If you were to publish all these threads on rolling stock and the mess the railways are in you could probably enter it for the Booker prize because everyone would think it's fiction.

Definitely a case of real life being stranger than fiction.

Maybe, but is it really ^1.2 million worth when as is said Networkrail was fined ^14 million for not doing it's job properly.

I think pay of that magnitude, which is more than most of us now retired folk will have earnt in our working lives, makes people think they are invincable and can do no wrong. After all if you prudent you only have to work a few years and retire on your savings and pension pot. Might it in fact be a disincentive to doing the job really well because you know you have enough put by for a rainy day?

Just think of the huge mistakes the bankers managed to make in search of their extravagent bonuses.

If Networkrail can deliver the Cotswold and Reading upgrades on time and to, or preferably below budget, the savings  to be used for further upgardes such as Swindon Kemble, then perhaps all Networkrail staff  might just deserve a bonus. 

But one thing that is ridiculous, in the whole sage is that as head of Infrastructure he doesn't get a Gold Medallion. If there is one person that ought to be travelling everywhere by train it's the head of Networkrail! It would be one way of finding out what's going on  the railways. As Tom Peters calls it MBWA "management by walking about" or in this case MBTBT or "management by travelling by train". I think I posted elsewhere that most of the signalmen at Liverpool Street IECC^▸ (Integrated Electronic Control Centre) drive to work, how can you be a signalman if you don't travel by the trains you signal.

Of course I know the answer they are now signallers not signalmen.  I thought that signaller  was a military rank. You see them standing  at the back of the bridge in  war films saying "Aye Aye Sir" at appropriate times.

I seem to recall when the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) service first came out there was an afternoon train from Bath next stop Reading in 40 minutes. Now as Bath Reading is aproximately 71 miles I make that an average of around 106 mph. I caught it once in late 70s early 80s it seemd to keep time.

Are there any  start stop average speeds like that now.

Sorry to sound cynical but the whole new rolling progtamme seems to be a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic.

We now only have Derby which seems to busy with 378s for Overground East london Line. Being electric they don't displace any DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) because the lines are already electrified.

Most of the continental manufactures are busy building things for themselves.

China? But has been said before it doesn't stimulate our economy.

Why not Networkrail 5% 15+ year bonds for electrification. The institutions would snap them up.

Depending on how many days a week you travel have you considered a season ticket even with a rail card a quarterly or longer might still be cheaper, it would cetainly be more flexible?

Out of interest I looked up the distance between Bath and Nothallerton by road which comes out at 258 miles one way or 516 return on Transport Direct. It also gave the direct fuel costs for a medium sized car as ^56 for which you could take another 3 people. No wonder he thought ^327 excessive.

However, if you look up the AA cost of motoring table:

http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/advice/advice_rcosts_petrol_table.jsp

The cost of running a medium priced car for 10000 miles a year comes out at 62.25 pence per mile which makes the journey cost ^321 or ^6 less. So not so much difference.

However, the real problem with the rail fare is that it is the cost per passenger, but by car it's the cost per journey so 4 people could happily make the journey for ^80.25p each.

So it's a "problem" for the "bean counters" do you price the standard fare at around 60 pence per mile per passenger to equal the car and driver only cost, or do you do rail at  a quarter or 15 pence per mile to equal the cost of the journey by car with 4 people.

If we are to encourage people out of their cars then 15 pence per mile would be a sensible option and give the return fare in this case of ^77.4 per pasenger.

If it costs more than 15 pence per seat mile to run a train then maybe those are costs that should be looked at and the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) should not expect to get such big returns from the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company).

I think my arithmatic is in the right range. Any thoughts on formulea for setting standard turn up and go anytime single/return fares.

Is the ^327 fare a regulated one?

Possibly as damaging as the Beeching closures were the BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) rationalisations in the 70/80 such as Cotswold line and Salisbury to Exeter and Swindon To Kemble single tracking, fortunately Kemble to Stroud and Glouscester didn't happen.

I would suggest about a third of the Beeching closures should have been kept open, but agree that some of the post Beeching closures were worse such as in my area Bourne End to High Wycombe and the Oxbridge line. Had both been open Bucks could have had a train service connecting Slough (in Bucks to 74?) Maidenhead to High Wycombe, Aylesbury Milton Keynes and Oxford Bicester to Milton Keynes. All teh principle towns of the county. With a facing connection at Claydon an Oxford Bicester Aylesbury (London) service.

That's my one big critism of Beeching was he took the existing train services on lines  which when you looked at them were basically pre grouping services. If it started MR^▸ (Midland Railway) it ended Midland. Little  thought was given to rerouting or possibly putting in spurs to provide a service between staions that had not previously had a through service but which would non the less keep staions open but allow lengths of line to be shut.

I don't know whether anyone can think of another example but the only place I know of where this was done with  passenger service was to put in a link between the R&SB^▸ (Signal Box) line from Swansea to Treherbert and the GW^▸ (Great Western) line from Port Talbot to Abergwynfi line at Cymmer East Junction and Gelli Junction. This enabled a mile of R&SB line to be closed eliminating a tunnel and a viaduct where the lines ran parallel up the same valley.

Of Course Beeching did have good effect on the amazing number of lines in places such as the Nottinghamshire coalfield whereby with building spurs particularly at Shirebrook and the introduction of MGRs BR were able to serve most of the then open collieries with a single branch instead of the two or perhaps three pre-gouping connections most  still had. Unfortunately they all lost their passenger services.

It took the reopening of the link from Annesley to Kirkby in Ashfield to restablish passenger servces to Mansfield. This is interesting in that it used the routes of three pre grouping companies. The Midland, GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) and GN although at different levels to the original routes.   

The overall answer is the "Wolmar Question"

"What are TOCS for?"

As I understand the Chiltern re-engining proposal is that it's both the engine and gearbox and a change from hydralic to mechanical which I understand the 172s will be.

The 165/0s also need the swing link on the bogie which means possible changes to the platforms at I think Sudbury Hill (or one of those stations between Neasen and West Ruislip)

150 possibly not, but back in 3 franchise days we did get a regular late evening 158 into Padd think it came from South Wales. Don't know  which depot worked it.

As I understand it from a very reliable source, Chiltern have to propose mid life franchise enhancements to get their 20 years.

Their proposals seem to be the Bicester curve and Oxford Marylebone service.

Plus as I said above the re-engining and gearboxes of the 165 and 168 (psuedo 170s) to be similar to the 172s giving the wh0le fleet 100 mph capability. What I forgot to mention which willc picked up on was the provision of high spped bi directional lines at sevaral points between Marylebone and Anyho to allow overtaking, plus increased line speeds up 100 mph over much of the route. With the souped up stock, these overtaking loops  and increases line speeds Chiltern think 90 minutes to Moor street is feasable on a regular basis.

However one of the problems is if Chiltern get these proposals approved and implemented it puts the electrification of the line at a much lower priority as it will have virtually all new or re-engined stock. Thus the chances of a cascade from Chiltern is unliikely much before the franchise expires in 2020.

The only hope for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is rapid elctrification in the North West, West of Manchester to eliminate diesel working to Blackpool, Wigan and Liverpool from the East. Thus the trans Pennine need to follow with extensive connections to the ECM. This would release a lot of units if it were done so servies could be all eletric.

This might mean some service becoming loco hauled with engine changes where the wires run out. Loco hauled is also the obvious solution for IC^▸ (Inter City) traffic from Cornwall to london and Birmingham.

As I have pointed out before a set of loco hauled coaches and two locos one diesel and electric is cheaper than the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) for the same number of seats.



 




 

We'll know when Cambridge to St Ives (Cambs) opens.

Funny that scheme seems to have gone very quite!

Also why don't we hear about the great success of Leeds.?

Endinburgh has gone for trams and not expanded their scheme. I wonder why?

Keeping up with the ls the Llandore triangle. Non use of which contributed to the Southall crash by not having operational AWS^▸ (Automatic Warning System) in the front cab.

Presumably running the circle Padd to Hereford via  Worcester and onto Bristol via Maindee. Also Exeter out via Yeovil back via Taunton. 

Lots of possibilities

I don't think Chiltern will be too keen to cascade 165/0s to FGW. Their plan is to rengine all their 165s and 168 to the same as the 172 to match their performance this is to get a 90 minute timing to Moor Street. Also if teh Oxford service gets off the ground then they will need all teh units they've got.

As has been agreed elesewhere that it will be a long time before most of the FGW is electrified a fleet of 172s for the West of England to replace Buses and 150s and provide more capacity would be a sound idea. That's why it's not going to happen.

Poorly maintained track/points or wagon fault?