randyrippley
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2016
- Messages
- 5,173
Talking of airports.......how much has been wasted over the years for the repeated Foulness/Maplin Sands/Boris Island "new London airport" plans?
Very much "joined-up transport". How times change...
Lots. But it did result in some interesting plans, such as the Southend southern bypass...Talking of airports.......how much has been wasted over the years for the repeated Foulness/Maplin Sands/Boris Island "new London airport" plans?
Fair point.Joined up business perhaps.
If it was joined up transport, a lot of lines wouldn’t have been built.
One cost was the narrower profile of the Mark 4 rolling stock, to enable it to remain in gauge when tilting. This made the Mark 4s less spacious than the mark 3s.(It is also a factor in why Voyagers seem cramped, there is less width at elbow height.Though you'd have to isolate the specific additional cost attributable to the extra capability. Which in most cases is negligible.
But joined up for the profit of the shareholder, rather than for any benefit to the consumer/passenger!Very much "joined-up transport". How times change...
While that's a consequence, what is the actual *cost*?One cost was the narrower profile of the Mark 4 rolling stock, to enable it to remain in gauge when tilting. This made the Mark 4s less spacious than the mark 3s.(It is also a factor in why Voyagers seem cramped, there is less width at elbow height.
How much more was done to the 158s and the new stock spec that wouldn't have been done anyway? New stock was needed and the winning bid included a complete refurb of the existing stock anyway. As ever with Northern it was done for peanuts so I can't see where corners could have been cut.I've got 2;
Picc-Vic - Most that was built was an escalator well under the Arndale, however did later get split into the Metrolink and indefinitely up in the air Castlefield upgrade.
Northern Connect - over 100 new trains ordered and all 2 car 158s refurbished to the standard, only for nothing to be heard about it since the 158 refurb.
Though surely that has to be better than "not joined up at all"?But joined up for the profit of the shareholder, rather than for any benefit to the consumer/passenger!
Not of people end up paying well over the odds because competition gets squeezed out.Though surely that has to be better than "not joined up at all"?
Best make sure there's some competition then!Not of people end up paying well over the odds because competition gets squeezed out.
In the Big Four era there wasn't - that's how they got so big!Best make sure there's some competition then!
"But trains were cheaper and more comfortable a hundred years ago"In the Big Four era there wasn't - that's how they got so big!
Naturally there would be. But when Joe Bloggs Imports and Exports and [Big 4 Railway] both had goods coming off a ship and being put onto a train, whose do you think was more likely to be transferred in time to make the express to London?Surely there must have been some competition between the railway companies' non-rail businesses and other "local" companies (shipping, for example)?
Very much so. Imagine the railway from Southampton to Redbridge running along the high water mark, as it was before the railway built the docks - almost all on reclaimed land. As you say a 1930s airport would be fairly trivial in comparison.During the Grouping era the main railway companies were some of the largest commercial companies, by financial turnover, number of employees, value of assets, etc, in the country. In addition to rail services they had very substantial docks and shipping interests for overseas trade, so a 1930s-scale airport would be small beer to them.
There certainly was competition - that's how all the branch/local lines lost it to buses and lorries in the 1920s-30s, though it took Beeching for the upper management to recognise this. The railways did buy significantly into most of the major bus companies that ended up in the National Bus Company, and made profits from them at the time.In the Big Four era there wasn't - that's how they got so big!
As you said, that's because the railways didn't see buses and trucks as a threat. That's the nature of modal shift, it's quite often not appreciated at the outset how big of a change it represents. Had they done so then they would have moved into road transport in a major way.There certainly was competition - that's how all the branch/local lines lost it to buses and lorries in the 1920s-30s, though it took Beeching for the upper management to recognise this. The railways did buy significantly into most of the major bus companies that ended up in the National Bus Company, and made profits from them at the time.
New seats, reservation displays and advertising screens (although at least some trains are getting the advertising screens with the digital train mods).How much more was done to the 158s and the new stock spec that wouldn't have been done anyway?
Based on what people have posted on these forums previously, ETCS is insufficient for 140mph. We also need level crossings removed, OLE upgrades, track upgrades, power supply upgrades and station upgrades to allow trains to pass at that speed. Based on what others have said on here, none of this is going to happen as it’s apparently not worth it for the extra 15mph. So 140mph will not happen in the UK on conventional lines - the IEP spec for 140mph was pointless.Obviously the Class 91/Mk4 never will, but there's still a chance that the ETCS rollout will get far enough for at least some 140mph running before the 390s and 80x are life-expired.
It won't be widespread, but there are already places where 140mph would be allowed if there was in-cab signalling.So 140mph will not happen in the UK on conventional lines - the IEP spec for 140mph was pointless.
I believe ETCS Level 3 includes (or can include) cab signalling, so would be satisfy UK regulations for 140mph. Agree with all the other bits you've covered as to why it won't really be worth it.Based on what people have posted on these forums previously, ETCS is insufficient for 140mph. We also need level crossings removed, OLE upgrades, track upgrades, power supply upgrades and station upgrades to allow trains to pass at that speed. Based on what others have said on here, none of this is going to happen as it’s apparently not worth it for the extra 15mph. So 140mph will not happen in the UK on conventional lines - the IEP spec for 140mph was pointless.
To be clear, I meant “ETCS by itself is insufficient”. We also need all the other stuff.I believe ETCS Level 3 includes (or can include) cab signalling, so would be satisfy UK regulations for 140mph. Agree with all the other bits you've covered as to why it won't really be worth it.
Where is that?It won't be widespread, but there are already places where 140mph would be allowed if there was in-cab signalling.
I don't know all of them, but as an example the IEP project document states that the Selby Bypass would support 160mph running. (I can't find a link to it at the moment but I'll have a hunt for it as I've definitely seen posted it in another thread).Where is that?
It won't be widespread, but there are already places where 140mph would be allowed if there was in-cab signalling.
I don't know all of them, but as an example the IEP project document states that the Selby Bypass would support 160mph running. (I can't find a link to it at the moment but I'll have a hunt for it as I've definitely seen posted it in another thread).
So 140mph spec on IEP was pointless.There isn’t.
The Selby diversion is, apparently, laid out in track geometry for 160, although I’ve never seen documentary evidence of that. (I was told by a guy who helped design it though, so it is certainly possible).
However track geometry is just one factor. There’s dozens more to think about. Leaving aside the signalling, the OLE certainly isn’t ready for regular use above 125mph, the power supply would neeed strengthening, all the staff safety arrangements would have to change (and thus with a knock on to maintenance arrangements), the switches and crossings at Hambleton would have to be replaced with swing nose versions (see the Ledburn debacle on WCRM), as would those at Colton and Temple Hirst if the higher speed was to go that far. Someone would also have to reassess every under track structure (seeing as they are now 40 years old) for strength and resonance effects, then all the overbridges for aerodynamic effects, and on that subject track separation and the track componentry would need checking too. That’s just a few of the issues!
It would save 30 sec at 140, a minute at 160. Assuming you could make the timetable work.
So 140mph spec on IEP was pointless.
I'm not sure I would count things such as the Selby Diversion being built for 160 mph as being relevant to this thread as it is currently in use today.
Correct, sorry, I was just considering the track layout. The OHLE upgrade was taken as given since the ECML was done on the cheap and barely supports 125mph running as is. I mean, they're already replacing headspans in places! I had forgotten about the S&C upgrades that would be needed.However track geometry is just one factor.
The OHLE upgrade was taken as given since the ECML was done on the cheap and barely supports 125mph running as is.
Let's split the difference and say that there was "target-driven value engineering" going on. AIUI, BR was effectively given a figure and told that was all that there was and they had to design the electrification down to that total.On the cheap with 20:20 hindsight vision, but properly specified for all expected requirements at the time.