I think you've hit the nail on the head when you say "find a whole HST load of passengers is expected to squeeze onto a two car DMU." and 
"It's not as if the "authorised" connections are going to be held for you anyway."

I believe it was John Watts MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) for Slough who famously said during the privatisation debate "Connections will not be held".

My view is that wherever possible through trains should be provided between principle centres of population or "between railheads" from whence connections can be made. Perhaps as a yardstick and excepting London and South East where the network is too complicated. The aim perhaps should be that you should be able to travel between any two stations in England Wales and Scotland (not via London) with only 2 changes at Railhead 1 and Railhead 2 with the connecting journies to the railheads being as short as possible. For travel to London, all stations on a mainline should have at least one through service a day.

Implicit in this should be that connections will be held up to certain time depending on how frequent the ongoing service is.

Even with franchising and privitisation the bulk of services are still mostly based on the pre 1922 pattern of services as Worcester passenger pointed out in his post above.
Where it has changed some places have got a worse service e.g.  Melksham or you get Warminister - Great Malvern trains which might give good stock working but doesn't seem to have much point. Southampton to Birmingham via Bristol/Worcester might be a possibility.

If more through trains are instituted how long will they last? We had the Bristol Oxfords which as discussed in another post enabled people to change jobs to travel by these trains only to have them withdrawn. Not in FGW^▸ (First Great Western) territory but the recast of services East and West of the MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) has cause a lot of upset with passengers losing through trains on which they commuted to work and a change imposed with increased journey times. 

Don't forget we are also faced with the withdrawl of the Brighton Scotland XCs^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) in December.

However to  achieve a nationwide sevice of through trains  would require a degree of planning and forecasting well beyond the capability of the D(a)fT.
 

As Reading to Basingstoke is such a vital link in the network then if third rail is too expensive then it will have to be 25KV overhead. That would mean dual voltage stock for XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) and SWT^▸ (South West Trains).

As I understand it the electrostars  377? are basically supplied as dual voltage machines or can be made dual voltage with little extra cost which is why some are going to Thameslink (alright FCC^▸ (First Capital Connect)) I can't be bothered to work out the franchisees it will only change in a couple of years.

That solves one of the interfaces Basingstoke becomes a DC^▸ (Direct Current)/AC changeover point.

The question then becomes what system is used for Wokingham to Ash and Shalford Junction to Redhill. If Reading Gatwick is the main service then probably DC. However this makes Reading a DC/AC changeover especially as trains to Gatwick are likely to be the ones that make use of the proposed Eastern flyunder. So is Redhill Shalford DC and make Ash AC to Reading. It would mean Wokingham to Reading being dual voltage but it seems to work quite well on the North London line the pantograph is up and down like a yo-yo.

This working on the assumption that 25KV overhead will be standard basically North of the SW mainline and that the rest of the country will be electrified before any large scale conversion of the South East network  takes palce.

It's a 20 page document written in gooble de gook.

Life's too short to read it!

I think what all these posts show is that beancounters rule the roost even at D(a)fT level. They require maximum utilisation of the minimum amout of stock with which you can run the service, at the least overall cost.

Therefore, having staff and equipment to water trains in the short turnrounds required by the mantra of maximum stock utilisation is considered too costly.

Until we all complain everytime we find a toilet out of action or waterless the situation will not improve. 

I agree pretty much with the above. Yes the network was built in an ad hoc fashion by competing companies. At the time of Beeching actual train services were pretty musch as at grouping. You went from Manchester to Sheffield by Midland or GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line). My biggest complaint about Beeching was he didn't look at the Network he looked at services and say how do we serve A B & C which ight have two or three different services. Insteaed of saying if we rooute trains via E awe can shut one line between A & B an another between B & C. And maybe with a spur or two we can serve A, B, C, D And F.

I think what killed this approach was Leeds Hauptbahnhof an excellent scheme which like WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) modersation was perceived to be too expensive and was constantly stopped and started.

The WR did  put in  some links which shut some lenghts of line, most notably between Cymmer and Treherbert where two single lines were linked and about three miles of parallel track were shut and a viaduct and tunnel closed. But it was too late to save the line.

The third that Christian Wolmar mentions are probably the lines that could have most benefitted from new links to form an integrated network.

It's interesting that Chiltern are actually proposing a new link at Bivcester to give an Oxford Marylebone service. Given the pre Beeching network just think what other links could have been put in or services imginatively rerouted.

It seems DC^▸ (Direct Current) has upset WW by saying he can't have his 3rd runway at Heathrow.

Instead DC wants to build HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) to the North, now if he'd have coupled that with a huge electrifcation project for the rest of the railway  I might be tempted to vote Tory for the very first time. Not that my vote matters in Taplow it's one of the safest Tory seats in the country. 

I've always said there's a prefectly good third runway at Charles de Guale with a direct raillink to London. There's a fourth in Brussells to which Eurostar could run and a fifth at Schipol. Let the continent have the pollution. 

I admire your optimism. Any ministry that can send their minister to a parliamentary select committee so badly briefed that it became a farce is not called D(a)fT for nothing.

You can attach the photos click the additional options below to attach.

Of course they don't appear in the text but as a list at the bottom of the post.

Hopefully the Cambridge to St Ives scheme will prove to be such a disaster that guided bus ways will be dead in the water.

It's interesting that the Leeds one has gone very quite and Edinburgh are have started building a tramway which will run run straight down Princes Street.

Every time a consultant mentions a possible scheme you should ask about the sucess of Leeds and Edinburgh, plus Cambridge. when it flops.

Does anyone know if the bus companies have to pay access charges to a busway like track charges for heavy rail or is it out of the road fund licence?

The Chiltern scheme is said to fully compatible with any East West Scheme plus the fact that Chiltern reckon they could do their project in a relatively (for current railway work) short time should give added impetus to the East West scheme.


The extra capacity at Milton Kenes is said to able to take an East West Service.

b. Olympic rowing is in Eton College's gravel pit in Dorney nearest station Taplow!

Chiltern are proposing to have a station  at the North Oxford Park and ride near to the M40/A34 junction. They already have an A46 parkway near Warwick.

Chiltern are also proposing 100 mph from Bicester to Wolvercote tunnel.


If only for Bourne End - Wycombe, coupled with the East West route with its must have  link North from Ayesbury gives a sort of cross of railways linking the South with North and the county town of Ayesbury.

East of Bedford appears to more problematic but it ought be in teh plans with possibly a triangle onto the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) to allow Oxford Milton Keynes Bedford Peterborugh trains.

Of course you've also got the option of going North from Bedford. Didn't someone come up with Corby - Swindon service.

Of course D(a)fT aren't going to allow any scheme even  Chiltern's so don't hold your breath.

I thought Reading was now on, provided the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) upgrade is finished satisfactorily and Networkrail doesn't have more millions confiscated for late running engineering work.

I believe it was  used at Yelverton for the Princetown trains and also at Holywell.

It was still being done in the goods yard at Waddon in 1964. The 33 arrived from Norwood Yard backed its train over the crossover into the head shunt and was locked in. The loco accelerated forwards the shunter uncoupled the wagons and pulled the points after teh loc passed so the loco went one way the wagons the other. Another lost art of railway working.

There are some happy railwaymen but they work for Chiltern and the open access operators like Wrexham and Shrewsbury, but then those services  are run by ex BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) men.

Are staff unhappy because because most TOCS are run by bus companies. When did you ever see a happy bus driver?

I don't think you need fear for reliability of W&S^▸ (Wrexham and Shropshire (Open Access Operator)) and CH, the signalmen like them.

ATW and LM, well they take their chance.

I bet the 100kph lorries get upset with having to overtake.

I don't think I'd feel safe only doing 90kph on the motorway.