Comment posted Economic development strategy for the west Highlands by Robert Wakeham.
It’s just that you lack vision. Probably untreatable; was it you who gave Graeme’s comment on tunnelling the ‘thumbs down’, Ferryman?
Robert Wakeham also commented
- Whatever you think of Mike Russell, Ferryman, it’s twisting things to retreat from your stance that anyone mentioning tunnels is a raving loony – but then conjure up a reason to still condemn Mike Russell for mentioning them.
- Good thing you’ve yet to spot my plan for extending the railway from Gourock to Lochgilphead, but on further thought I wonder if a modest tax on increased real estate values wouldn’t go a considerable way to paying for this, or a road tunnel to Dunoon.
- Careful, Doc, or some of the usual suspects will misinterpret your comments as arguing against spending real money on sorting out the Rest & Be Thankful. By the way, on Malcolm’s subject of Gaelification of road signs, has anyone noticed how a rather ambitious wind farm developer with designs on offshore Fife has chosen to call their proposed megadevelopment Neart na Gaoithe? When did Fife fishermen converse in Gaelic?
- Do your homework Simon, control your bile, and in your rush to sneer don’t start attributing the costings to the wrong person.
Read up about Norwegian tunnels for the good of your education – I’m sure there’s plenty of info on the net, and there’s definitely a video of their first subsea tunnel, at Vardo, which goes down 88m. Yes the gradients can be steeper than those in the existing Clyde tunnel, but they’re designed to be manageable for all vehicles.
I don’t bad-mouth you for what others have said.
- You dismiss it too easily Simon – it would be likely that on both sides a tunnel would extend a considerable way under land to achieve main road connections without major demolition and damage to the local communities – and to achieve acceptable gradients. The maximum depth of the Clyde between Dunoon and the Cloch seems to be around 50 fathoms, which – at say 92 metres – is quite deep but in Norway there’s a main road undersea tunnel dipping to 250 metres, so it’s clearly feasible.
Recent comments by Robert Wakeham
- Scottish Leaders’ debate produces the epitome of political hypocrisy
SF, I think that people hell bent on divorce might well ‘sometimes zig-zag’, but maybe you’re not so interested in that?
- Russell calls for restitution of island air services suspended in ‘unnecessary and damaging dispute’
Sometimes I think that ‘Simon’ is a construct, rather than a real person.
- How the Royal Navy hedged its bets – or its boats
- Dear Alex…
Look who’s talking!
- Stand off at the OK A814 as Council Roads Department promise remains unfulfilled
What looks like errant HGVs blindly following their satnavs on an utterly inappropriate route might be something very different, but still worthy of public concern.
The curtain-sided truck in the photos looks to be far too tall to pass under the railway bridge at Whistlefield on this road, so – assuming the photos were taken on the stretch alongside Loch Long – any such HGVs must be engaged in military business at either Glen Mallan or Glen Douglas.
These installations are connected by a military haul road, linking shipping at the Glen Mallan jetty with the railway yard at the Glen Douglas arsenal.
I’ll bet anyone that when these facilities were developed the only public road access needed was for small vehicles – all the big stuff was to arrive & depart by train & ship.
If the operation has changed, to require some freight to move by road, this could explain the disappearance and non-replacement of the HGV warning sign.
Presumably trucks like the one photographed are carrying non hazardous material, but it would be good to have this confirmed. And the MOD needs to get itself a proper road.
powered by SEO Super Comments