|
Btline
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2009, 18:06:40 » |
|
So will I! I can't see it as possible, as it includes stops.
Chiltern will not be able to cut stops (even on one train) because their B'ham to London trains provide the regular half hourly service for most stations between Dorridge and High Wycombe.
And consider that the WCML▸ is 125 mph and with 4 stops is not much less than 90 mins!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
G.Uard
|
|
« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2009, 19:14:22 » |
|
Why end here  when it could end here?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #32 on: January 29, 2009, 21:55:44 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
willc
|
|
« Reply #33 on: January 30, 2009, 00:46:00 » |
|
But headline timings and regular timings aren't the same thing.
The huge BR▸ sign on the old Royal Mail depot at Curzon Street in Birmingham back in the 1980s proclaiming 'Birmingham-London in 91 minutes' or whatever it was applied to one or two trains a day each way, Monday-Friday only - 100 minutes was more like it the rest of the time.
Chiltern might be able to pull off a near 90-minute timing for the odd train, if yet more money is spent on extra capacity in north-west London and reinstating through loops at Buckinghamshire stations - and they don't get stuck behind a Freightliner between Banbury and Leamington - but is it really worth it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #34 on: January 30, 2009, 03:10:09 » |
|
Chiltern might be able to pull off a near 90-minute timing for the odd train, if yet more money is spent on extra capacity in north-west London and reinstating through loops at Buckinghamshire stations - and they don't get stuck behind a Freightliner between Banbury and Leamington - but is it really worth it?
Indeed. A largely 90mph railway between Marylebone and Princes Risborough would only save a maximum of 2-4 minutes over the present schedule. After that it's already 100mph all the way to Banbury except for through Bicester and Aynho Junction (In Aynho's case, with the best will in the world, 60mph is the absolute max in the down direction). My advice: Spend the money wisely, forget cheap headlines, knock 10 minutes off of the current London-Birmingham schedules, keep on providing a quality alternative to Virgin, and watch the cash flow in to the coffers! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #35 on: January 30, 2009, 10:02:01 » |
|
As I understand Chilterns plans as outlined by there then timetable planner the 90 minute timing to Moor Street would be a regular timing with stops.
It would be achieved by re-enging the 165 with the 172 power train thus making them 100 mph units. Increses in line speeds South of Anyho up to 100 plus provion of bi directional fast lines at several stations between Marylebone and Banbury.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #36 on: January 30, 2009, 18:30:38 » |
|
As I said before, they won't be headline services.
Chiltern provide the regular off peak half-hourly/hourly service for most of the route - including te B'ham end, CT/LM▸ stopped most running south of Dorridge some years ago.
So they won't be able to just cut stops off to make a couple of "headline" services.
The minimum stops will be Moor Street, Solihul, Dorridge, Warwick Parkway, Warwick Town, Leamington, Banbury, Bicester, Princes Ris, High W, London. Lapworth and Hatton will require an hourly service. H & Thame Parkway will need some trains.
But I doubt they'll be able to do it, even if the whole route was 100 mph.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stebbo
|
|
« Reply #37 on: January 30, 2009, 22:27:20 » |
|
If some of the through lines at stations like Princes Risborourgh, High Wycombe, Beaconsfield, Denham could be reinstated then a faster Chiltern service is a possibility. Shame about Gerrards Cross with the platform narrowing and the Tesco monstrosity
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #38 on: January 30, 2009, 22:33:29 » |
|
But apparently the new tunnel will have room for 4 tracks. (Some tunnel!)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stebbo
|
|
« Reply #39 on: February 01, 2009, 11:11:49 » |
|
What is the point in the Tesco tunnel having four tracks when the platforms were altered in such a way as to squeeze out the old through lines and the cutting beyond has, as I recall only space for the current double track?
Perhaps the idea is that stoppers have to go into the tunnel to wait for fast trains to overtake. I'm sure local residents of Gerrards Cross would love that....... Hard hats all round.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #40 on: February 16, 2009, 16:10:44 » |
|
The East-West Rail Consortium have released an updated report on the Central Section of the proposed route covering the route between Bletchley and Cambridge/Stansted/Peterborough. That's the section that will be the most difficult to implement as it involves new track for several miles. It's quite a weighty document but is an interesting read, especially as it gives preliminary timetable options for the route with preferred options of a link from Stewartby to Luton and then on to Stevenage, or the original proposed route of a link from Bedford to Sandy. Downloadable here: http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/reports/documents/CentralSectionReport-February2009.pdf |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #41 on: November 06, 2009, 19:43:17 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #42 on: June 08, 2010, 18:35:15 » |
|
A little after the December 2009 date hoped for, but the East-West Rail Consortium has now published their GRIP▸ 4 survey findings. Press release here: http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/news/documents/PRESSRELEASE-EWRC080610.pdfNon-technical summary here: http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/reports/documents/EWRDraftOutlineBusinessCaseNTS_08062010_Final.pdfThe core scheme would give an hourly Milton Keynes to Oxford service, an hourly Milton Keynes to Marylebone via Aylesbury service, and retain the present hourly Bedford to Bletchley service. The preferred scheme extends the Milton Keynes to Oxford service through to Reading, and provides a second train per hour by extending the Bedford to Bletchley service through to Oxford and then on to Reading. Either scheme would be very welcome in my opinion! Overall, a very positive document, including a headline BCR▸ of 5 - but still plenty of work to be done given the current financial climate! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #43 on: June 08, 2010, 19:30:22 » |
|
The report shows great vision and should be built, the possibility of a Reading to Milton Keynes opens up so much potential, its a shame that I don't think the current Government will have the longsighted vision.
I do hope the consortium achieve this
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
|
Phil
|
|
« Reply #44 on: June 08, 2010, 20:37:18 » |
|
Hate to get political but I have to ask... I don't think the current Government will have the longsighted vision. Do you honestly think ANY Government would have that kind of vision? And if so, who? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
