I understood that a provisional new route through the 500m or so that is affected by new development had been identified.

If the LA and Assembly like the idea, then it will happen. If they don't then however clear the route may be, it won't.

The more track that is opened West of LL, the more likely it is to be laid Eastwards.

For the moment it needs every help to get to Corwen.

Happy New Year,

OTC

As HS2 involves a belt of land 75m wide, there is plenty of space for retaining an existing trackbed, even if displaced slightly.

A right-of-way is a precious asset in a crowded island, be it the Icknield Way, Roman road, dried up canal or disused railway. There is even a closed piece of the M4 (the original East to North curve at Maidenhead)!

Happy Christmas,

OtC

 

It's true that the easy bit of "re-opening the GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line)" is the stretch from Calvert (or really Aylesbury) to Rugby.

At the Rugby end the GC and WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) cross at right angles, so a new curve would be needed to gain access to the Trent Valley slow lines.

South of Aylesbury there are two routes into London, with disused formation in parts of each. One would deposit freights at OOC^▸ (Old Oak Common (depot)) W Junction and would presumably need a route onto the N London line and then into Willesden. The other would need a curve at Wembley, again into Willesden.

The idea of paralleling motorways with new rail routes is excellent, except it needs to have been included at the planning stage, when the transport corridor was identified. We pay a lot for politicians' tunnel vision.

Tying up the ends of a new GC would not be simple or cheap, especially in inner London. In my view it's probably needed anyway, even if we do get HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)).

Thoughts,

OTC

Back in '89, when the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) was being wired, the Royal Border Bridge at Berwick had to have masts (newspeak: stanchions) and the Mark3b catenary then fashionable. IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly), a thinner gauge of support was adopted to everyone's evident contenment. I'm not aware of there having been any de-wirements there.

OTC

Looks better as ^0.32E+11

OTC

What prescient posters we all  are.

Much of this was discussed in "More North West Electrification", back in August.

The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) seem to be responding to our pearls of wisdom.

Seasons greetings,

OTC

The argument for replacing 750Vdc with 25kVac overhead springs from the normal replacement costs of dc (33kV lineside cable in trough, substations every 3.5 - 5 miles and TPH^▸ (trains per hour)'s in between) being about the same as for a completely new installation, including clearances etc of OLE^▸ (Overhead Line Equipment, more often "OHLE"). Energy use and maintenance costs are considered lower, hence the move to convert.

As the Swindon - Kemble line dualling has involved relaying or slewing most track, the clearances on this section at least should be satisfactory. If NR^» (Network Rail - home page) find the justification and money for the freight links North of Sheffield to the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) system at Doncaster and Moorthorpe, this may well speed up XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) wiring and hence the infill of our Standish Jn - Swindon link.

OTC

I used the old site and the _06 login. It gives me full (2 cameras) pictures up to October 27, a month before the e-mail mentioned.

A big corporate like NR^» (Network Rail - home page) can't afford to be pilloried for running late, even if true.

We need to be careful about the inside, detailed information that we receive on this forum.

What a pity,

OTC

"Philip Edgerton said: ^We at First Great Western are extremely lucky to have the region that we serve."

....and vice versa?

OTC

Absolutely.

A passenger train has many times the capacity of a bus and so requires shelters many times the size of bus shelters.

An example of an effective small station shelter survives at Frome, where 120' (37m) of platform (and train) is covered in an overall width including wide platforms of less than 50' (15m).

You can board a train there without rainwater sluicing off the carriage roof down your neck as you enter.

The NYMR^▸ (North Yorkshire Moors Railway) at Pickering actually put one back up - I suspect more for commercial reasons than for historical accuracy.

Singing in the rain...

OTC

Using modern building materials and methods it should be possible to devise standard designs for platform canopies and even overall roofs that are cost-effective to build and maintain at busy stations. Much of the old Southern Region and the Great Western nearer Paddington has kept the Victorian originals.

Perhaps the straw sucking, smock wearing country folk who insist on catching trains outside of Zone 6 are considered to be content to wait in the wind and the rain, like the cattle in the fields.

It is a disgrace that the new Reading General, after a spend of ^850M will still have most of its platforms wind- and rain-swept, when its trains  will largely be electrically driven.

Go to Leeds City and see how a Yorkshireman builds a new station!

OTC
OTC

IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly), our Region (InterCity Great Western and Thames and Chiltern) did quite well in the storm of 1987.

The lack of modernisation (such as overhead wires or bits of modernised stations that could become airborne) seemed to make for a robust system.

I seem to remember a 60mph limit, (virtually all the then 1950's DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit)'s could do), lots of delays but travellers reaching their destination eventually.

Is your journey really necessary (on Monday)?

Good Luck,

OTC

As a regular coach A (quiet carriage) occupant, I've found the following approaches to loud telephonists fairly successful:

" Do you realise that shouting into your phone damages the battery?"  - mostly the response is thanks, followed by quieter conversation.

" You realise that it's an on-the spot ^80 fine from the ticket inspector for using that in the quiet carriage?" - again, the response is mostly  panic.

 (for MP3 players) " Could you please either turn that down, or else turn it up so that we can all enjoy it." - absurdity usually works.

Bluff and politeness are very effective.

OTC

The new loco is 4 axle so cannot exceed 90t. Attach 4 mk3's at c140t you have 230t. This gives a diesel power to weight ratio of c2.4kW/t at rail. A class 101 DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) (fondly remembered by many of us) would be about 2.75.

The buffet would need to be well stocked.

OTC

It appears only to have a 700kW diesel engine which means about 550kW at rail, compared to 4000kW from the wires. That's probably OK for starting, shunting and running at 35mph, if the gradients aren't too great.

It should make a big improvement to the railfreight options for Felixstowe, Liverpool and other off-wire fringes. I wouldn't like to be stuck behind it when running main-line on diesel only.

The re-engined 73's have about double the diesel power.

Well done DRS^▸ (Direct Rail Services Ltd)

OTC