I think that this is the game that Network Rail are playing. Make all nice noises and make it sound as if they're doing loads of engagement and consultation but at the end of the day they're going to get what they want. Best case they might look at painting them but I'd bet that's going to be about it.
I think it's a decent political move. Network Rail would be well within their rights to just say 'it's our land and we have the right to develop as we see fit'. But I think this slightly softer approach, which in the grand scheme of things won't cost much, makes plenty of sense.
This is what I'm on about!
With respect, several of you have said previously that NR would brush off the Save the Goring Gap mob with a polite version of 'sod off' (and I said I hoped they would).
But look at the record. That has not happened. Look at where we've come from, and you will see where we are headed.
Far from it: NR has engaged and Mark Carne has personally promised that his company intends to install replacement OLE, subject to the inevitable caveats about funding (which you'd get in any public works project). Contractors have already been commissioned to design the equipment and consult on the environmental impact.
But they can reject it on cost grounds, I hear you say. No: they have already made space in the GWEP budget for it. The RAG website says:
NR re-affirmed that there is now a line in the overall £2.8billion GWR electrification budget* for the Goring Gap/AONB refrofit.
I get that you may have to take them with a pinch of salt, but unless they are lying through their teeth I think we probably have to accept that that did happen - just as it did happen that someone from NR's side mentioned headspans. Not just in passing, but described them - I doubt RAG count many OLE experts among their number.
Headspans may well be rubbish, but I don't believe that they have been excluded from the designs. Not unless there's another outright lie here (from the RAG news page):
NR managers confirmed that they are well under way with moving from concepts for new designs to more practicable designs. These include ‘wire-head spans’ (instead of the heavy solid horizontal metal structures currently being used) and thinner, more tubular versions of the upright supports.
You have to consider the politics too - I think some local MPs have raised the matter and, with the government's slim majority, they can carry weight. It wouldn't surprise me if the DfT had leaned on NR over this issue and told them to back down. It's not just a matter of what the planning rules say; I don't think NR can afford to look like they are ignoring angry mobs (cf. Christmas 2014 engineering works).
It's no good accusing RAG of exaggerating: the record doesn't bear that out. Much as I don't like it, they are delivering on their mission. And much as Mr Phlopp is good value on this niche trainspotter message board, he isn't the chief executive of NR - who is giving out a very different message.
