"David Biddulph" groups [at] biddulph.org.uk wrote in message
...
"Richard J." wrote in message
...
J. Chisholm wrote on 19 November 2009 12:13:06 ...
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:14:48 +0000, "J. Chisholm"
wrote:
I don't go with 'constant change' theory. More like a typical
foundation that has been undermined by a particular rainfall event.

That's precisely why I stated "It is probably a result of scour under
the foundations as a result of the extreme flows of water."

You obviously didn't bother to read that. However, you quoted it in
your reply.
Do you make a habit of replying to postings you cannot be bothered to
read? Why?

Sorry. No need to be agressive... I read the last para which implied a
different mode of failure,

But the "last para" was in response to my speculation about what led to
the earlier brickwork replacement at the top of the arch, i.e. a
different event to the recent collapse.

Incidentally, was the rain in the Feltham area really that extreme last
week? (I was several hundred miles away at the time.)

There is another photo, of unsupported track, presumably above a point
further along the tunnel, at

http://rail-news.com/wp-content/uplo...Feltham-v2.jpg

(The report containing that photo is at
http://rail-news.com/2009/11/17/100-...-flood-damage/ )

Now at
http://rail-news.com/2009/11/19/100-...damage/--David
Biddulph


It's done it again. :-(
I wish OE didn't keep gluing my sig to the end of a link.
Should be
http://rail-news.com/2009/11/19/100-...damage/--David BiddulphRowing web pages athttp://www.biddulph.org.uk/