its hardly >>Iron Bridge, just an ugly viaduct.
You won't find anyone in authority prepared to agree with your point of >view.
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 17:11:34 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10l5hjc$1q5g0$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:49:48 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
If its in the national interest anything can be unscheduled. Its hardly
Iron Bridge, just an ugly viaduct.
You won't find anyone in authority prepared to agree with your point
of view.
Define "in authority". A government can do what it likes since it has the power to change the law but you wouldn't know it given the current and previous
collection of circus clowns in charge. However:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72804epd2ro
Ther than HS2 running rampant there was Twyford Down and the Newbury Bypass off the top of my head.
On 26/01/2026 14:28, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 17:11:34 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10l5hjc$1q5g0$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:49:48 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
If its in the national interest anything can be unscheduled. Its hardly >>>> Iron Bridge, just an ugly viaduct.
You won't find anyone in authority prepared to agree with your point
of view.
Define "in authority". A government can do what it likes since it has the
power to change the law but you wouldn't know it given the current and
previous
collection of circus clowns in charge. However:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72804epd2ro
Ther than HS2 running rampant there was Twyford Down and the Newbury Bypass >> off the top of my head.
I know nothing about any listed buildings in either of those two
locations. Spent far too much of my time covering both those stories.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10l4n8o$1h9ab$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:20:24 on Sun, 25 Jan 2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
Looking at google maps almost all of the route from Meldon - the
current limit of the track - via Tavistock to Bere Alston looks in situ >> so in the scheme of things should cost buttons to reopen unless one of
the viaducts is about to fall down.
Oddly enough, Network Rail has published a detailed report called "West
of Exeter Route Resilience Study".
Meanwhile the Meldon viaduct which was originally built as a single
line, and doubled in 1879, had speed and weight restrictions. It
reverted to single track, with the 20 miles between Meldon Quarry and Okehampton being lifted in the late 60's.
That doesn?t sound right, track is still laid from Okehampton to Meldon
even though it isn?t used and its about 2 and a bit miles not 20 . Sounds like someone meant the missing and lifted section between Meldon and Bere Alston.
One track of the viaduct was lifted circa 1970 and a flat surface laid
that could take lorries carrying materials for the construction of Meldon
Dam some sourced from the quarry , the other remained connected and served as a headshunt for Meldon Quarry until the 1990?s when it was decided the Viaduct was now too weak to carry rail movements.
Even when the line was open the Viaduct created operational problems , its curved so had a considerable speed restriction due the forces travelling around a curve creates and it also had weight limits even then . Double headed trains were prohibited and the viaduct was one of the reasons some
of Bullieids lighter West Country/BOB Pacifics survived. in their original form, the rebuilds were too heavy . Merchant Navies were too heavy even in original form so did not normally work beyond Exeter Central.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 26/01/2026 14:28, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 17:11:34 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10l5hjc$1q5g0$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:49:48 on Sun, 25 Jan >>>> 2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
If its in the national interest anything can be unscheduled. Its hardly >>>>> Iron Bridge, just an ugly viaduct.
You won't find anyone in authority prepared to agree with your point
of view.
Define "in authority". A government can do what it likes since it has the >>> power to change the law but you wouldn't know it given the current and
previous
collection of circus clowns in charge. However:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72804epd2ro
Ther than HS2 running rampant there was Twyford Down and the Newbury Bypass >>> off the top of my head.
I know nothing about any listed buildings in either of those two
locations. Spent far too much of my time covering both those stories.
Someone has posted some videos of Dawlish, taken on Saturday. I?m surprised the PIS systems survive a regular soaking in salt water.
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPboZ5qFtTAW7PorwcbagKF3Kx0kCCx0SKCoosQfSQ5v96hgXEjmHm7Pedi_PdYmw?key=WnAwaEZwaEJBT1JMREJlbGJWM2N4c3BFR0MwQTZB
Someone has posted some videos of Dawlish, taken on Saturday. I?m surprised >the PIS systems survive a regular soaking in salt water.
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> posted:
Reading now Meldon Quarry was more or less replaced by coastal shipping
from Scotland to Tilbury...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meldon_Quarry#Track_ballast
Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> posted:
Reading now Meldon Quarry was more or less replaced by coastal shipping from Scotland to Tilbury...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meldon_Quarry#Track_ballast
Actually ULF many of us already knew that , the route got considerable discussion a few years back when remarkably it was returned to being part
of the National System having been owned by the quarry operation for some years and permitted by them to function as a sort of in between a preserved line and private railway under various guises. On summer Sundays a service was run with normal trains from Exeter to Okehampton for tourism . Now
it is a seven day a week normal railway.
At one time it was thought that the construction of HS2 would put pressure
on availability of materials with Meldon likely to reopen to supply but
now that has been cut back it is unlikely that Meldon will be used for
that.
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> posted:
Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> posted:
Reading now Meldon Quarry was more or less replaced by coastal shipping
from Scotland to Tilbury...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meldon_Quarry#Track_ballast
Actually ULF many of us already knew that , the route got considerable
discussion a few years back when remarkably it was returned to being part
of the National System having been owned by the quarry operation for some
years and permitted by them to function as a sort of in between a preserved >> line and private railway under various guises. On summer Sundays a service >> was run with normal trains from Exeter to Okehampton for tourism . Now
it is a seven day a week normal railway.
At one time it was thought that the construction of HS2 would put pressure >> on availability of materials with Meldon likely to reopen to supply but
now that has been cut back it is unlikely that Meldon will be used for
that.
But, MARLAND, as we go now for uk.coastal.shipping...
Hm, the article didn't say which Scottish quarries
were used instead.
On 26/01/2026 14:28, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 17:11:34 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10l5hjc$1q5g0$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:49:48 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
If its in the national interest anything can be unscheduled. Its hardly >>>> Iron Bridge, just an ugly viaduct.
You won't find anyone in authority prepared to agree with your point
of view.
Define "in authority". A government can do what it likes since it has the
power to change the law but you wouldn't know it given the current and
previous
collection of circus clowns in charge. However:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72804epd2ro
Ther than HS2 running rampant there was Twyford Down and the Newbury Bypass >> off the top of my head.
I know nothing about any listed buildings in either of those two
locations. Spent far too much of my time covering both those stories.
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 15:38:19 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 26/01/2026 14:28, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 17:11:34 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10l5hjc$1q5g0$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:49:48 on Sun, 25
Jan 2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
If its in the national interest anything can be unscheduled. Its
hardly
Iron Bridge, just an ugly viaduct.
You won't find anyone in authority prepared to agree with your point
of view.
Define "in authority". A government can do what it likes since it has
the
power to change the law but you wouldn't know it given the current
and previous
collection of circus clowns in charge. However:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72804epd2ro
Ther than HS2 running rampant there was Twyford Down and the Newbury
Bypass
off the top of my head.
I know nothing about any listed buildings in either of those two
locations. Spent far too much of my time covering both those stories.
They were both SSIs IIRC. Their "protected status" wasn't worth squat when push came to shove(l).
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 15:38:19 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 26/01/2026 14:28, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 17:11:34 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10l5hjc$1q5g0$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:49:48 on Sun, 25 >>>>Jan 2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
If its in the national interest anything can be unscheduled. Its hardly >>>>> Iron Bridge, just an ugly viaduct.
You won't find anyone in authority prepared to agree with your
point of view.
Define "in authority". A government can do what it likes since it
has the power to change the law but you wouldn't know it given the >>>current and previous collection of circus clowns in charge. However:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72804epd2ro
Ther than HS2 running rampant there was Twyford Down and the
Newbury Bypass
off the top of my head.
I know nothing about any listed buildings in either of those two >>locations. Spent far too much of my time covering both those stories.
They were both SSIs IIRC. Their "protected status" wasn't worth squat when >push came to shove(l).
In message <10l5l65$1qtpv$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:51:01 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l590b$1mo4b$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:23:07 on Sun, 25
Janÿ 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 10:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Line is reported to have re-opened now. Damage appears to be
superficialÿ (but a couple of short bits of wall will need
rebuilding).
Up to 80 feet of damaged wall, I understand.
ÿ<Subthread convergence> not quoting your source, tut tut.
One of the TV news reports, cannot remember which.
Not a problem (for me anyway). And by default I'd believe anything you posted, rather than have a pram/toy expulsion episode multiple times a day.
Please don't take that personally, it's just a reminder to recliner
thatÿ it's far from uncommon in discussions here.
ÿI've seen some pictures on Facebook, and in the media, which broadly
agree that you are correct. There's two or three separate breaches.
If the item I heard earlier today on Radio 4 comes to pass, the
collapse of a sea wall is a minor problem. Glaciers in the Antarctic
are melting; at its worst, parts of the ice cap could slide into the
sea, with an eventual rise in sea level of around 3 metres (almost 10
feet). The Thames barrage will need to be enlarged, and lots of
low-lying coastline will be under water.
In message <10ldccb$kj2n$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:09:47 on Wed, 28 Jan
2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 15:38:19 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 26/01/2026 14:28, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 17:11:34 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10l5hjc$1q5g0$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:49:48 on Sun, 25
Janÿ 2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
If its in the national interest anything can be unscheduled. Its
hardly
Iron Bridge, just an ugly viaduct.
You won't find anyone in authority prepared to agree with your
pointÿ of view.
ÿDefine "in authority". A government can do what it likes since it
has theÿ power to change the law but you wouldn't know it given the
current andÿ previousÿ collection of circus clowns in charge. However:
ÿhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72804epd2ro
Noting that the original plans were scaled down.
ÿTher than HS2 running rampant there was Twyford Down and the
Newbury Bypass
off the top of my head.
I know nothing about any listed buildings in either of those two
locations. Spent far too much of my time covering both those stories.
They were both SSIs IIRC. Their "protected status" wasn't worth squat
when
push came to shove(l).
That was also a long time ago (1996) and times have changed. Today a
fortune has been spent tunnelling HS2 under the Chilterns to avoid SSIs.
On 26/01/2026 11:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l5l65$1qtpv$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:51:01 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l590b$1mo4b$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:23:07 on Sun, 25
Jan? 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 10:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Line is reported to have re-opened now. Damage appears to be
superficial? (but a couple of short bits of wall will need
rebuilding).
Up to 80 feet of damaged wall, I understand.
?<Subthread convergence> not quoting your source, tut tut.
One of the TV news reports, cannot remember which.
Not a problem (for me anyway). And by default I'd believe anything you
posted, rather than have a pram/toy expulsion episode multiple times a day. >>
Please don't take that personally, it's just a reminder to recliner
that? it's far from uncommon in discussions here.
?I've seen some pictures on Facebook, and in the media, which broadly >>>> agree that you are correct. There's two or three separate breaches.
If the item I heard earlier today on Radio 4 comes to pass, the collapse
of a sea wall is a minor problem. Glaciers in the Antarctic are melting;
at its worst, parts of the ice cap could slide into the sea, with an >eventual rise in sea level of around 3 metres (almost 10 feet). The
Thames barrage will need to be enlarged, and lots of low-lying coastline >will be under water.
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 10:35:48 +0000, Bevan Price
<bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2026 11:10, Roland Perry wrote:I understand that thermal expansion will be the main cause of rising
In message <10l5l65$1qtpv$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:51:01 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l590b$1mo4b$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:23:07 on Sun, 25
Janÿ 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 10:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Line is reported to have re-opened now. Damage appears to be
superficialÿ (but a couple of short bits of wall will need
rebuilding).
Up to 80 feet of damaged wall, I understand.
ÿ<Subthread convergence> not quoting your source, tut tut.
One of the TV news reports, cannot remember which.
Not a problem (for me anyway). And by default I'd believe anything you
posted, rather than have a pram/toy expulsion episode multiple times a day. >>>
Please don't take that personally, it's just a reminder to recliner
thatÿ it's far from uncommon in discussions here.
ÿI've seen some pictures on Facebook, and in the media, which broadly >>>>> agree that you are correct. There's two or three separate breaches.
If the item I heard earlier today on Radio 4 comes to pass, the collapse
of a sea wall is a minor problem. Glaciers in the Antarctic are melting;
at its worst, parts of the ice cap could slide into the sea, with an
eventual rise in sea level of around 3 metres (almost 10 feet). The
Thames barrage will need to be enlarged, and lots of low-lying coastline
will be under water.
sea levels, although melting land-based ice won't help.
On 26/01/2026 11:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l5l65$1qtpv$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:51:01 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l590b$1mo4b$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:23:07 on Sun, 25
Janÿ 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 10:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Line is reported to have re-opened now. Damage appears to be
superficialÿ (but a couple of short bits of wall will need
rebuilding).
Up to 80 feet of damaged wall, I understand.
ÿ<Subthread convergence> not quoting your source, tut tut.
One of the TV news reports, cannot remember which.
Not a problem (for me anyway). And by default I'd believe anything you
posted, rather than have a pram/toy expulsion episode multiple times a day. >>
Please don't take that personally, it's just a reminder to recliner
thatÿ it's far from uncommon in discussions here.
ÿI've seen some pictures on Facebook, and in the media, which broadly >>>> agree that you are correct. There's two or three separate breaches.
If the item I heard earlier today on Radio 4 comes to pass, the collapse
of a sea wall is a minor problem. Glaciers in the Antarctic are melting;
at its worst, parts of the ice cap could slide into the sea, with an >eventual rise in sea level of around 3 metres (almost 10 feet). The
Thames barrage will need to be enlarged, and lots of low-lying coastline >will be under water.
On 29/01/2026 13:40, Trolleybus wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 10:35:48 +0000, Bevan Price
<bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2026 11:10, Roland Perry wrote:I understand that thermal expansion will be the main cause of rising
In message <10l5l65$1qtpv$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:51:01 on Sun, 25 Jan >>>> 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l590b$1mo4b$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:23:07 on Sun, 25 >>>>>> Janÿ 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 10:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Line is reported to have re-opened now. Damage appears to be
superficialÿ (but a couple of short bits of wall will need
rebuilding).
Up to 80 feet of damaged wall, I understand.
ÿÿ<Subthread convergence> not quoting your source, tut tut.
One of the TV news reports, cannot remember which.
Not a problem (for me anyway). And by default I'd believe anything you >>>> posted, rather than have a pram/toy expulsion episode multiple times
a day.
Please don't take that personally, it's just a reminder to recliner >>>>>> thatÿ it's far from uncommon in discussions here.
ÿÿI've seen some pictures on Facebook, and in the media, which
broadly
agree that you are correct. There's two or three separate breaches. >>>>>
If the item I heard earlier today on Radio 4 comes to pass, the collapse >>> of a sea wall is a minor problem. Glaciers in the Antarctic are melting; >>> at its worst, parts of the ice cap could slide into the sea, with an
eventual rise in sea level of around 3 metres (almost 10 feet). The
Thames barrage will need to be enlarged, and lots of low-lying coastline >>> will be under water.
sea levels, although melting land-based ice won't help.
I think the biggest problem with global warming is politicians in that
most of them don't believe in it.
Politicians right of centre seem to be the most guilty.
On 29/01/2026 14:23, Coffee wrote:
Politicians right of centre seem to be the most guilty.
Is the main cause of global warning all the hot air coming from politicians?
On 28/01/2026 16:09, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 15:38:19 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 26/01/2026 14:28, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 17:11:34 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10l5hjc$1q5g0$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:49:48 on Sun, 25
Jan 2026, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
If its in the national interest anything can be unscheduled. Its
hardly
Iron Bridge, just an ugly viaduct.
You won't find anyone in authority prepared to agree with your point >>>>> of view.
Define "in authority". A government can do what it likes since it has >>>> the
power to change the law but you wouldn't know it given the current
and previous
collection of circus clowns in charge. However:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72804epd2ro
Ther than HS2 running rampant there was Twyford Down and the Newbury
Bypass
off the top of my head.
I know nothing about any listed buildings in either of those two
locations. Spent far too much of my time covering both those stories.
They were both SSIs IIRC. Their "protected status" wasn't worth squat when >> push came to shove(l).
Not stricty accurate, there was an SSI on the bypass route that was
avoided but the protesters decide to camp on it and destroyed the plants >that they claimed to be trying to protect.
On 29/01/2026 14:23, Coffee wrote:
On 29/01/2026 13:40, Trolleybus wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 10:35:48 +0000, Bevan Price
<bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2026 11:10, Roland Perry wrote:I understand that thermal expansion will be the main cause of rising
In message <10l5l65$1qtpv$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:51:01 on Sun, 25 Jan >>>>> 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l590b$1mo4b$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:23:07 on Sun, 25 >>>>>>> Janÿ 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 10:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Line is reported to have re-opened now. Damage appears to be >>>>>>>>> superficialÿ (but a couple of short bits of wall will need
rebuilding).
Up to 80 feet of damaged wall, I understand.
ÿÿ<Subthread convergence> not quoting your source, tut tut.
One of the TV news reports, cannot remember which.
Not a problem (for me anyway). And by default I'd believe anything you >>>>> posted, rather than have a pram/toy expulsion episode multiple
times a day.
Please don't take that personally, it's just a reminder to recliner >>>>>>> thatÿ it's far from uncommon in discussions here.
ÿÿI've seen some pictures on Facebook, and in the media, which
broadly
agree that you are correct. There's two or three separate breaches. >>>>>>
If the item I heard earlier today on Radio 4 comes to pass, the
collapse
of a sea wall is a minor problem. Glaciers in the Antarctic are
melting;
at its worst, parts of the ice cap could slide into the sea, with an
eventual rise in sea level of around 3 metres (almost 10 feet). The
Thames barrage will need to be enlarged, and lots of low-lying
coastline
will be under water.
sea levels, although melting land-based ice won't help.
I think the biggest problem with global warming is politicians in that
most of them don't believe in it.
Politicians right of centre seem to be the most guilty.
Is the main cause of global warning all the hot air coming from
politicians?
On 29/01/2026 17:00, ColinR wrote:
On 29/01/2026 14:23, Coffee wrote:Mainly a consequence of those who support Mr "Drill Baby Drill".
On 29/01/2026 13:40, Trolleybus wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 10:35:48 +0000, Bevan Price
<bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2026 11:10, Roland Perry wrote:I understand that thermal expansion will be the main cause of rising
In message <10l5l65$1qtpv$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:51:01 on Sun, 25 >>>>>> Jan
2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l590b$1mo4b$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:23:07 on Sun, 25 >>>>>>>> Janÿ 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 10:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Line is reported to have re-opened now. Damage appears to be >>>>>>>>>> superficialÿ (but a couple of short bits of wall will need >>>>>>>>>> rebuilding).
Up to 80 feet of damaged wall, I understand.
ÿÿ<Subthread convergence> not quoting your source, tut tut.
One of the TV news reports, cannot remember which.
Not a problem (for me anyway). And by default I'd believe anything >>>>>> you
posted, rather than have a pram/toy expulsion episode multiple
times a day.
Please don't take that personally, it's just a reminder to recliner >>>>>>>> thatÿ it's far from uncommon in discussions here.
ÿÿI've seen some pictures on Facebook, and in the media, which >>>>>>>> broadly
agree that you are correct. There's two or three separate breaches. >>>>>>>
If the item I heard earlier today on Radio 4 comes to pass, the
collapse
of a sea wall is a minor problem. Glaciers in the Antarctic are
melting;
at its worst, parts of the ice cap could slide into the sea, with an >>>>> eventual rise in sea level of around 3 metres (almost 10 feet). The
Thames barrage will need to be enlarged, and lots of low-lying
coastline
will be under water.
sea levels, although melting land-based ice won't help.
I think the biggest problem with global warming is politicians in
that most of them don't believe in it.
Politicians right of centre seem to be the most guilty.
Is the main cause of global warning all the hot air coming from
politicians?
Their descendents will regret that error when parts of Florida disappear into the Atlantic.
On 29/01/2026 14:23, Coffee wrote:
On 29/01/2026 13:40, Trolleybus wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 10:35:48 +0000, Bevan Price
<bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2026 11:10, Roland Perry wrote:I understand that thermal expansion will be the main cause of rising
In message <10l5l65$1qtpv$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:51:01 on Sun, 25 Jan >>>> 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l590b$1mo4b$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:23:07 on Sun, 25 >>>>>> Janÿ 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 10:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Line is reported to have re-opened now. Damage appears to be >>>>>>>> superficialÿ (but a couple of short bits of wall will need
rebuilding).
Up to 80 feet of damaged wall, I understand.
ÿÿ<Subthread convergence> not quoting your source, tut tut.
One of the TV news reports, cannot remember which.
Not a problem (for me anyway). And by default I'd believe anything you >>>> posted, rather than have a pram/toy expulsion episode multiple times >>>> a day.
Please don't take that personally, it's just a reminder to recliner >>>>>> thatÿ it's far from uncommon in discussions here.
ÿÿI've seen some pictures on Facebook, and in the media, which
broadly
agree that you are correct. There's two or three separate breaches. >>>>>
If the item I heard earlier today on Radio 4 comes to pass, the collapse >>> of a sea wall is a minor problem. Glaciers in the Antarctic are melting; >>> at its worst, parts of the ice cap could slide into the sea, with an
eventual rise in sea level of around 3 metres (almost 10 feet). The
Thames barrage will need to be enlarged, and lots of low-lying coastline >>> will be under water.
sea levels, although melting land-based ice won't help.
I think the biggest problem with global warming is politicians in that most of them don't believe in it.
Politicians right of centre seem to be the most guilty.
Is the main cause of global warning
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 17:00:04 +0000
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> gabbled:
On 29/01/2026 14:23, Coffee wrote:
Politicians right of centre seem to be the most guilty.
Is the main cause of global warning all the hot air coming from
politicians?
I haven't noticed all the left wing governments in south american and
africa
exactly paving the way for enviromental excellence.
I think the biggest problem with global warming is politicians in that
most of them don't believe in it.
Politicians right of centre seem to be the most guilty.
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 10:35:48 +0000
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> gabbled:
On 26/01/2026 11:10, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l5l65$1qtpv$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:51:01 on Sun, 25 Jan
2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l590b$1mo4b$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:23:07 on Sun, 25
Jan? 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 10:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Line is reported to have re-opened now. Damage appears to be
superficial? (but a couple of short bits of wall will need
rebuilding).
Up to 80 feet of damaged wall, I understand.
?<Subthread convergence> not quoting your source, tut tut.
One of the TV news reports, cannot remember which.
Not a problem (for me anyway). And by default I'd believe anything you
posted, rather than have a pram/toy expulsion episode multiple times a day. >>>
Please don't take that personally, it's just a reminder to recliner >>>>> that? it's far from uncommon in discussions here.
?I've seen some pictures on Facebook, and in the media, which broadly >>>>> agree that you are correct. There's two or three separate breaches.
If the item I heard earlier today on Radio 4 comes to pass, the collapse >>of a sea wall is a minor problem. Glaciers in the Antarctic are melting; >>at its worst, parts of the ice cap could slide into the sea, with an >>eventual rise in sea level of around 3 metres (almost 10 feet). The
Thames barrage will need to be enlarged, and lots of low-lying coastline >>will be under water.
Of course once levels rise high enough that they can just flow around
the barrier and into london anyway it'll all be for nought. Unless someone >fancies building a flood barrier along the M25.
On 29/01/2026 17:02, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 17:00:04 +0000
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> gabbled:
On 29/01/2026 14:23, Coffee wrote:
Politicians right of centre seem to be the most guilty.
Is the main cause of global warning all the hot air coming from politicians?
I haven't noticed all the left wing governments in south american and africa >> exactly paving the way for enviromental excellence.
What left wing governments, in Africa, most of them are military or otherwise corrupt dictatorships.
On 29/01/2026 17:02, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 17:00:04 +0000
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> gabbled:
On 29/01/2026 14:23, Coffee wrote:
Politicians right of centre seem to be the most guilty.
Is the main cause of global warning all the hot air coming from
politicians?
I haven't noticed all the left wing governments in south american and
africa
exactly paving the way for enviromental excellence.
What left wing governments, in Africa, most of them are military or >otherwise corrupt dictatorships.
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 14:23:32 +0000, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
I think the biggest problem with global warming is politicians in that >most of them don't believe in it.
Politicians right of centre seem to be the most guilty.
It occurred to me some time ago that the vast majority of people in leadership positions know nothing whatsoever about anything that
exists outside the heads of human beings. Politics, philosophy, art, literature, music, business, history, languages, economics, religion,
even much of mathematics - are all human constructs - a book a while
ago called them fictions - that will disappear with us and that have
no bearing on the wider physical and natural world. There's virtually
no knowledge anywhere in the corridors of power of natural sciences,
climate science, cosmology or anything else outside the
anthroposphere.
One politician of the right who did accept anthropogenic climate
change was Thatcher, who had done science. Unforunately it clashed too
hard with her world-view, which was that a world of uninhibited free
markets is the best of all possible worlds and provides the solution
to everything.
On 29/01/2026 19:02, Bevan Price wrote:
On 29/01/2026 17:00, ColinR wrote:
On 29/01/2026 14:23, Coffee wrote:Mainly a consequence of those who support Mr "Drill Baby Drill".
On 29/01/2026 13:40, Trolleybus wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 10:35:48 +0000, Bevan Price
<bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2026 11:10, Roland Perry wrote:I understand that thermal expansion will be the main cause of rising >>>>> sea levels, although melting land-based ice won't help.
In message <10l5l65$1qtpv$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:51:01 on Sun, 25 >>>>>>> Jan
2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l590b$1mo4b$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:23:07 on Sun, 25 >>>>>>>>> Janÿ 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 10:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Line is reported to have re-opened now. Damage appears to be >>>>>>>>>>> superficialÿ (but a couple of short bits of wall will need >>>>>>>>>>> rebuilding).
Up to 80 feet of damaged wall, I understand.
ÿÿ<Subthread convergence> not quoting your source, tut tut.
One of the TV news reports, cannot remember which.
Not a problem (for me anyway). And by default I'd believe anything >>>>>>> you
posted, rather than have a pram/toy expulsion episode multiple
times a day.
Please don't take that personally, it's just a reminder to recliner >>>>>>>>> thatÿ it's far from uncommon in discussions here.
ÿÿI've seen some pictures on Facebook, and in the media, which >>>>>>>>> broadly
agree that you are correct. There's two or three separate breaches. >>>>>>>>
If the item I heard earlier today on Radio 4 comes to pass, the
collapse
of a sea wall is a minor problem. Glaciers in the Antarctic are
melting;
at its worst, parts of the ice cap could slide into the sea, with an >>>>>> eventual rise in sea level of around 3 metres (almost 10 feet). The >>>>>> Thames barrage will need to be enlarged, and lots of low-lying
coastline
will be under water.
I think the biggest problem with global warming is politicians in
that most of them don't believe in it.
Politicians right of centre seem to be the most guilty.
Is the main cause of global warning all the hot air coming from
politicians?
Their descendents will regret that error when parts of Florida disappear
into the Atlantic.
It's a pity he wont be here to see it happen.
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> posted:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 14:23:32 +0000, Coffee
<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
It occurred to me some time ago that the vast majority of people in
I think the biggest problem with global warming is politicians in that
most of them don't believe in it.
Politicians right of centre seem to be the most guilty.
leadership positions know nothing whatsoever about anything that
exists outside the heads of human beings. Politics, philosophy, art,
literature, music, business, history, languages, economics, religion,
even much of mathematics - are all human constructs - a book a while
ago called them fictions - that will disappear with us and that have
no bearing on the wider physical and natural world. There's virtually
no knowledge anywhere in the corridors of power of natural sciences,
climate science, cosmology or anything else outside the
anthroposphere.
One politician of the right who did accept anthropogenic climate
change was Thatcher, who had done science. Unforunately it clashed too
hard with her world-view, which was that a world of uninhibited free
markets is the best of all possible worlds and provides the solution
to everything.
However, she reduced domestic coal mining. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Kingdom#Decline_in_volume
Yes, I know, coal may be imported (for less money
the last descades IIANM).
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 08:54:02 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 29/01/2026 17:02, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 17:00:04 +0000
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> gabbled:
On 29/01/2026 14:23, Coffee wrote:
Politicians right of centre seem to be the most guilty.
Is the main cause of global warning all the hot air coming from
politicians?
I haven't noticed all the left wing governments in south american and
africa
exactly paving the way for enviromental excellence.
What left wing governments, in Africa, most of them are military or
otherwise corrupt dictatorships.
You're just as capable of using google as I am but shall we start with the ANC and move north from there?
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 29/01/2026 19:02, Bevan Price wrote:
On 29/01/2026 17:00, ColinR wrote:
On 29/01/2026 14:23, Coffee wrote:Mainly a consequence of those who support Mr "Drill Baby Drill".
On 29/01/2026 13:40, Trolleybus wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 10:35:48 +0000, Bevan Price
<bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/01/2026 11:10, Roland Perry wrote:I understand that thermal expansion will be the main cause of rising >>>>>> sea levels, although melting land-based ice won't help.
In message <10l5l65$1qtpv$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:51:01 on Sun, 25 >>>>>>>> Jan
2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
On 25/01/2026 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10l590b$1mo4b$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:23:07 on Sun, 25 >>>>>>>>>> Janÿ 2026, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked: >>>>>>>>>>> On 25/01/2026 10:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Line is reported to have re-opened now. Damage appears to be >>>>>>>>>>>> superficialÿ (but a couple of short bits of wall will need >>>>>>>>>>>> rebuilding).
Up to 80 feet of damaged wall, I understand.
ÿÿ<Subthread convergence> not quoting your source, tut tut. >>>>>>>>>One of the TV news reports, cannot remember which.
Not a problem (for me anyway). And by default I'd believe anything >>>>>>>> you
posted, rather than have a pram/toy expulsion episode multiple >>>>>>>> times a day.
Please don't take that personally, it's just a reminder to recliner >>>>>>>>>> thatÿ it's far from uncommon in discussions here.
ÿÿI've seen some pictures on Facebook, and in the media, which >>>>>>>>>> broadly
agree that you are correct. There's two or three separate breaches. >>>>>>>>>
If the item I heard earlier today on Radio 4 comes to pass, the
collapse
of a sea wall is a minor problem. Glaciers in the Antarctic are
melting;
at its worst, parts of the ice cap could slide into the sea, with an >>>>>>> eventual rise in sea level of around 3 metres (almost 10 feet). The >>>>>>> Thames barrage will need to be enlarged, and lots of low-lying
coastline
will be under water.
I think the biggest problem with global warming is politicians in
that most of them don't believe in it.
Politicians right of centre seem to be the most guilty.
Is the main cause of global warning all the hot air coming from
politicians?
Their descendents will regret that error when parts of Florida disappear >>> into the Atlantic.
It's a pity he wont be here to see it happen.
He might yet - not with sea level rise but with increased precipitation and more frequent flooding of low lying land, Florida being notably low lying.
Sam
On 30/01/2026 10:05, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 08:54:02 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 29/01/2026 17:02, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 17:00:04 +0000
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> gabbled:
On 29/01/2026 14:23, Coffee wrote:
Politicians right of centre seem to be the most guilty.
Is the main cause of global warning all the hot air coming from
politicians?
I haven't noticed all the left wing governments in south american and >>>> africa
exactly paving the way for enviromental excellence.
What left wing governments, in Africa, most of them are military or
otherwise corrupt dictatorships.
You're just as capable of using google as I am but shall we start with the >> ANC and move north from there?
What part of "most of" are you having trouble with?
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 13:09:03 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 30/01/2026 10:05, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 08:54:02 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 29/01/2026 17:02, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 17:00:04 +0000
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> gabbled:
On 29/01/2026 14:23, Coffee wrote:
Politicians right of centre seem to be the most guilty.
Is the main cause of global warning all the hot air coming from
politicians?
I haven't noticed all the left wing governments in south american
and africa
exactly paving the way for enviromental excellence.
What left wing governments, in Africa, most of them are military or
otherwise corrupt dictatorships.
You're just as capable of using google as I am but shall we start
with the
ANC and move north from there?
What part of "most of" are you having trouble with?
"Most of" these dictatorships started as left wing guerilla groups.
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> posted:
One politician of the right who did accept anthropogenic climate
change was Thatcher, who had done science. Unforunately it clashed too
hard with her world-view, which was that a world of uninhibited free
markets is the best of all possible worlds and provides the solution
to everything.
However, she reduced domestic coal mining. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Kingdom#Decline_in_volume
On 30/01/2026 16:43, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
"Most of" these dictatorships started as left wing guerilla groups.
In your world, possibly.
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 15:12:52 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <itbcnk9grijc1679o2tbd2ssef7pdfsno7@4ax.com>, at 15:01:57 on >>Sun, 25 Jan 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
That doesn?t sound right, track is still laid from Okehampton to Meldon >>>>even though it isn?t used and its about 2 and a bit miles not 20 . Sounds >>>>like someone meant the missing and lifted section between Meldon and Bere >>>>Alston.
Yes, Roland subsequently admitted
Indeed, although I'd use a slightly less prejudicial verb. Such as >>"*volunteered* [the information that]"
he was quoting
Yes. The vast majority of things reported here, by all and sundry, are >>quotes from others.
(or misquoting?) from FB.
See below.
I don't know if the person he was quoting was wrong,
Even though I said: reflect on whether the problem here is that he meant >>"Bere Alston"? He, which in case you didn't realise, is the person who >>posted on FB.
My question stands. I simply don't believe you.
or if Roland simply quoted him incorrectly? My money is on the
latter...
Then you'd be wrong. Again.
Then provide a link to prove it.
As for where on FB that was said, I'm afraid it's virtually impossible
to find "links" (a WWW concept rather than FB) to things one saw over a
week ago.
Here I am trying to be helpful, quoting a source (also repeated by the >>local tourist agency).
Your original posting mentioned no source (as per usual).
Anyway, put a sock back in that potty-mouth
Yet another word you clearly don't understand: >https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pottymouth
of yours, and reflect on whether the problem here is that he meant
"Bere Alston", at which point all the rest is consistent.
Sure, if he's something that was correct, he'd have been correct. Fantastic.
But you posted something that was entirely wrong as if it was a fact.
The main take-away is that the viaduct is out of use as a railway,
barely even safe for cyclists, and the track's lifted for the next
twenty miles south.
We all already knew that before your unhelpful posting.
On 31/01/2026 09:20, Roland Perry wrote:
As for where on FB that was said, I'm afraid it's virtually
impossible to find "links" (a WWW concept rather than FB) to things
one saw over a week ago.
A week ago! The same can be said for five minutes ago.
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 10:17:48 GMT, Ulf Kutzner ><user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> posted:ume
One politician of the right who did accept anthropogenic climate
change was Thatcher, who had done science. Unforunately it clashed too
hard with her world-view, which was that a world of uninhibited free
markets is the best of all possible worlds and provides the solution
to everything.
However, she reduced domestic coal mining. >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Kingdom#Decline_in_vol
Although it declined less under Thatcher than under her predecessor-but-one >(Harold Wilson) and her next two succesors (John Major and Tony Blair). In >fact, the long-term graph of coal production in the UK shows the rate of >decline under Thatcher to be slower than most of the second half of the 20th >century. The only post-war Prime Minister who didn't oversee a significant >decline in coal production was James Callaghan.
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 10:17:48 GMT, Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> posted:
One politician of the right who did accept anthropogenic climate
change was Thatcher, who had done science. Unforunately it clashed too
hard with her world-view, which was that a world of uninhibited free
markets is the best of all possible worlds and provides the solution
to everything.
However, she reduced domestic coal mining.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Kingdom#Decline_in_volume
Although it declined less under Thatcher than under her predecessor-but-one (Harold Wilson) and her next two succesors (John Major and Tony Blair). In fact, the long-term graph of coal production in the UK shows the rate of decline under Thatcher to be slower than most of the second half of the 20th century. The only post-war Prime Minister who didn't oversee a significant decline in coal production was James Callaghan.
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 10:17:48 GMT, Ulf Kutzner
<user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> posted:
One politician of the right who did accept anthropogenic climate
change was Thatcher, who had done science. Unforunately it clashed too >>>> hard with her world-view, which was that a world of uninhibited free
markets is the best of all possible worlds and provides the solution
to everything.
However, she reduced domestic coal mining.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Kingdom#Decline_in_volume
Although it declined less under Thatcher than under her predecessor-but-one >> (Harold Wilson) and her next two succesors (John Major and Tony Blair). In >> fact, the long-term graph of coal production in the UK shows the rate of
decline under Thatcher to be slower than most of the second half of the 20th >> century. The only post-war Prime Minister who didn't oversee a significant >> decline in coal production was James Callaghan.
It would be interesting to know whether that slowdown in decline was
because the unions decided to take her on delayed closures that would have happened under a less strident leader.
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 10:17:48 GMT, Ulf Kutzner
<user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> posted:
One politician of the right who did accept anthropogenic climate
change was Thatcher, who had done science. Unforunately it clashed too >>>>> hard with her world-view, which was that a world of uninhibited free >>>>> markets is the best of all possible worlds and provides the solution >>>>> to everything.
However, she reduced domestic coal mining.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Kingdom#Decline_in_volume
Although it declined less under Thatcher than under her predecessor-but-one >>> (Harold Wilson) and her next two succesors (John Major and Tony Blair). In >>> fact, the long-term graph of coal production in the UK shows the rate of >>> decline under Thatcher to be slower than most of the second half of the 20th
century. The only post-war Prime Minister who didn't oversee a significant >>> decline in coal production was James Callaghan.
It would be interesting to know whether that slowdown in decline was
because the unions decided to take her on delayed closures that would have >> happened under a less strident leader.
Or, perhaps, because she wanted to build up stocks before the inevitable strike? So she encouraged higher production for a period...
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 10:17:48 GMT, Ulf Kutzner
<user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> posted:
One politician of the right who did accept anthropogenic climate
change was Thatcher, who had done science. Unforunately it clashed too >>>>> hard with her world-view, which was that a world of uninhibited free >>>>> markets is the best of all possible worlds and provides the solution >>>>> to everything.
However, she reduced domestic coal mining.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Kingdom#Decline_in_volume
Although it declined less under Thatcher than under her predecessor-but-one >>> (Harold Wilson) and her next two succesors (John Major and Tony Blair). In >>> fact, the long-term graph of coal production in the UK shows the rate of >>> decline under Thatcher to be slower than most of the second half of the 20th
century. The only post-war Prime Minister who didn't oversee a significant >>> decline in coal production was James Callaghan.
It would be interesting to know whether that slowdown in decline was
because the unions decided to take her on delayed closures that would have >> happened under a less strident leader.
Or, perhaps, because she wanted to build up stocks before the inevitable strike? So she encouraged higher production for a period.
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 20:25:37 +0000
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> gabbled:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 10:17:48 GMT, Ulf Kutzner
<user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> posted:ume
One politician of the right who did accept anthropogenic climate
change was Thatcher, who had done science. Unforunately it clashed too >>>> hard with her world-view, which was that a world of uninhibited free
markets is the best of all possible worlds and provides the solution
to everything.
However, she reduced domestic coal mining.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Kingdom#Decline_in_vol
Although it declined less under Thatcher than under her predecessor-but-one >> (Harold Wilson) and her next two succesors (John Major and Tony Blair). In >> fact, the long-term graph of coal production in the UK shows the rate of
decline under Thatcher to be slower than most of the second half of the 20th >> century. The only post-war Prime Minister who didn't oversee a significant >> decline in coal production was James Callaghan.
Luckily we had north sea gas to take up the slack. Unfortunately the current bunch of circus clowns now want to phase out gas to replace it with wind farms
that don't work during anti cyclonic weather and solar panels that barely work during winter and not at all at night.
On 31/01/2026 09:46, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 20:25:37 +0000
Luckily we had north sea gas to take up the slack. Unfortunately the current >> bunch of circus clowns now want to phase out gas to replace it with wind >farms
that don't work during anti cyclonic weather and solar panels that barely
work during winter and not at all at night.
The clowns are heading in the right direction but too fast. They need
to wait for batteries or other storage technologies to reach the point
where we can generate power when the weather suits and consume it when
it doesn't. Power cuts are only a matter of time, hence the headlong
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 14:57:36 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 31/01/2026 09:46, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 20:25:37 +0000farms
Luckily we had north sea gas to take up the slack. Unfortunately the
current
bunch of circus clowns now want to phase out gas to replace it with wind
that don't work during anti cyclonic weather and solar panels that
barely
work during winter and not at all at night.
The clowns are heading in the right direction but too fast.ÿ They need
to wait for batteries or other storage technologies to reach the point
where we can generate power when the weather suits and consume it when
it doesn't.ÿ Power cuts are only a matter of time, hence the headlong
Not going to happen in any forseable future unless battery tech has some
kind of quantum leap. The UK uses approx 850 GWH per day. Being generous
and assuming 5kg of current lithium batteries can store 1kwh you'd need approx 4.2 MILLION TONS of batteries just to store enough power for the
UK for a SINGLE DAY. Thats 200m high cube of batteries.
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 14:57:36 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 31/01/2026 09:46, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 20:25:37 +0000farms
Luckily we had north sea gas to take up the slack. Unfortunately the current
bunch of circus clowns now want to phase out gas to replace it with wind
that don't work during anti cyclonic weather and solar panels that barely >>> work during winter and not at all at night.
The clowns are heading in the right direction but too fast. They need
to wait for batteries or other storage technologies to reach the point
where we can generate power when the weather suits and consume it when
it doesn't. Power cuts are only a matter of time, hence the headlong
Not going to happen in any forseable future unless battery tech has some
kind of quantum leap. The UK uses approx 850 GWH per day. Being generous and assuming 5kg of current lithium batteries can store 1kwh you'd need approx 4.2 MILLION TONS of batteries just to store enough power for the UK for a SINGLE DAY. Thats 200m high cube of batteries.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 14:57:36 +0000I don?t see what is fundamentally wrong with using wind and solar when available, and firing up gas/oil when not.
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 31/01/2026 09:46, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 20:25:37 +0000
Luckily we had north sea gas to take up the slack. Unfortunately the current
bunch of circus clowns now want to phase out gas to replace it with wind >>> farms
that don't work during anti cyclonic weather and solar panels that barely >>>> work during winter and not at all at night.
The clowns are heading in the right direction but too fast. They need
to wait for batteries or other storage technologies to reach the point
where we can generate power when the weather suits and consume it when
it doesn't. Power cuts are only a matter of time, hence the headlong
Not going to happen in any forseable future unless battery tech has some
kind of quantum leap. The UK uses approx 850 GWH per day. Being generous and >> assuming 5kg of current lithium batteries can store 1kwh you'd need approx >> 4.2 MILLION TONS of batteries just to store enough power for the UK for a
SINGLE DAY. Thats 200m high cube of batteries.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 14:57:36 +0000I don?t see what is fundamentally wrong with using wind and solar when available, and firing up gas/oil when not.
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 31/01/2026 09:46, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 20:25:37 +0000
Luckily we had north sea gas to take up the slack. Unfortunately the current
bunch of circus clowns now want to phase out gas to replace it with wind >>> farms
that don't work during anti cyclonic weather and solar panels that barely >>>> work during winter and not at all at night.
The clowns are heading in the right direction but too fast. They need
to wait for batteries or other storage technologies to reach the point
where we can generate power when the weather suits and consume it when
it doesn't. Power cuts are only a matter of time, hence the headlong
Not going to happen in any forseable future unless battery tech has some
kind of quantum leap. The UK uses approx 850 GWH per day. Being generous and >> assuming 5kg of current lithium batteries can store 1kwh you'd need approx >> 4.2 MILLION TONS of batteries just to store enough power for the UK for a
SINGLE DAY. Thats 200m high cube of batteries.
On 01/02/2026 16:15, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 14:57:36 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 31/01/2026 09:46, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 20:25:37 +0000
Luckily we had north sea gas to take up the slack. Unfortunately the
current
bunch of circus clowns now want to phase out gas to replace it with wind >>> farms
that don't work during anti cyclonic weather and solar panels that
barely
work during winter and not at all at night.
The clowns are heading in the right direction but too fast.ÿ They need
to wait for batteries or other storage technologies to reach the point
where we can generate power when the weather suits and consume it when
it doesn't.ÿ Power cuts are only a matter of time, hence the headlong
Not going to happen in any forseable future unless battery tech has some
kind of quantum leap. The UK uses approx 850 GWH per day. Being generous
and assuming 5kg of current lithium batteries can store 1kwh you'd need
approx 4.2 MILLION TONS of batteries just to store enough power for the
UK for a SINGLE DAY. Thats 200m high cube of batteries.
Albeit in a small way, that is already being built! https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2025/06/06/battery-park-construction-set-get/
On 01/02/2026 16:40, Tweed wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 14:57:36 +0000I don?t see what is fundamentally wrong with using wind and solar when
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 31/01/2026 09:46, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 20:25:37 +0000
Luckily we had north sea gas to take up the slack. Unfortunately the current
bunch of circus clowns now want to phase out gas to replace it with wind >>>> farms
that don't work during anti cyclonic weather and solar panels that barely >>>>> work during winter and not at all at night.
The clowns are heading in the right direction but too fast. They need >>>> to wait for batteries or other storage technologies to reach the point >>>> where we can generate power when the weather suits and consume it when >>>> it doesn't. Power cuts are only a matter of time, hence the headlong
Not going to happen in any forseable future unless battery tech has some >>> kind of quantum leap. The UK uses approx 850 GWH per day. Being generous and
assuming 5kg of current lithium batteries can store 1kwh you'd need approx >>> 4.2 MILLION TONS of batteries just to store enough power for the UK for a >>> SINGLE DAY. Thats 200m high cube of batteries.
available, and firing up gas/oil when not.
What we need is for someone to solve affordable wave power, then we
won't need sun, wind or fossil fuels -- well not for millions of years
until the moon escapes from Earth orbit.
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/02/2026 16:40, Tweed wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 14:57:36 +0000I don?t see what is fundamentally wrong with using wind and solar when
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 31/01/2026 09:46, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:Not going to happen in any forseable future unless battery tech has some >>>> kind of quantum leap. The UK uses approx 850 GWH per day. Being generous and
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 20:25:37 +0000
Luckily we had north sea gas to take up the slack. Unfortunately the current
bunch of circus clowns now want to phase out gas to replace it with wind >>>>> farms
that don't work during anti cyclonic weather and solar panels that barely
work during winter and not at all at night.
The clowns are heading in the right direction but too fast. They need >>>>> to wait for batteries or other storage technologies to reach the point >>>>> where we can generate power when the weather suits and consume it when >>>>> it doesn't. Power cuts are only a matter of time, hence the headlong >>>>
assuming 5kg of current lithium batteries can store 1kwh you'd need approx >>>> 4.2 MILLION TONS of batteries just to store enough power for the UK for a >>>> SINGLE DAY. Thats 200m high cube of batteries.
available, and firing up gas/oil when not.
What we need is for someone to solve affordable wave power, then we
won't need sun, wind or fossil fuels -- well not for millions of years
until the moon escapes from Earth orbit.
I know people who are trying to do exactly that. Tidal power is also an active reasearch topic.
Sam
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/02/2026 16:40, Tweed wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 14:57:36 +0000I don?t see what is fundamentally wrong with using wind and solar when >>>> available, and firing up gas/oil when not.
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 31/01/2026 09:46, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:Not going to happen in any forseable future unless battery tech has some >>>>> kind of quantum leap. The UK uses approx 850 GWH per day. Being generous and
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 20:25:37 +0000farms
Luckily we had north sea gas to take up the slack. Unfortunately the current
bunch of circus clowns now want to phase out gas to replace it with wind
that don't work during anti cyclonic weather and solar panels that barely
work during winter and not at all at night.
The clowns are heading in the right direction but too fast. They need >>>>>> to wait for batteries or other storage technologies to reach the point >>>>>> where we can generate power when the weather suits and consume it when >>>>>> it doesn't. Power cuts are only a matter of time, hence the headlong >>>>>
assuming 5kg of current lithium batteries can store 1kwh you'd need approx
4.2 MILLION TONS of batteries just to store enough power for the UK for a >>>>> SINGLE DAY. Thats 200m high cube of batteries.
What we need is for someone to solve affordable wave power, then we
won't need sun, wind or fossil fuels -- well not for millions of years
until the moon escapes from Earth orbit.
I know people who are trying to do exactly that. Tidal power is also an
active reasearch topic.
As yet nobody has built anything to extract wave energy at scale that survives the waves. Many have tried. Tidal systems suffer two problems - silting up and other damage to local water systems, and no generation at slack water. The latter problem would need large amounts of battery or similar buffer storage. Do either at scale and local water system damage becomes an ever greater problem.
On 01/02/2026 17:15, Tweed wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/02/2026 16:40, Tweed wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 14:57:36 +0000I don?t see what is fundamentally wrong with using wind and solar when >>>>> available, and firing up gas/oil when not.
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 31/01/2026 09:46, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 20:25:37 +0000farms
Luckily we had north sea gas to take up the slack. Unfortunately >>>>>>>> the current
bunch of circus clowns now want to phase out gas to replace it >>>>>>>> with wind
that don't work during anti cyclonic weather and solar panels >>>>>>>> that barely
work during winter and not at all at night.
The clowns are heading in the right direction but too fast.ÿ They >>>>>>> need
to wait for batteries or other storage technologies to reach the >>>>>>> point
where we can generate power when the weather suits and consume it >>>>>>> when
it doesn't.ÿ Power cuts are only a matter of time, hence the
headlong
Not going to happen in any forseable future unless battery tech
has some
kind of quantum leap. The UK uses approx 850 GWH per day. Being
generous and
assuming 5kg of current lithium batteries can store 1kwh you'd
need approx
4.2 MILLION TONS of batteries just to store enough power for the
UK for a
SINGLE DAY. Thats 200m high cube of batteries.
What we need is for someone to solve affordable wave power, then we
won't need sun, wind or fossil fuels -- well not for millions of years >>>> until the moon escapes from Earth orbit.
I know people who are trying to do exactly that.ÿ Tidal power is also an >>> active reasearch topic.
As yet nobody has built anything to extract wave energy at scale that
survives the waves. Many have tried. Tidal systems suffer two problems -
silting up and other damage to local water systems, and no generation at
slack water. The latter problem would need large amounts of battery or
similar buffer storage. Do either at scale and local water system damage
becomes an ever greater problem.
The latter problem goes away if you build two installations in cunningly chosen locations where the tides are about 90ø (three hours) apart.
It may be possible to design out the silting, but I'm no expert on that. Local damage may be more of an issue in such a densely populated land.
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 10:17:48 GMT, Ulf Kutzner
<user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> posted:
One politician of the right who did accept anthropogenic climate
change was Thatcher, who had done science. Unforunately it clashed too >>>> hard with her world-view, which was that a world of uninhibited free
markets is the best of all possible worlds and provides the solution
to everything.
However, she reduced domestic coal mining.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_Kingdom#Decline_in_volume
Although it declined less under Thatcher than under her predecessor-but-one >> (Harold Wilson) and her next two succesors (John Major and Tony Blair). In >> fact, the long-term graph of coal production in the UK shows the rate of
decline under Thatcher to be slower than most of the second half of the 20th >> century. The only post-war Prime Minister who didn't oversee a significant >> decline in coal production was James Callaghan.
It would be interesting to know whether that slowdown in decline was
because the unions decided to take her on delayed closures that would have >happened under a less strident leader.
On 01/02/2026 17:55, Certes wrote:
On 01/02/2026 17:15, Tweed wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/02/2026 16:40, Tweed wrote:
I don?t see what is fundamentally wrong with using wind and solar >>>>>> when available, and firing up gas/oil when not.
What we need is for someone to solve affordable wave power, then we
won't need sun, wind or fossil fuels -- well not for millions of years >>>>> until the moon escapes from Earth orbit.
I know people who are trying to do exactly that.ÿ Tidal power is
also an active reasearch topic.
As yet nobody has built anything to extract wave energy at scale that
survives the waves. Many have tried. Tidal systems suffer two problems - >>> silting up and other damage to local water systems, and no generation at >>> slack water. The latter problem would need large amounts of battery or
similar buffer storage. Do either at scale and local water system damage >>> becomes an ever greater problem.
The latter problem goes away if you build two installations in cunningly
chosen locations where the tides are about 90ø (three hours) apart.
It may be possible to design out the silting, but I'm no expert on that.
Local damage may be more of an issue in such a densely populated land.
For interest: https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2023/01/31/novas-six-strong-tidal-energy-array-completed/
and
https://www.shetland.org/blog/world-first-shetlands-tidal-energy
The alternative to two installations is some form of battery (chemical, pumped water etc). However, the tides in Yell Sound (mentioned in one of
the articles) will be out of sync with Bluemull so likely able to get continuous generation irrespective of tide AND, more importantly, irrespective of weather. Wave power is as useless as wind power as it is unreliable.
On 01/02/2026 20:20, ColinR wrote:
On 01/02/2026 17:55, Certes wrote:
On 01/02/2026 17:15, Tweed wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/02/2026 16:40, Tweed wrote:
I don?t see what is fundamentally wrong with using wind and solar >>>>>>> when available, and firing up gas/oil when not.
What we need is for someone to solve affordable wave power, then we >>>>>> won't need sun, wind or fossil fuels -- well not for millions of
years
until the moon escapes from Earth orbit.
I know people who are trying to do exactly that.ÿ Tidal power is
also an active reasearch topic.
As yet nobody has built anything to extract wave energy at scale that
survives the waves. Many have tried. Tidal systems suffer two
problems -
silting up and other damage to local water systems, and no
generation at
slack water. The latter problem would need large amounts of battery or >>>> similar buffer storage. Do either at scale and local water system
damage
becomes an ever greater problem.
The latter problem goes away if you build two installations in cunningly >>> chosen locations where the tides are about 90ø (three hours) apart.
It may be possible to design out the silting, but I'm no expert on that. >>> Local damage may be more of an issue in such a densely populated land.
For interest:
https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2023/01/31/novas-six-strong-tidal-energy-
array-completed/
and
https://www.shetland.org/blog/world-first-shetlands-tidal-energy
The alternative to two installations is some form of battery
(chemical, pumped water etc). However, the tides in Yell Sound
(mentioned in one of the articles) will be out of sync with Bluemull
so likely able to get continuous generation irrespective of tide AND,
more importantly, irrespective of weather. Wave power is as useless as
wind power as it is unreliable.
Interesting, thanks.ÿ Shetland has very suitable tides, the main problem being that it's too remote to connect to the national grid at reasonable
cost even with DC.ÿ I was also disappointed to learn that the largest
number of tidal turbines anywhere in the world produce only 600kW, but perhaps this is a prototype for larger systems to come further south.
Tidal certainly seems more promising than waves, which share many of the disadvantages of wind power.ÿ Tidal can join (or eventually replace)
nuclear as base load.ÿ But that can only be part of the solution.ÿ To
satisfy demand peaks, we'll still need either a controllable source like
gas or lots of decent storage.
On 01/02/2026 20:20, ColinR wrote:
On 01/02/2026 17:55, Certes wrote:
On 01/02/2026 17:15, Tweed wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/02/2026 16:40, Tweed wrote:
I don?t see what is fundamentally wrong with using wind and solar >>>>>>> when available, and firing up gas/oil when not.
What we need is for someone to solve affordable wave power, then we >>>>>> won't need sun, wind or fossil fuels -- well not for millions of
years
until the moon escapes from Earth orbit.
I know people who are trying to do exactly that.ÿ Tidal power is
also an active reasearch topic.
As yet nobody has built anything to extract wave energy at scale that
survives the waves. Many have tried. Tidal systems suffer two
problems -
silting up and other damage to local water systems, and no
generation at
slack water. The latter problem would need large amounts of battery or >>>> similar buffer storage. Do either at scale and local water system
damage
becomes an ever greater problem.
The latter problem goes away if you build two installations in cunningly >>> chosen locations where the tides are about 90ø (three hours) apart.
It may be possible to design out the silting, but I'm no expert on that. >>> Local damage may be more of an issue in such a densely populated land.
For interest:
https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2023/01/31/novas-six-strong-tidal-energy-
array-completed/
and
https://www.shetland.org/blog/world-first-shetlands-tidal-energy
The alternative to two installations is some form of battery
(chemical, pumped water etc). However, the tides in Yell Sound
(mentioned in one of the articles) will be out of sync with Bluemull
so likely able to get continuous generation irrespective of tide AND,
more importantly, irrespective of weather. Wave power is as useless as
wind power as it is unreliable.
Interesting, thanks.ÿ Shetland has very suitable tides, the main problem being that it's too remote to connect to the national grid at reasonable
cost even with DC.ÿ I was also disappointed to learn that the largest
number of tidal turbines anywhere in the world produce only 600kW, but perhaps this is a prototype for larger systems to come further south.
Tidal certainly seems more promising than waves, which share many of the disadvantages of wind power.ÿ Tidal can join (or eventually replace)
nuclear as base load.ÿ But that can only be part of the solution.ÿ To
satisfy demand peaks, we'll still need either a controllable source like
gas or lots of decent storage.
On 01/02/2026 21:00, Certes wrote:
On 01/02/2026 20:20, ColinR wrote:
On 01/02/2026 17:55, Certes wrote:
On 01/02/2026 17:15, Tweed wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/02/2026 16:40, Tweed wrote:
I don?t see what is fundamentally wrong with using wind and
solar when available, and firing up gas/oil when not.
What we need is for someone to solve affordable wave power, then we >>>>>>> won't need sun, wind or fossil fuels -- well not for millions of >>>>>>> years
until the moon escapes from Earth orbit.
I know people who are trying to do exactly that.ÿ Tidal power is
also an active reasearch topic.
As yet nobody has built anything to extract wave energy at scale that >>>>> survives the waves. Many have tried. Tidal systems suffer two
problems -
silting up and other damage to local water systems, and no
generation at
slack water. The latter problem would need large amounts of battery or >>>>> similar buffer storage. Do either at scale and local water system
damage
becomes an ever greater problem.
The latter problem goes away if you build two installations in
cunningly
chosen locations where the tides are about 90ø (three hours) apart.
It may be possible to design out the silting, but I'm no expert on
that.
Local damage may be more of an issue in such a densely populated land.
For interest:
https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2023/01/31/novas-six-strong-tidal-energy-
array-completed/
and
https://www.shetland.org/blog/world-first-shetlands-tidal-energy
The alternative to two installations is some form of battery
(chemical, pumped water etc). However, the tides in Yell Sound
(mentioned in one of the articles) will be out of sync with Bluemull
so likely able to get continuous generation irrespective of tide AND,
more importantly, irrespective of weather. Wave power is as useless
as wind power as it is unreliable.
Interesting, thanks.ÿ Shetland has very suitable tides, the main problem
being that it's too remote to connect to the national grid at reasonable
cost even with DC.ÿ I was also disappointed to learn that the largest
number of tidal turbines anywhere in the world produce only 600kW, but
perhaps this is a prototype for larger systems to come further south.
Tidal certainly seems more promising than waves, which share many of the
disadvantages of wind power.ÿ Tidal can join (or eventually replace)
nuclear as base load.ÿ But that can only be part of the solution.ÿ To
satisfy demand peaks, we'll still need either a controllable source like
gas or lots of decent storage.
"Interesting, thanks.ÿ Shetland has very suitable tides, the main
problem being that it's too remote to connect to the national grid at reasonable cost even with DC."
No longer correct. A new wind farm with 100+ large turbines is complete
and has been sending power south for just over a year (DC underwater
section which is two way). The internal connection from the new windfarm
to the Shetland grid is due to be commissioned this year sometime (seems
to be a very elastic timescale, was due to connect a year ago!).
However, last figures show the windfarm produced usable power for all of
17% of the time, the remainder being not required as the infrastructure
from the north of Scotland to the main population is inadequate. The annoying thing is that the developers make profit if they sell
lecktrickery south and make a profit if they do not owing to the
"constraint payments" when they are paid to idle the turbines ..
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 14:57:36 +0000I don?t see what is fundamentally wrong with using wind and solar when available, and firing up gas/oil when not.
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 31/01/2026 09:46, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 20:25:37 +0000
Luckily we had north sea gas to take up the slack. Unfortunately the current
bunch of circus clowns now want to phase out gas to replace it with wind >>> farms
that don't work during anti cyclonic weather and solar panels that barely >>>> work during winter and not at all at night.
The clowns are heading in the right direction but too fast. They need
to wait for batteries or other storage technologies to reach the point
where we can generate power when the weather suits and consume it when
it doesn't. Power cuts are only a matter of time, hence the headlong
Not going to happen in any forseable future unless battery tech has some
kind of quantum leap. The UK uses approx 850 GWH per day. Being generous and >> assuming 5kg of current lithium batteries can store 1kwh you'd need approx >> 4.2 MILLION TONS of batteries just to store enough power for the UK for a
SINGLE DAY. Thats 200m high cube of batteries.
On 01/02/2026 21:00, Certes wrote:
On 01/02/2026 20:20, ColinR wrote:
On 01/02/2026 17:55, Certes wrote:
On 01/02/2026 17:15, Tweed wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/02/2026 16:40, Tweed wrote:
I don?t see what is fundamentally wrong with using wind and
solar when available, and firing up gas/oil when not.
What we need is for someone to solve affordable wave power, then we >>>>>>> won't need sun, wind or fossil fuels -- well not for millions of >>>>>>> years
until the moon escapes from Earth orbit.
I know people who are trying to do exactly that.ÿ Tidal power is
also an active reasearch topic.
As yet nobody has built anything to extract wave energy at scale that >>>>> survives the waves. Many have tried. Tidal systems suffer two
problems -
silting up and other damage to local water systems, and no
generation at
slack water. The latter problem would need large amounts of battery or >>>>> similar buffer storage. Do either at scale and local water system
damage
becomes an ever greater problem.
The latter problem goes away if you build two installations in
cunningly
chosen locations where the tides are about 90ø (three hours) apart.
It may be possible to design out the silting, but I'm no expert on
that.
Local damage may be more of an issue in such a densely populated land.
For interest:
https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2023/01/31/novas-six-strong-tidal-energy-
array-completed/
and
https://www.shetland.org/blog/world-first-shetlands-tidal-energy
The alternative to two installations is some form of battery
(chemical, pumped water etc). However, the tides in Yell Sound
(mentioned in one of the articles) will be out of sync with Bluemull
so likely able to get continuous generation irrespective of tide AND,
more importantly, irrespective of weather. Wave power is as useless
as wind power as it is unreliable.
Interesting, thanks.ÿ Shetland has very suitable tides, the main problem
being that it's too remote to connect to the national grid at reasonable
cost even with DC.ÿ I was also disappointed to learn that the largest
number of tidal turbines anywhere in the world produce only 600kW, but
perhaps this is a prototype for larger systems to come further south.
Tidal certainly seems more promising than waves, which share many of the
disadvantages of wind power.ÿ Tidal can join (or eventually replace)
nuclear as base load.ÿ But that can only be part of the solution.ÿ To
satisfy demand peaks, we'll still need either a controllable source like
gas or lots of decent storage.
Some people just don't understand. If the world keeps burning fossil
fuels at the current rate, much of the world will become uninhabitable
in a few generations. And as people have seen, a consequence of higher temperatures has led to more wildfires; these not only contribute more pollution, but also remove lots of vegetation that helps to remove CO2
from the atmosphere.
Yes, UK only consumes a fraction of world consumption, but we need to
set an example and hope that lots of others follow.
And even if that was not the case, there will come a time when all the accessible fossil fuel has been used; once it has gone, there is no
more. The rate of natural production of new fossil fuel is too slow to
be of practical use. Not in our lifetimes, of course, but maybe a couple
of centuries. A plan for long term alternatives is vital.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 20:53:54 |
| Calls: | 117 |
| Calls today: | 117 |
| Files: | 367 |
| D/L today: |
559 files (257M bytes) |
| Messages: | 70,875 |
| Posted today: | 26 |
