Maybe, but could you pare costs back enough?Well their operating costs could be pared back by rationalisation in that case.
Maybe, but could you pare costs back enough?Well their operating costs could be pared back by rationalisation in that case.
That's why I mentioned Talgo. They are experienced in producing carriages that use the tried and tested Talgo RD gauge changing system. An approximately 376 metre long train would take about 1.5 mins to change using the gauge changing shed.Not to mention the gauge
I wonder if the gauge changing system could be built into the shipThat's why I mentioned Talgo. They are experienced in producing carriages that use the tried and tested Talgo RD gauge changing system. An approximately 376 metre long train would take about 1.5 mins to change using the gauge changing shed.
Unlikely - lot of complex mechanics involved, and the electricals may be too exposed to operate on a ship.I wonder if the gauge changing system could be built into the ship
I love this one - lets make it happen!!!!Construction of a self contained Shinkansen/Metro hybrid running London Waterloo-Clapham Junction-Gatwick Airport-Brighton-Littlehampton-Portsmouth-Southampton-Bournemouth-Dorchester-Exeter would be a good idea.
10+ 400m 3.38m wide trains per hour, running a single stopping pattern.
It would be ~15 minutes faster than the fastest train from London to Southampton and Exeter and absolutely crush the journey times on all other destinations.
Well I make it a net reduction in twelve trains per hour (8 Victoria and 8 Thameslink to 4) at Gatwick Airport for the Brighton main line.Maybe, but could you pare costs back enough?
Username checks out. I agree with this - on board WiFi doesn’t cut it, and it’s not technically complicated to resolve this issue. Could be pricey, though.They should have solved mobile signal a decade ago and forced Network Rail to allow any MNO to use their assets to do it
Station | Time (min) | Current time (min) | Advantage |
Waterloo | 0 | N/A | N/A |
Clapham Junction | 7 | 8 | 1 |
Gatwick Airport | 20 | 29 | 9 |
Brighton | 33 | 58 | 25 |
Littlehampton | 45 | 105* | 60 |
Portsmouth and Southsea | 58 | 87* | 29 |
Southampton Central | 69 | 75 | 6 |
Bournemouth | 82 | 106 | 24 |
Clearly the Brighton Main line is the main beneficiary, especially for Brighton. Gatwick is less spectacular but given that this would be ~10tph at this running time, it almost certainly thrashes the Gatwick Express et al. This likely means major service reductions are practical, for example, from the 8tph to each of Thameslink and Victoria to 4tph to Thameslink. Which would be a net saving of 12.
Redhill I don't think particularly suffers much at all under this scheme, it goes from 4tph Thameslink and 2tph to Victoria now to.... 4tph Thameslink and 2tph to Victoria!But the 16tph on the Brighton Main Line are not there just for Gatwick, Brighton and, err, Littlehampton. They are there to serve all the intermediate stations too. I can well imagine the views of the good folk of Redhill, Three Bridges and Haywards Heath to name but three being told they are losing a majority of their service and / or extended journey times because someone has built s highspeed line in their back yard.
I think it’s difficult to argue the long distance XC routes aren’t intercity, but I broadly agree with you otherwise.Since some of the above is not that controversial, here is one I have been thinking about a while.
There are very few true Intercity services in the UK, the possible exceptions being the limited stop Scotland to London by Avanti and LNER. Otherwise, trains regularly have stops 20 minutes or less apart. It would make sense to focus stock accordingly and concentrate on capacity rather than the "Intercity" features of the stock.
To put this into context, I do not think there are any true Intercity services from either Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Cardiff, Bristol, Southampton or Leeds (and by extension the places that serve them like Swansea, the South West).
In this sense I think the Norwich trains show a better solution than keep pushing for the end door vestibuled stock with huge catering areas.
I would argue that they look even less intercity that something like London - Leeds! They're long distance of course they are but if the metric being applied is time between stops then XC are the worst offender by far of the intercity operators.I think it’s difficult to argue the long distance XC routes aren’t intercity, but I broadly agree with you otherwise.
That really depends on whether you think that "Inter City" (invented in the UK, of course) means an airline-on-wheels, just connecting London with a very few other favoured provincial locations. Lots of other people (like me) would disagree entirely, seeing it as a network providing connectivity between as many of the country's economic centres as practicable.There are very few true Intercity services in the UK, the possible exceptions being the limited stop Scotland to London by Avanti and LNER. Otherwise, trains regularly have stops 20 minutes or less apart. It would make sense to focus stock accordingly and concentrate on capacity rather than the "Intercity" features of the stock.
To put this into context, I do not think there are any true Intercity services from either Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Cardiff, Bristol, Southampton or Leeds (and by extension the places that serve them like Swansea, the South West).
Notwithstanding the fact that this is the "Controversial Railway Opinions Without a Firm Foundation in Logic", you will need to say where I have said any of the services should be slowed down or have stops inserted. I also do not argue to regulating trains so that the London to Scotland get any additional priority to that which they are currently afforded in pathing.That really depends on whether you think that "Inter City" (invented in the UK, of course) means an airline-on-wheels, just connecting London with a very few other favoured provincial locations. Lots of other people (like me) would disagree entirely, seeing it as providing connectivity between as many of the country's economic centres as practicable.
Next, you will be proposing that places like Coventry, Preston or Salisbury should lose their fast services just so that longer-distance London trains can whistle through.
To suggest that a place as densely populated as the UK should not use its railways to serve the cities scattered across the whole country would just continue the trend of focussing all economic activity in London, leaving the rest of us living in a wasteland.
The "XC is inadequate" argument is down to our failure to provide proper local and inter-regional services (and the infrastructure to run them) "below" or in parallel with the necessary IC network.
Ah yes, good point!I would argue that they look even less intercity that something like London - Leeds! They're long distance of course they are but if the metric being applied is time between stops then XC are the worst offender by far of the intercity operators.
I thought I'd have a look at an example of the time between stops:I would argue that they look even less intercity that something like London - Leeds! They're long distance of course they are but if the metric being applied is time between stops then XC are the worst offender by far of the intercity operators.
Redhill I don't think particularly suffers much at all under this scheme, it goes from 4tph Thameslink and 2tph to Victoria now to.... 4tph Thameslink and 2tph to Victoria!
I think the trains may get somewhat slower but as far as I know all Thameslink trains through London Bridge for the BML are non stop to Norwood Junction already.
I think each Thameslink train probably ends up picking up one stop each, at either Merstham or Coulsdon North.
Three Bridges goes from its current 10tph (2 Victoria and 8 Thameslink) to 6tph (2 Gatwick Airport and 4 Thameslink). But at the same time the expansion of its journey times will be contained by the short change time at Gatwick Airport onto the Shinkansen. Of course given how Gatwick Airport and Three Bridges are so close together a lot of passengers will probably defect to Gatwick Airport rather than Three Bridges.
Haywards Heath is the biggest "loser" of the three to be sure. 10 trains per hour to 4 in each direction and its a lot further from a Shinkansen station than Three Bridges et al.
6 Victoria and 4 Thameslink to 4 Thameslink. Probably around 21 minutes to Brighton and 16 minutes to Gatwick Airport.
Average wait time of 3 minutes plus 10 minute change deficit (I think 10 minutes is probably generous and 5too short) would be about 13 minutes. Effective journey time would be 49 minutes via Gatwick Airport . That is generally comparable to the journey time achieved now. Therefore the primary loss is going from an average wait for a train of 3 minutes to 7.5 minutes. So they lose about 5-6 minutes in total time assuming schotastic timetables with random arrivals.
So in short, they do seem to lose out, but I doubt these losses are really catastrophic, and given that pretty much everyone on the Coastways would be way better off than now changing at Littlehampton or Brighton, I don't think the service cut is indefensible even if it is "radical".
EDIT:
Do I get some sort of prize if I propose extending the GWR Gatwick terminator to Brighton and then transferring it to XC? Somewhat more seriously doing that would partially mitigate the Haywards Heath issue by clawing back ~2.5 minutes of average wait time by going from 4tph to 6tph.
I'm not at all convinced a service should stop being classed as "intercity" because it stops around every half hour, particularly when it's stopping at very major cities like Sheffield and Birmingham along the way.
Agree. But, to take things much further and in the spirit of this thread, any service which links two or more cities should be designated Inter-City and provided with appropriate rolling stock, to include First Class and catering; Which includes the trains stopping in Manchester and Salford!
Agree. But, to take things much further and in the spirit of this thread, any service which links two or more cities should be designated Inter-City and provided with appropriate rolling stock, to include First Class and catering; Which includes the trains stopping in Manchester and Salford!
Agree. But, to take things much further and in the spirit of this thread, any service which links two or more cities should be designated Inter-City and provided with appropriate rolling stock, to include First Class and catering; Which includes the trains stopping in Manchester and Salford!
Yes closer than I'd imagined!I thought I'd have a look at an example of the time between stops:
1115 Leeds to Kings Cross: 186 miles, 4 intermediate stops, 2h15m, average 27m between stops
1111 Leeds to Bristol: 203 miles, 7 intermediate stops, 3h20m, average 25m between stops. Rising to 29m when Wakefield Westgate is cut.
So not so different to the Leeds to London service.
Oh absolutely agreed on that point. I definitely think that there's more to the definition than just the time between stops.I'm not at all convinced a service should stop being classed as "intercity" because it stops around every half hour, particularly when it's stopping at very major cities like Sheffield and Birmingham along the way.
Absolutely! It's a travesty that there's no buffet on the S-Stock.Even the District Line which links two, the Cities of Westminster and London?
Absolutely! It's a travesty that there's no buffet on the S-Stock.
Are there now no direct, non-stop services between Manchester and London, and if not, when was the last one and who ran it?Since some of the above is not that controversial, here is one I have been thinking about a while.
There are very few true Intercity services in the UK, the possible exceptions being the limited stop Scotland to London by Avanti and LNER. Otherwise, trains regularly have stops 20 minutes or less apart. It would make sense to focus stock accordingly and concentrate on capacity rather than the "Intercity" features of the stock.
To put this into context, I do not think there are any true Intercity services from either Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Cardiff, Bristol, Southampton or Leeds (and by extension the places that serve them like Swansea, the South West).
In this sense I think the Norwich trains show a better solution than keep pushing for the end door vestibuled stock with huge catering areas.
Has there ever been non-stop services between Manchester and London?Are there now no direct, non-stop services between Manchester and London, and if not, when was the last one and who ran it?
Seem to recall way-back-then, maybe 70's? Probably after electrification, but I have a feeling yes and that my old man has done that journey for work. Needs conformation though!!Has there ever been non-stop services between Manchester and London?
Well if we consider "Manchester" to be Greater Manchester then yes, the Midland Pullman ran non-stop from Cheadle Heath to St Pancras. Obviously Greater Manchester didn't exist yet though.Has there ever been non-stop services between Manchester and London?