Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
*** Bad News Sandwich - [here]
 today - Melksham Rail User Group
today - Station dwell inputs, last day
03/08/2019 - West Somerset Rlwy Steam Fayre
05/08/2019 - Meet the Managing Director
13/08/2019 - Pewsey Vale Railway Society
17/08/2019 - Imber bus
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
July 24, 2019, 03:18:51 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[148] Transport priorities for the new PM.
[56] Server issues
[41] Lynton - Barnstaple railway extension plans
[34] Helping to keep trains on schedule when timetables tighten up ...
[32] an idea to stop tickets being produced?
[26] Water refills
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 176
  Print  
Author Topic: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion  (Read 791928 times)
onthecushions
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 675


View Profile
« Reply #150 on: September 02, 2009, 01:58:43 pm »

Having digested both the facts and learned arguments put forward about GW Electrification, my conclusions are:

4. Diesels under the wires are doubly wasteful, when they are needed elsewhere.

All this is a long time ahead of course.


Can I take it that you also consider weekday diesel services that are on 3rd rail lines throughout are also wasteful ... and that would apply equally from next May as from 'a long time ahead'?   I'm trying to get my head round the logic of transferring the 158 that's been running the morning TransWilts to Swindon servivce  onto the Lymington branch.

Absolutely. Reading - Gatwick is my (local) hobbyhorse, only 3 substations needed....then lots of Turbos for TransWilts....

In the context of a rolling stock crunch, appropriating a dmu of 158 quality is appalling.

Surely there's a 507/8 or two sitting in a siding, somewhere.

MP (try Adonis' PPS), ORR, Audit Commission or Select Committee?

Good Luck

OTC
« Last Edit: September 02, 2009, 04:19:51 pm by onthecushions » Logged
woody
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 525


View Profile
« Reply #151 on: October 07, 2009, 11:51:35 pm »

Plans to run electric trains between Bristol and London have been thrown in to doubt after the Tories refused to commit to the ^1billion scheme.Last week Transport Secretary Lord Adonis gave a "cast-iron" guarantee the major overhaul, which would shave 12 minutes off journey times between Bristol and London, would go ahead under a Labour government.

But in an interview during the Conservatives' annual party conference, Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers told the Evening Post that was a pledge she would not make.
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Electric-trains-Bristol-doubt/article-1397493-detail/article.html
What do you think?
Logged
signalandtelegraph
Transport Scholar
Sr. Member
******
Posts: 296



View Profile
« Reply #152 on: October 08, 2009, 07:30:37 am »

No change there then, the tories sold it and will want to wash their hands of it as much as they can if they become 'responsible' for it again. Sad
Logged

Bring back BR
moonrakerz
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 536



View Profile
« Reply #153 on: October 08, 2009, 08:19:31 am »

or..........

perhaps she was telling the truth - we can't afford it !
Logged
Btline
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4782



View Profile
« Reply #154 on: October 08, 2009, 03:23:24 pm »

Why are you surprised? Roll Eyes

Of course the Tories won't do it! Say goodbye to Crossrail as well, that has not been confirmed by the Tories (Boris doesn't count, as he shares very little in common with his Westminster colleagues!) of course, Boris himself cut several transport projects proposed by Labour's Ken. That's what they do!

Their claim of "we can't afford it" is rubbish. We can't afford NOT to do it. The HSTs need replacing, and if the GWML is not electrified, we'll be confimed to DMUs for the next 40 years. The other benefit is the way Labour have planned a good rolling stock cascade, which co-incides with the Thameslink programme being completed.

But the Tories won't bother making the investment, despite the fact that the benefits will pay for it in the long term. And the fact that it is greener and reduces our reliance on foreign fossil fuels.

And they have the cheek of posting a video on their transport policy website saying that "passengers have had a bad deal under Labour".
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #155 on: October 08, 2009, 03:32:39 pm »

There might be changes and savings availble (I am yetto be convinced that the IEP is good value), but bottom line is that electrification would save money (ie more than pay for itself when you factor the cost of an HST replacement into account.  Even the dubious cost-benefit analysis calculations which are often baised against investment have a result which is described by DfT as "technically infinate".  Mathematically this is because the benefit/cost involves a divsion by zero because over a 40 year time-scale the cost is nil because electrification will actuallly save money.

If the Tories don't think that the government should pay for it it should let private capital build it. 
Logged
inspector_blakey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3574



View Profile
« Reply #156 on: October 08, 2009, 03:37:38 pm »

This is slightly puzzling.

If you read the previous edition of RAIL, Theresa Villiers is quoted as saying that a Tory government would not squish plans for high-speed rail construction because it was a necessity, not an option. I would have assumed that the same would apply to electrification given it's hugely lower relative cost, but perhaps that's naive of me.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25819



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #157 on: October 08, 2009, 05:29:15 pm »

But the Tories won't bother making the investment, despite the fact that the benefits will pay for it in the long term. And the fact that it is greener and reduces our reliance on foreign fossil fuels.

And they have the cheek of posting a video on their transport policy website saying that "passengers have had a bad deal under Labour".

Hmmm ... your comment about the Tories "not bothering" is, I think, conjecture.  And in our neck of the woods, passengers HAVE had a bad deal under Labour.  We see places like Workington (population 19,000, labour marginal) with an hourly service, yet Melksham (20,000+, no hope of a labour gain) being cut back to just two trains a day, and they're running at [understatement ahead ...] less than ideal times of day.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and of RailFuture
moonrakerz
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 536



View Profile
« Reply #158 on: October 08, 2009, 07:58:57 pm »

That's what they do!
Of course - nasty Tory cuts, good Labour "investment" !

But the Tories won't bother making the investment, despite the fact that the benefits will pay for it in the long term. And the fact that it is greener and reduces our reliance on foreign fossil fuels.


Most of our power station run on imported fossil fuels - don't quite get that one !!
Logged
Btline
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4782



View Profile
« Reply #159 on: October 08, 2009, 08:23:42 pm »

But the Tories won't bother making the investment, despite the fact that the benefits will pay for it in the long term. And the fact that it is greener and reduces our reliance on foreign fossil fuels.

And they have the cheek of posting a video on their transport policy website saying that "passengers have had a bad deal under Labour".

Hmmm ... your comment about the Tories "not bothering" is, I think, conjecture.  And in our neck of the woods, passengers HAVE had a bad deal under Labour.  We see places like Workington (population 19,000, labour marginal) with an hourly service, yet Melksham (20,000+, no hope of a labour gain) being cut back to just two trains a day, and they're running at [understatement ahead ...] less than ideal times of day.

But if you look at the UK as a whole, I would say there has been an improvement. (esp in things like rolling stock quality)
Logged
willc
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2330


View Profile
« Reply #160 on: October 08, 2009, 08:53:54 pm »

Look, I am no fan of the Tories, but Labour hardly has a sparkling record on railways - going even further in cuts than Beeching proposed in the 1960s, eg closing Oxford-Cambridge.

All of the pre-Class 168 and 170 DMU fleet was authorised under the Tories, so that in the late 1980 and early 90s, after the painful lesson of the Pacers had been learned, the 150s, 155s and 156s, followed by 158/9s and Turbos, produced a vast improvement on ageing DMUs and Mk1 coaches on routes all over the country.

They also authorised ECML electrification - because BR produced a sound business case for doing it, rather like what Network Rail has set out to do with its electrification plan.
Logged
Btline
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4782



View Profile
« Reply #161 on: October 09, 2009, 10:45:49 am »

When I talk about improved rolling stock, I mean post 168s!

I would rather have mark ones than 150s, and rather Turbostars than both!

And in the 60s, people thought the day of the railway was over, and the day of the car had come.
Logged
IndustryInsider
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7371


View Profile
« Reply #162 on: October 09, 2009, 11:39:28 am »

When I talk about improved rolling stock, I mean post 168s!

Voyagers for example?  Wink
Logged

To view my cab run over the new Reading Viaduct as well as a relief line cab ride at Reading just after Platforms 12-15 opened and my 'before and after' video comparison of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/1
moonrakerz
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 536



View Profile
« Reply #163 on: October 09, 2009, 03:22:50 pm »

Look, I am no fan of the Tories, but Labour hardly has a sparkling record on railways - going even further in cuts than Beeching proposed in the 1960s, eg closing Oxford-Cambridge.

I have just finished reading a book on the railways. The author says in it, quite reasonably I think, "John Major had a plan, it may have been a **** plan, but he had one. The following Labour Governments never had a plan".
Logged
Btline
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4782



View Profile
« Reply #164 on: October 09, 2009, 03:54:15 pm »

When I talk about improved rolling stock, I mean post 168s!

Voyagers for example?  Wink

I mean getting rid of all the slam door stock in the South East, getting rid of most Mark 2s on Intercity runs, Electrostars, Turbostars.... even Desiros are better than what was on offer before.
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 176
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page