• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Campaign for Better Transport - The Case for Expanding the Rail Network

Status
Not open for further replies.

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
This forum really does amaze me.

If someone suggests reopening the Somerset and Dorset for example, the standard response is that there's no case for reinstating long and winding rural routes. Look for a short line linking a reasonably sized town with an employment centre.

We find a reasonably sized town that could easily be linked to the nearest employment centre and the answer is that we need to find long winding rural routes linking detatched communities. Come on sons of Beeching, make up your minds !

It would be comical were it not a sad reflection of Government policy in England.

No inconsistency at all - the largest place not on the rail network as a result of the S&D's closure is Blandford Forum. Poole is 13 miles away.

Shaftesbury is 5 miles from Gillingham.

Apart from the that you are looking at places with tiny populations, none of which have a 20+ mile journey to get to a railhead.

And as Bald Rick keeps pointing out, rail connections are not the only solution. When you're looking a 3-4 mile links it would be FAR cheaper to provide a bus rather than build a railway line.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
This forum really does amaze me.

To add to A0wen's reply... Don't forget that you're not arguing with one single person. Dozens of people are regulars in these debates. I would guess, hundreds if you include the more occasional contributors. Each individual person has slightly different opinions, so it shouldn't really come as any surprise if what one person says isn't quite the same as what another person says, even if those two people are roughly sitting on the same side in a particular debate.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Back to the subject of this thread.... that CBT report. I couldn't help noticing that some of the lines it suggests as Priority 2 for re-opening include Dumfries-Stranraer and Carmarthen-Aberystwyth, both of which would generally be regarded as having no business case, yet doesn't ever mention an obvious potential urban re-opening like Blackpool South-Central. I'd have thought Blackpool Central would come way above those rural lines in any set of priorities for re-opening.

Another oddity: Alton-Winchester is not mentioned. That's a line that would look like quite a useful link (albeit lower priority than many more urban lines and politically tricky because of the question of what would happen to the Watercress Line) because of the intermediate population and because of linking Farnham/Aldershot to Winchester/Southampton. Yet it mentions Alton-Fareham - which would seem on the surface like a far less useful line that serves next to no intermediate population. (In fact, I don't recall ever seeing Alton-Fareham get suggested before as a useful re-opening. Certainly I've never seen it mentioned on these forums).

I would agree with you on both of these cases. It shouldn't be difficult to extend the route from Blackpool South back to Central. Perhaps they're worried that everyone on the long distance Blackpool trains will pile onto the South Fylde stopper.

Similarly in terms of Alton, in any sensible scenario, the mid Hants line would be part of NR with preservationists perhaps having the Meon. But that would also have involved the mid Hants not being closed in the first place.

No inconsistency at all - the largest place not on the rail network as a result of the S&D's closure is Blandford Forum. Poole is 13 miles away.

Shaftesbury is 5 miles from Gillingham.

Apart from the that you are looking at places with tiny populations, none of which have a 20+ mile journey to get to a railhead.

And as Bald Rick keeps pointing out, rail connections are not the only solution. When you're looking a 3-4 mile links it would be FAR cheaper to provide a bus rather than build a railway line.

But you might not have noticed that we already have bus connections all over the country. They may be cheap, but the do not replicate a link to the railway network. Schemes such as Tavistock will cost a bit more, but the product will be different and more suitable for some travellers than that offered by the bus.

To add to A0wen's reply... Don't forget that you're not arguing with one single person. Dozens of people are regulars in these debates. I would guess, hundreds if you include the more occasional contributors. Each individual person has slightly different opinions, so it shouldn't really come as any surprise if what one person says isn't quite the same as what another person says, even if those two people are roughly sitting on the same side in a particular debate.

What it amounts to is a strand of opinion on this thread for whom the circumstances in which reopenings are justified are so narrowly defined as to be non-existant outside of London and the Celtic areas.
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,686
... I used Penrith - Keswick purely as an example of somewhere where in a rational world we would have the Campaign for Better Transport, err, campaigning for better transport in the form of a much better bus service which would offer benefits at least as good as a new railway, for a minute fraction of the cost and much more quickly delivered.

Ah! Apologies for any misconstrued meanderings there. My comment, in any case, was meant on the same lines as an ealier poster(s), who suggested a better line of attack would be to choose a small number of suggested projects which stood the best chance of gaining funding, and abandon or suspend efforts for the (many) weaker proposals.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Ah! Apologies for any misconstrued meanderings there. My comment, in any case, was meant on the same lines as an ealier poster(s), who suggested a better line of attack would be to choose a small number of suggested projects which stood the best chance of gaining funding, and abandon or suspend efforts for the (many) weaker proposals.

I think, in general, that's probably true from the point of view of convincing the Government to invest in somewhere in something particular that provides more opportunities for some people to travel by train.

However, from the point of view, of CBT, a longer term objective is going to be to change people's attitudes to travel, to convince people (and the authorities) more of the need to invest generally in public transport and discourage private car use. From that point of view, mentioning a very large number of re-openings around the country is perhaps better because it can get more people engaged. It's going to be hard to get someone in - say - Cornwall - more interested in your campaign if the closest rail project you're campaigning for is 100 miles away from where they live. To that extent, I can see the value in principle of a report like this. It's just a shame that some of the projects in it seem to be so badly picked. Also that they've focused so narrowly on building new lines: I'm sure there are an awful lot of places around the country where you could get better returns by redoubling track/line speed increases/infrastructure to provide more frequent services on existing lines (or, as Bald Rick says, connecting bus services). One example could be Carmarthen-Aberystwyth: Rather than campaign for a new line which has all the obvious business case flaws, how about focusing on getting a solid, reliable, hourly frequency to Aberystwyth on the existing line, throughout the day and with no 2-hour gaps?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
The issue with Blackpool South to Central is that it would be quite expensive (bridges to reinstate), it would need a lot of work away from there to make it workable (ie a loop somewhere on the branch, and an additional unit), and the benefit is rather limited - it just knocks a bit off journey time for people already on the train going to a very specific part of Blackpool. I doubt very much that it would attract any new custom, and specifically for the CBT report, it brings very very few ‘new’ people to within 1km of the railway. Given that the tram also serves the same area, and will shortly have a link to North station, it’s a non-starter.

The one that’s missing that surprised me is the Cranleigh branch.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
The issue with Blackpool South to Central is that it would be quite expensive (bridges to reinstate), it would need a lot of work away from there to make it workable (ie a loop somewhere on the branch, and an additional unit), and the benefit is rather limited - it just knocks a bit off journey time for people already on the train going to a very specific part of Blackpool. I doubt very much that it would attract any new custom, and specifically for the CBT report, it brings very very few ‘new’ people to within 1km of the railway. Given that the tram also serves the same area, and will shortly have a link to North station, it’s a non-starter.

The one that’s missing that surprised me is the Cranleigh branch.

Yes, I'm surprised Blackpool Central keeps cropping up - given there are two stations with sensible tram links close by it does seem an odd one to champion. Fleetwood makes more sense - that's not to say it's viable though.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
The issue with Blackpool South to Central is that it would be quite expensive (bridges to reinstate), it would need a lot of work away from there to make it workable (ie a loop somewhere on the branch, and an additional unit), and the benefit is rather limited - it just knocks a bit off journey time for people already on the train going to a very specific part of Blackpool. I doubt very much that it would attract any new custom, and specifically for the CBT report, it brings very very few ‘new’ people to within 1km of the railway. Given that the tram also serves the same area, and will shortly have a link to North station, it’s a non-starter.

Expensive I'd agree with. But then, show me a rail opening that isn't! :) Or a rail opening that wouldn't need additional units to provide the new service! And I'd agree too about it requiring other work on the branch. I do wonder whether you could avoid the need for a passing loop by just extending the double track section an extra mile or two further west from Kirkham. Since that would imply keeping the very short turnaround at Blackpool, perhaps that might even allow some timetable rejigging to avoid requiring an additional train - at least to keep just an hourly service.

I don't think I'd agree about it not attracting new custom though. At present, the line serves a very substantial population around South Fylde, many of whom would presumably want to travel to central Blackpool very regularly. The line is currently next to useless for that, since at the Blackpool end it basically drops you off in the middle of nowhere. An extension to Blackpool Central would mean the line goes to where lots of people also want to go. Of course the unattractive hourly frequency is also an issue, and I'd accept fixing that would require passing loop(s) and at least one additional train.

Yes, I'm surprised Blackpool Central keeps cropping up - given there are two stations with sensible tram links close by it does seem an odd one to champion. Fleetwood makes more sense - that's not to say it's viable though.

I'm guessing you're referring to Pleasure Beach/Burlington Road West and Squires Gate/Starr Gate - but those are both about 300m between station and tram stop. I'd say that's pushing the definition of 'close by' somewhat :) If you're one of the many people who doesn't particularly like buses, and for the alternatives, you have a choice between (a) driving, or (b) train then walk 300 m then another fare to pay for the tram. And on the return journey, having to hope your tram correctly makes the connection for the hourly train... are you really going to choose the latter?
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I guess this thread just comes down to what your priority for rail investment ought to be:

  • Trying some sort of "SimCity" programme to regenerate the poorest areas/ regions
  • Trying to colour in as much of the map as possible so that as many people are within a few miles of a train station as possible
  • Trying to recreate as many old lines as possible
  • Trying to take as many cars off the road as possible
  • Trying to provide a diversionary alternative to existing routes
  • Trying to run the most efficient railway by a certain metric (maybe the most passengers per mile compared to overall subsidy required)

Some improvements can tick more than one box - e.g. the Borders line rebuilt an old line whilst also bringing thousands of people within a few miles of a railway - but we could make a lot of other improvements for the sake of the £400m spent on the Borders line and it's worth considering the opportunity cost.

Looking at the "Waverley Line" figures, you've got around 1,200 departing passengers per day spread between the three Borders stations. Spread those over the daily departures and you're talking thirtysomething passengers per train (assuming that everyone from Tweedbank, Gala and Stow are travelling into Midlothian/ Edinburgh). Some services will be busier than others, sure, but still... thirtysomething passengers on each service into and out of the Borders... it's not huge, is it?

Some people will consider that the price is worth it (though I suspect that the same people would think that the price was worth it regardless), some people would put "reconnecting small towns" and "putting more people within a shorter distance of a train station" as goals in themselves, but for £400m we could have got a lot more cars off the road and put a lot more people on public transport elsewhere in the country.

For example, the Edinburgh Trams cost about twice the cost of the Borders line (both went over-budget and took longer than expected so please spare me the "we shouldn't invest in trams because such projects are over-budget...) but carry over five million passengers a year (in comparison, the three Borders station have under a million passengers a year). And the trams seem to be growing and growing whilst the railway figures look closer to plateauing. Now, I'm not claiming the Edinburgh Trams as a perfect example of how a project should be managed but it's worth comparing two schemes in the same corner of the UK.

Looking at these figures, I'd be tempted to argue that extending the tram to Leith would be more efficient than trying worrying about Hawick/ Carlisle - the population of Leith is maybe half that of the entire Borders region but with much greater population density so much easier to serve with public transport (funny how we get excited about giving ten thousand people in rural towns a train station within a few miles of their houses but ignore areas of large population like Leith that aren't so quaint and rural...).

But, I'm trying to be rational and compare numbers - some people see reinstating an old line as an end in itself - some people put unquantifiable value/benefits on colouring in bits of the map - it just makes it impossible;e to have a rational argument with them when they've got their minds made up already.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
I don't think I'd agree about it not attracting new custom though. At present, the line serves a very substantial population around South Fylde, many of whom would presumably want to travel to central Blackpool very regularly. The line is currently next to useless for that, since at the Blackpool end it basically drops you off in the middle of nowhere. An extension to Blackpool Central would mean the line goes to where lots of people also want to go. Of course the unattractive hourly frequency is also an issue, and I'd accept fixing that would require passing loop(s) and at least one additional train.

I'm not sure 'very substantial' describes the population particularly well.

Blackpool as a whole is 140,000 - so at best you're looking at about half that along the line of south station where you already have competition from buses and the trams.

From there you've got Lytham with 40,000 people, so not huge again with decent bus links. And you can bet as many people are wanting to head towards Preston as Blackpool.

The next stop is Kirkham and Wesham which is where the North and South lines join - so people are probably agnostic about which they use if they're heading into the centre of Blackpool, probably just going for the first train to arrive.

I suspect had Central survived then both North and South wouldn't have and there's every chance the south line would have closed.
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,686
... Also that they've focused so narrowly on building new lines: I'm sure there are an awful lot of places around the country where you could get better returns by redoubling track/line speed increases/infrastructure to provide more frequent services on existing lines (or, as Bald Rick says, connecting bus services). One example could be Carmarthen-Aberystwyth: Rather than campaign for a new line which has all the obvious business case flaws, how about focusing on getting a solid, reliable, hourly frequency to Aberystwyth on the existing line, throughout the day and with no 2-hour gaps?
Yup, agree with all your post, especially the last bit!
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I don't think I'd agree about it not attracting new custom though. At present, the line serves a very substantial population around South Fylde, many of whom would presumably want to travel to central Blackpool very regularly. The line is currently next to useless for that, since at the Blackpool end it basically drops you off in the middle of nowhere. An extension to Blackpool Central would mean the line goes to where lots of people also want to go. Of course the unattractive hourly frequency is also an issue, and I'd accept fixing that would require passing loop(s) and at least one additional train


Just to add to what @A0wen has said.

I happen to know Lytham and St Annes on Sea rather well. In fact I am sat next to two people who live there right now.

Within LSA there is everything that most of the residents need - all the facilities of modern towns. There’s no real need to go to Central Blackpool - perhaps for the Grand Theatre, or perhaps Debenhams. But it is more likely you’d go to Preston where the shoppping is better. Rarely would you go to Blackpool for a night out - that’s for tourists.

In terms of residents, it is reasonably well known that LSA has a higher proportion of pensioners, many of whom have a few quid, and cars which they will therefore drive where they need to. The rest will use their bus passes, and get on any of the 9 buses an hour between St Annes and Blackpool, 6 of which serve Lytham also, with stops throughout Lytham, Andsell and St Annes that are more convenient than the station for almost every user. Between them they serve a range of destinations in Blackpool: the shops, the prom, entertainment, the stations, etc at a far better frequency than the train ever can. And much more cheaply (ie free) for a significant proportion of potential passengers.

For the average LSA resident that wants for some reason to go to central Blackpool, and not drive or use Whiteside taxis... given the choice of getting to the station, waiting for an hourly (or half hourly at best) train, which then drops you at Blackpool Central... or a bus every 10/15 minutes that can pick you up from the end of the road and drop you off much closer to where you need to go, and probably not have to pay, what would you do?
 
Last edited:
Joined
30 Oct 2016
Messages
68
Looking at the "Waverley Line" figures, you've got around 1,200 departing passengers per day spread between the three Borders stations. Spread those over the daily departures and you're talking thirtysomething passengers per train (assuming that everyone from Tweedbank, Gala and Stow are travelling into Midlothian/ Edinburgh). Some services will be busier than others, sure, but still... thirtysomething passengers on each service into and out of the Borders... it's not huge, is it?

Maybe not huge, but still ten times as many as predicted in the final business case.

Presumably the modelling couldn't cope with a new line directly into a geographically large area with no access whatsoever to the existing rail network.
 

DPWH

On Moderation
Joined
8 Sep 2016
Messages
244
Maybe not huge, but still ten times as many as predicted in the final business case.

Presumably the modelling couldn't cope with a new line directly into a geographically large area with no access whatsoever to the existing rail network.

So potentially what other geographically large areas with no access whatsoever to the existing rail network exist?
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,072
So potentially what other geographically large areas with no access whatsoever to the existing rail network exist?
Quite a few, particularly in Scotland... hardly anyone lives there though!
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Looking at the "Waverley Line" figures, you've got around 1,200 departing passengers per day spread between the three Borders stations. Spread those over the daily departures and you're talking thirtysomething passengers per train (assuming that everyone from Tweedbank, Gala and Stow are travelling into Midlothian/ Edinburgh). Some services will be busier than others, sure, but still... thirtysomething passengers on each service into and out of the Borders... it's not huge, is it?

Maybe not huge, but still ten times as many as predicted in the final business case.

I don't think that can be right. That would imply the final business case predicted 3 passengers per train. I'm pretty sure even a strongly politically motivated line wouldn't have been built if the business case had said 3 passengers per train on average!
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I don't think that can be right. That would imply the final business case predicted 3 passengers per train. I'm pretty sure even a strongly politically motivated line wouldn't have been built if the business case had said 3 passengers per train on average!

It’s not quite right, but close. It’s actually 8.5 times. And yes the expectation was very low. Hence the political element.

The FBC assumed relatively light traffic from Tweedbank and Gala, but much higher traffic from Lothian. Actually the reverse happens, and the line is more or less bang on forecast for passenger numbers, but on average they travel further than expected.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
It’s not quite right, but close. It’s actually 8.5 times. And yes the expectation was very low. Hence the political element.

The FBC assumed relatively light traffic from Tweedbank and Gala, but much higher traffic from Lothian. Actually the reverse happens, and the line is more or less bang on forecast for passenger numbers, but on average they travel further than expected.

Wow. I find that pretty astonishing. If that's true, then it's just as well that traffic from Tweedbank/Gala was so much higher than forecast. From what you're saying that would mean a forecast average of about 4 people per train leaving Galashiels. And if that's an average, you could reasonably assume that would mean a lot of trains leaving Galashiels (in either direction) completely empty (apart from the train crew). I can imagine what the Press would have been saying about that - even if trains did fill up on reaching Lothian.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Wow. I find that pretty astonishing. If that's true, then it's just as well that traffic from Tweedbank/Gala was so much higher than forecast. From what you're saying that would mean a forecast average of about 4 people per train leaving Galashiels. And if that's an average, you could reasonably assume that would mean a lot of trains leaving Galashiels (in either direction) completely empty (apart from the train crew). I can imagine what the Press would have been saying about that - even if trains did fill up on reaching Lothian.

It’s all in here. https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/10321/ts_borders_fbc_final_version_issued.pdf

Apart from the bits removed for ‘commercial sensitivity’ (or political sensitivity, depending on your own level of cynicism.)

The central case forecast predicted approx 50,000 annual return trips from the three Borders stations (Tweedbank, Gala and Stow) in the opening full year. That’s 2000 single trips a week, split across approx 450 trains a week, so about 4.5 per train. Clearly the forecast was wrong in that respect. But it was also wrong the other way for the Lothian stations, hence numbers for the whole line are broadly where they were expected to be.
 

EIKN

Member
Joined
19 Sep 2017
Messages
113
It's a pity they couldn't extend to Melrose, which has to be more populated than an ' industrial estate 'if the existing station was reused, it would include what looks to be a much needed road improvement. And also it would help if the line was Electrified.
They said it was ' ready ' for those works , are those blue plastic covered concrete bases that seem spaced as regular as mast supports , is that what they are for ?.
I know it might sound an odd idea but a cheap way of upping the numbers on the line as it might attract a fair boost as it is what another two miles of line ? .
Minor bonus is locos for specials really could ' run around ' something that can't be done now .
But if course ultimate destination is Carlisle, But Hawick , I think would need a decent station something double track , with a proper ' Station building' like Bathgate for example .
A ticket office, waiting rooms .( Again why has this not been done at Stow( old building still there ) and is it Eskbank .
The border up former station .
Could again provide facilities. As would Melrose . The idea being to intice those who won't stand on an open freezing platform in winter .
Not a flight of fantasy but as I'm not an expert just interested in our Transport future . In fact the whole current route ought to have something under cover , heated , with train info, a toilet etc .
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
So potentially what other geographically large areas with no access whatsoever to the existing rail network exist?

There's a large chunk of North and central Devon without access to the rail network. Plymouth via Okehampton would help to address this.
 

railjock

Member
Joined
30 Jun 2012
Messages
373
It’s all in here. https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/10321/ts_borders_fbc_final_version_issued.pdf

Apart from the bits removed for ‘commercial sensitivity’ (or political sensitivity, depending on your own level of cynicism.)

The central case forecast predicted approx 50,000 annual return trips from the three Borders stations (Tweedbank, Gala and Stow) in the opening full year. That’s 2000 single trips a week, split across approx 450 trains a week, so about 4.5 per train. Clearly the forecast was wrong in that respect. But it was also wrong the other way for the Lothian stations, hence numbers for the whole line are broadly where they were expected to be.
The numbers for the Midlothian stations are increasing but it’s hard to compete with the very regular and cheaper Lothian buses. The building of Shawfair should help maintain/increase numbers.
 

AndyHudds

Member
Joined
17 Jun 2012
Messages
530
I'm surprised no one has ever mentioned using tram train technology for re-opening of more urban routes. Someone mentioned the Low Moor to Thornhill route up thread, that would be an ideal candidate for something like that, the Spend Valley has a decent size population, Cleckheaton & Heckmondwike, build a curve into the Wakefield line, build some platforms on the Wakefield line at Ravensthorpe station and run the tram trains in to Huddersfield, if you wanted Leeds change at Ravensthorpe.
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
I'm surprised no one has ever mentioned using tram train technology for re-opening of more urban routes. Someone mentioned the Low Moor to Thornhill route up thread, that would be an ideal candidate for something like that, the Spend Valley has a decent size population, Cleckheaton & Heckmondwike, build a curve into the Wakefield line, build some platforms on the Wakefield line at Ravensthorpe station and run the tram trains in to Huddersfield, if you wanted Leeds change at Ravensthorpe.
A very good point, especially in cities around a valley bowl, like Sheffield. Bristol is very similar to Sheffield in this respect. Trams and tram trains will be the ideal answer there and I expect there are many such other examples.
 

Tobbes

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2012
Messages
1,242
A very good point, especially in cities around a valley bowl, like Sheffield. Bristol is very similar to Sheffield in this respect. Trams and tram trains will be the ideal answer there and I expect there are many such other examples.

Haverhill-Cambs with street running in Cambridge is another one.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,768
Location
Herts
I'm surprised no one has ever mentioned using tram train technology for re-opening of more urban routes. Someone mentioned the Low Moor to Thornhill route up thread, that would be an ideal candidate for something like that, the Spend Valley has a decent size population, Cleckheaton & Heckmondwike, build a curve into the Wakefield line, build some platforms on the Wakefield line at Ravensthorpe station and run the tram trains in to Huddersfield, if you wanted Leeds change at Ravensthorpe.


Might well be an option , bar the £70m+ bill for the Sheffield experiment and the debacle on standards etc , made it about 3 years late. Realistically ,if there is any hope for a rail revival off main lines etc , these issues need to be dealt with , along with not using very expensive consultants for "options and development" , which inevitably end to high costs and toxic compared / aligned to very high costs from infrastructure costs - let alone vehicle etc leasing. Rant over.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,768
Location
Herts
@ChiefPlanner - accepting everything in your rant, when will we expect to see the results of the tram-train experiment?

The present one is obviously running - not hugely impressed myself , yes - it works , but to what real purpose ? - covered elsewhere in this forum I know.

Funnily enough there was a bit of a spin on the Parry People Mover on Radio 4 yesterday PM - the Stourbridge experiment , which people look down on - but has (a) improved frequency (b) reduced OPEX by at least a half (c) increased patronage.

Yes I know it is self contained , but is there some real scope for similar - GSMR fitment and in dire needs a track circuit clip in the driving cab and a rules passed out driver / operator. ? -
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top