Campaign for Calder Valley Electrification

[jayah]

Errrr now come on - I really do take issue with that statement. Nothing - really - nothing? Come on

I've just explained why two rows up!

Just look at Edinburgh - Glasgow. You have trains that have 3 stops and trains that have 4 stops. Best part of £1bn spent on wires, skipped the grade separation and you get 6min of pathing allowance in the so called 'fast' service. The money would be much better spent on the track and the signals. Class 185 or Class 220 will easily match the performance of the electrics on a 80-90-100mph line.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G98150/2018/05/29/advanced

 

[GRALISTAIR]

You are selectively quoting. I take issue with your statement “ wires do NOTHING for speed below 125” All, and I mean all the evidence shows that is where they do the most benefit.

 

[td97]

Class 185 or Class 220 will easily match the performance of the electrics on a 80-90-100mph line.

Really?
Class 170 acceleration: 0.5m/s^2
Class 185 acceleration: 0.49m/s^2

Class 380 acceleration: 1m/s^2
Class 365 acceleration: 0.67m/s^2
Source
So a class 380 takes half as long to accelerate to a given speed than a class 170 or 185.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Really?
Class 170 acceleration: 0.5m/s^2
Class 185 acceleration: 0.49m/s^2

Class 380 acceleration: 1m/s^2
Class 365 acceleration: 0.67m/s^2
Source
So a class 380 takes half as long to accelerate to a given speed than a class 170 or 185.

Pre-fricking-cisely - thank you

 

[jayah]

Pre-fricking-cisely - thank you

There is already a thread on this document and it has been comprehensively rubbished. Class 158 is listed as 0.8ms-s which is clearly nonsense as it isn't nearly twice as quick as a 185.

Back in the real world a 165 has the same timings as a 387, 221s and 390s coexist on the WCML as do HSTs and 91s on the WCML while and a 385 is no more capable of ghosting through a conflict at Haymarket Jn than a 170 is.

Let's look at Blackpool Preston:

Class 319 with one stop at Poulton 26min with 3min allowances and 1min stop = 22min net.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y22737/2018/07/11/advanced

Class 158 23min with 1min allowance and 1min stop = 21min net.

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y23003/2018/07/11/advanced

The 319 actually loses 1min from the choice of platform at Preston but the two are otherwise the same.

 

[tbtc]

I had an idea, a few miles ago, that Calder Valley would be better than the main TPE line, due to the relatively self-contained nature of the line - though this obviously won't be the case with Calder Valley services extending through to Manchester Airport/ Liverpool/ Southport.

However, the terrain is a little harder - a shame as there's certainly a good enough frequency from Leeds to Bradford/ Halifax and from Rochdale to Manchester. Feels a bit like the hilly/ remote/ less-frequent bit in the middle of the route is holding the busier bits back a bit.

At least it's a lot more realistic than most of the "Bradford" suggestions on here.

Plans for further GB electrification (outside Scotland) appear to be dead. If the main Standedge trans-Pennine route isn't going to be electrified, what chance for the Calder Valley line? The Westminster govt doesn't care about rail services that aren't to/from London - if they had, the electrified Woodhead line would never have been closed.

Woodhead was predominantly a freight line, for a particular type of freight, coming from Tinsley Yard and the Dearne Valley etc.

When that freight was starting to dry up in the early '80s, there was little use for it as a passenger-only line, given that it doesn't serve anywhere particularly large between Sheffield and Manchester, the passenger service through the Hope Valley is still only half hourly in 2018 (compared to the higher frequency trans-pennine over the Marsden line), plus the fact that it required a separate station at Sheffield (everything else can serve Midland but the Woodhead trains had to serve Victoria, which is some way from the heart of Sheffield, awkward to get to).

I know Westminster are a whipping boy on here but Woodhead's raison d'être was slow heavy freight from industrial South Yorkshire over the Pennines - that freight died off - a second line from Sheffield to Manchester became a luxury (especially given the non-standard electrification/stock).

Bimodes are just a very expensive device favoured by the wallies at DfT to try & justify their opposition to electrification

The opposition to electrification is because the various bits of Government (DfT/ ORR/ Network Rail) are incapable of electrifying lines to a budget and to a timescale.

IF they were capable of doing this, we wouldn't need to cancel electrification of the MML etc due to the massive over-spend on doing half a job on the GWML.

Remember when overhead electrification was so cheap and simple that it'd be better/ easier/ cheaper to replace life-expired Third Rail with wires?

But the current people couldn't deliver the electrification of the first tranche of projects (to a cost/budget), so the rest of the "to do" list was shelved (postponed, cancelled, deferred).

Feel free to blame bi-modes for the situation on the Chase line, the Electric Spine, the Windermere branch, the Valley Lines, Thames Valley branch lines, Wigan to Bolton etc if you'd like, but I don't think those routes were initially planned for bi-modes?

Do you really believe the DfT agenda is that they hate electrification for no rational reason?

I'm not a DfT fanboy but they are just reacting to the changing circumstances.

If Network Rail had done what Network Rail promised to do then there'd be plenty of money for future schemes. Instead, they spent the full budget on doing half-a-job on the GWML and that meant there was no money left for the MML etc.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

There is already a thread on this document and it has been comprehensively rubbished. Class 158 is listed as 0.8ms-s which is clearly nonsense as it isn't nearly twice as quick as a 185.

So let’s cut to the chase you believe like for like a diesel can accelerate as fast as an electric?

 

[jyte]

So let’s cut to the chase you believe like for like a diesel can accelerate as fast as an electric?

jayah has clearly 'had enough of experts' and wants to take us back to the 19th century where he doesn't have to deal with this mythical stuff that comes out a plug socket....

 

[Starmill]

EGIP has just risen to £900m with diminishing confidence the headline 60mph timing will ever be realised

That sounds like rubbish to me.

 

[jayah]

I had an idea, a few miles ago, that Calder Valley would be better than the main TPE line, due to the relatively self-contained nature of the line - though this obviously won't be the case with Calder Valley services extending through to Manchester Airport/ Liverpool/ Southport.

However, the terrain is a little harder - a shame as there's certainly a good enough frequency from Leeds to Bradford/ Halifax and from Rochdale to Manchester. Feels a bit like the hilly/ remote/ less-frequent bit in the middle of the route is holding the busier bits back a bit.

At least it's a lot more realistic than most of the "Bradford" suggestions on here.



Woodhead was predominantly a freight line, for a particular type of freight, coming from Tinsley Yard and the Dearne Valley etc.

When that freight was starting to dry up in the early '80s, there was little use for it as a passenger-only line, given that it doesn't serve anywhere particularly large between Sheffield and Manchester, the passenger service through the Hope Valley is still only half hourly in 2018 (compared to the higher frequency trans-pennine over the Marsden line), plus the fact that it required a separate station at Sheffield (everything else can serve Midland but the Woodhead trains had to serve Victoria, which is some way from the heart of Sheffield, awkward to get to).

I know Westminster are a whipping boy on here but Woodhead's raison d'être was slow heavy freight from industrial South Yorkshire over the Pennines - that freight died off - a second line from Sheffield to Manchester became a luxury (especially given the non-standard electrification/stock).



The opposition to electrification is because the various bits of Government (DfT/ ORR/ Network Rail) are incapable of electrifying lines to a budget and to a timescale.

IF they were capable of doing this, we wouldn't need to cancel electrification of the MML etc due to the massive over-spend on doing half a job on the GWML.

Remember when overhead electrification was so cheap and simple that it'd be better/ easier/ cheaper to replace life-expired Third Rail with wires?

But the current people couldn't deliver the electrification of the first tranche of projects (to a cost/budget), so the rest of the "to do" list was shelved (postponed, cancelled, deferred).

Feel free to blame bi-modes for the situation on the Chase line, the Electric Spine, the Windermere branch, the Valley Lines, Thames Valley branch lines, Wigan to Bolton etc if you'd like, but I don't think those routes were initially planned for bi-modes?



I'm not a DfT fanboy but they are just reacting to the changing circumstances.

If Network Rail had done what Network Rail promised to do then there'd be plenty of money for future schemes. Instead, they spent the full budget on doing half-a-job on the GWML and that meant there was no money left for the MML etc.

My opposition to electrification is that the costs for outweigh the benefits. Pony tracks like the Calder are crying out for higher speeds and they won't get it from vertical posts and horizontal wires dangling over a 50mph formation.

Making the wires a bit cheaper changes little.

 

[jayah]

That sounds like rubbish to me.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/trans...asgow-railway-upgrade-soars-by-100m-1-4739669

Improvements to the Edinburgh to Glasgow line — a move that would make the journey just 42 minutes between the cities — are now expected to cost £858m, an almost £200m increase on the original cost estimate set in 2012.

 

[jayah]

jayah has clearly 'had enough of experts' and wants to take us back to the 19th century where he doesn't have to deal with this mythical stuff that comes out a plug socket....

If you can read a timetable you can find out for yourself. They can and they do and on the ECML the 125mph diesel is a good deal faster!

 

[jayah]

I had an idea, a few miles ago, that Calder Valley would be better than the main TPE line, due to the relatively self-contained nature of the line - though this obviously won't be the case with Calder Valley services extending through to Manchester Airport/ Liverpool/ Southport.

However, the terrain is a little harder - a shame as there's certainly a good enough frequency from Leeds to Bradford/ Halifax and from Rochdale to Manchester. Feels a bit like the hilly/ remote/ less-frequent bit in the middle of the route is holding the busier bits back a bit.

At least it's a lot more realistic than most of the "Bradford" suggestions on here.



Woodhead was predominantly a freight line, for a particular type of freight, coming from Tinsley Yard and the Dearne Valley etc.

When that freight was starting to dry up in the early '80s, there was little use for it as a passenger-only line, given that it doesn't serve anywhere particularly large between Sheffield and Manchester, the passenger service through the Hope Valley is still only half hourly in 2018 (compared to the higher frequency trans-pennine over the Marsden line), plus the fact that it required a separate station at Sheffield (everything else can serve Midland but the Woodhead trains had to serve Victoria, which is some way from the heart of Sheffield, awkward to get to).

I know Westminster are a whipping boy on here but Woodhead's raison d'être was slow heavy freight from industrial South Yorkshire over the Pennines - that freight died off - a second line from Sheffield to Manchester became a luxury (especially given the non-standard electrification/stock).



The opposition to electrification is because the various bits of Government (DfT/ ORR/ Network Rail) are incapable of electrifying lines to a budget and to a timescale.

IF they were capable of doing this, we wouldn't need to cancel electrification of the MML etc due to the massive over-spend on doing half a job on the GWML.

Remember when overhead electrification was so cheap and simple that it'd be better/ easier/ cheaper to replace life-expired Third Rail with wires?

But the current people couldn't deliver the electrification of the first tranche of projects (to a cost/budget), so the rest of the "to do" list was shelved (postponed, cancelled, deferred).

Feel free to blame bi-modes for the situation on the Chase line, the Electric Spine, the Windermere branch, the Valley Lines, Thames Valley branch lines, Wigan to Bolton etc if you'd like, but I don't think those routes were initially planned for bi-modes?



I'm not a DfT fanboy but they are just reacting to the changing circumstances.

If Network Rail had done what Network Rail promised to do then there'd be plenty of money for future schemes. Instead, they spent the full budget on doing half-a-job on the GWML and that meant there was no money left for the MML etc.

Thames Valley branches could so easily be covered with batteries and opportunity charging. Why anyone would spend £20m on wiring them is beyond me.

 

[yorkie]

I've just explained why two rows up!

Just look at Edinburgh - Glasgow. You have trains that have 3 stops and trains that have 4 stops. Best part of £1bn spent on wires, skipped the grade separation and you get 6min of pathing allowance in the so called 'fast' service. The money would be much better spent on the track and the signals. Class 185 or Class 220 will easily match the performance of the electrics on a 80-90-100mph line.

This is not only very clearly untrue, but ignores the fact that Class 185 and 222 trains are very heavy and consume a lot of fuel; they are very inefficient machines and they are much more expensive to operate.

 

[jayah]

This is not only very clearly untrue, but ignores the fact that Class 185 and 222 trains are very heavy and consume a lot of fuel; they are very inefficient machines and they are much more expensive to operate.

I think you are being untrue in clearly ignoring the obvious fact that as stated and demonstrated in most hours of the day out of Euston that a Class 221 goes as fast if not faster than an electric!

Having lost the argument you are now shape shifting the discussion onto trivia like weight and efficiency although you dont offer much detail on what you mean by efficiency?

Have a look at the weight of a Class 800 diesel and unpowered and then see if you can estimate what the weight of the passengers might be...

 

[tbtc]

My opposition to electrification is that the costs for outweigh the benefits. Pony tracks like the Calder are crying out for higher speeds and they won't get it from vertical posts and horizontal wires dangling over a 50mph formation.

Making the wires a bit cheaper changes little.

For me, it's about the savings over a generation.

• Electrification means buying trains is cheaper (since EMUs are cheaper than DMUs, EMUs last longer than DMUs and ROSCOs are reluctant to fund DMUs that they may not get a long lifetime out of due to ongoing electrification)
• Electrification means obtaining trains is easier (since there are plenty of EMUs going spare, whilst the number of DMUs is falling with 142/143/144/153s probably all heading for the cutting torch in the next few years)
• Electrification means running trains is cheaper (since lightweight EMUs have cheaper track access charges than heavy DMUs that are lugging around fuel tanks etc)
• Electrification means running trains is faster (since the vast majority of EMUs have better acceleration than the vast majority of DMUs, which would be handy given the number of stops between Leeds and Manchester)

If you can wire up lines to the kind of sums that Network Rail were talking about five years ago then electrification is a no-brainer - the only question is which order to wire lines in.

However, with increased costs (and delays), it becomes harder to justify electrification.

Thames Valley branches could so easily be covered with batteries and opportunity charging. Why anyone would spend £20m on wiring them is beyond me.

True, though battery technology is a bit chicken/egg - it needs more testing to prove itself on the railways but who wants to be the guinea pigs?

The relevance of mentioning it here though is that the Thames Valley branches are one of a long list of lines that have seen electrification descoped/ delayed/ postponed, and the vast majority of these lines were never scheduled to have bi-mode trains, yet enthusiasts keep trotting out the idea that "bi-modes are killing electrification" (ignoring the fact the bi-modes were never planned for the Thames Valley branches, the Valley Lines, Windermere etc), possibly because they don't want to accept that the problem is Network Rail/ ORR/ DfT's failure to deliver electrification.

Easy to blame the reliable Japanese trains that are working fairly well (and, luckily, able to run faster on diesel mode than they were specced to do), it avoids tough questions about the railway industry's infrastructure failures.

 

[jayah]

For me, it's about the savings over a generation.

• Electrification means buying trains is cheaper (since EMUs are cheaper than DMUs, EMUs last longer than DMUs and ROSCOs are reluctant to fund DMUs that they may not get a long lifetime out of due to ongoing electrification)
• Electrification means obtaining trains is easier (since there are plenty of EMUs going spare, whilst the number of DMUs is falling with 142/143/144/153s probably all heading for the cutting torch in the next few years)
• Electrification means running trains is cheaper (since lightweight EMUs have cheaper track access charges than heavy DMUs that are lugging around fuel tanks etc)
• Electrification means running trains is faster (since the vast majority of EMUs have better acceleration than the vast majority of DMUs, which would be handy given the number of stops between Leeds and Manchester)

If you can wire up lines to the kind of sums that Network Rail were talking about five years ago then electrification is a no-brainer - the only question is which order to wire lines in.

However, with increased costs (and delays), it becomes harder to justify electrification.



True, though battery technology is a bit chicken/egg - it needs more testing to prove itself on the railways but who wants to be the guinea pigs?

The relevance of mentioning it here though is that the Thames Valley branches are one of a long list of lines that have seen electrification descoped/ delayed/ postponed, and the vast majority of these lines were never scheduled to have bi-mode trains, yet enthusiasts keep trotting out the idea that "bi-modes are killing electrification" (ignoring the fact the bi-modes were never planned for the Thames Valley branches, the Valley Lines, Windermere etc), possibly because they don't want to accept that the problem is Network Rail/ ORR/ DfT's failure to deliver electrification.

Easy to blame the reliable Japanese trains that are working fairly well (and, luckily, able to run faster on diesel mode than they were specced to do), it avoids tough questions about the railway industry's infrastructure failures.

There aren't any savings over a generation.

A Class 172 and Class 350 cost exactly the same per vehicle. The order book for Bi-Modes is bulging. Class 142 are long overdue for the torch, but Class 313-323 will probably be close behind, which is a waste of good money as the DfT have decided they are prepared to spend big on quality when the country is apparently skint.

Again - this weight issue. It is rivet counting. If you compare the weight and then look at say the weight of the passengers, or even the weight of their luggage you start to see this isn't the big thing people like to make out when they are trying to trash bi-modes.

We don't live in a fantasy world. Electrification involves lots of expensive work and disruptive closures. This all takes time and costs lots of money. I don't know what Network Rail figures you are thinking of, but we are where we are and if you want more capacity and faster services string up lots of expensive wires is not the way to achieve it.

 

[jayah]

True, though battery technology is a bit chicken/egg - it needs more testing to prove itself on the railways but who wants to be the guinea pigs?

Indeed. The railway is hostile to change, hostile to being challenged and set against genuine innovation. All over the world you see bus companies and local authorities embracing electric bus technology, but the railway wants to keep tapping that 1920s bolt into that 21st century hole.

Bi-mode has been tested and proven, but has managed only to become heresy amongst the so called 'opinion formers' on the grounds it diminishes their great lord and master who must be obeyed and honoured - electrification!

 

[geoffk]

Errrr now come on - I really do take issue with that statement. Nothing - really - nothing? Come on

Electrification is not just about speed. It's also about cutting pollution and reducing our dependence on oil. Yes I know it depends on how the electricity is generated.

 

[td97]

I can't remember the exact figure as it was quoted a while ago on a different thread, but S.Voyagers make up 15% of Virgin WC's fleet, and the running costs are something like 60% of the total for the whole fleet. Please explain how that's a sustainable operation, given it affects the fare you pay.
It's important to note that electrification also removes diesel air pollution from busy city centre stations, where trains can be idling for upwards of 30 minutes. Please explain how your staunch opposition to electrification improves this, given many cities are in breach of air pollution targets.
You also must hate British jobs, British engineering, British construction, and British steel/manufacturing and the British economy in general.
Electrified lines have more capacity, especially in the north west, are guaranteed at least a 3-4 car train, whereas previously a single 142 could roll up for peak services.
It's not all about a x minute saving from A to B

 

[jayah]

I can't remember the exact figure as it was quoted a while ago on a different thread, but S.Voyagers make up 15% of Virgin WC's fleet, and the running costs are something like 60% of the total for the whole fleet. Please explain how that's a sustainable operation, given it affects the fare you pay.
It's important to note that electrification also removes diesel air pollution from busy city centre stations, where trains can be idling for upwards of 30 minutes. Please explain how your staunch opposition to electrification improves this, given many cities are in breach of air pollution targets.
You also must hate British jobs, British engineering, British construction, and British steel/manufacturing and the British economy in general.
Electrified lines have more capacity, especially in the north west, are guaranteed at least a 3-4 car train, whereas previously a single 142 could roll up for peak services.
It's not all about a x minute saving from A to B

You need to provide some evidence if you are going to suggest that 15% of the fleet is 60% of the cost.
Bi-Modes are far more effective for removing pollution from urban areas as most urban stations are electrified. If DfT had progressed Project Thor, XC would already have them, and all those Voyagers at New Street would be creating zero emissions.

Small trains are a disease in this country. We should stop ordering the damn things. I see Northern are ordering a lot of 120 seat 2 car diesels not to mention equally inadequate 3 car electrics. Madness, but no justification for more expensive and pointless wires. We all agree Manchester Picc platform 13/14 are a bottleneck and keep shoving these pint sized trains at it when a pitcher is what is needed.

As for generating massive air pollution, I would have thought making steel for the sake of it was a bad idea?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Electrification is not just about speed. It's also about cutting pollution and reducing our dependence on oil. Yes I know it depends on how the electricity is generated.

Again I totally agree - total BCR - yes total costs but also total benefits

 

[jayah]

Electrification is not just about speed. It's also about cutting pollution and reducing our dependence on oil. Yes I know it depends on how the electricity is generated.

We are totally dependent on oil. A week without oil and every supermarket shelf will be bare. Then you will have bigger problems than the Calder Valley railway! When we have a oil free artic lorry, you won't have to worry about rail, because the engine/battery or whatever will go from the artic and straight under the railway carriage.

 

[jayah]

Again I totally agree - total BCR - yes total costs but also total benefits

Again I totally agree - total BCR - yes total costs but also total benefits

BCR not to be confused with a Financial Case.

Most 'B' are ludicrous intangibles like the value of reduced Co2 emissions and the value of time saved to the rail user. You could kill HS2 off tomorrow by suggesting the users pay more for the £bn of intangible benefit they are getting at which point it quickly becomes apparent they wouldn't pay and hence the most of the 'B' doesn't actually exist.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Now I do agree with you. I am not at all suggesting Calder Valley be number one priority for the sparks. What I do hope is that with everything we have learned from the sparks program over the last 9 years all the BCRs are redone and the business case for each scheme and those that have the best business case and the highest BCR go forward or at least go first in the queue.

You may argue about ludicrous B intangibles but in the world of politics ( never forget the famous line “ politics is perception “ those B intangibles matter. ) BTW if the supermarket shelves go empty, I agree Calder Valley Electrification will be the last thing on the politicians mind, but it sure as hell on gods earth will concentrate the politicians mind with an existential threat of that nature.

 

[jayah]

Now I do agree with you. I am not at all suggesting Calder Valley be number one priority for the sparks. What I do hope is that with everything we have learned from the sparks program over the last 9 years all the BCRs are redone and the business case for each scheme and those that have the best business case and the highest BCR go forward or at least go first in the queue.

You may argue about ludicrous B intangibles but in the world of politics ( never forget the famous line “ politics is perception “ those B intangibles matter. ) BTW if the supermarket shelves go empty, I agree Calder Valley Electrification will be the last thing on the politicians mind, but it sure as hell on gods earth will concentrate the politicians mind with an existential threat of that nature.

The trouble is without those ludicrous B you have almost nothing else in that column. If the OPEX reduced over 30 years by more than the present cost of the CAPEX for the wires, you wouldn't need a business case because there would be a financial case. At the moment the OPEX doesn't touch the sides and with Bi-modes the only 'B' is carbon dioxide for which there are 1,000 easier, quicker and cheaper ways to reduce it, if that is what matters.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Again I am doing my best to agree with you but OPEX approaches infinity if you can not get crude because sure as hell any available crude/diesel/petrol will quite rightly go to stacking supermarket shelves it will not go into trains. Whereas if you can get coulombs of charge from electrons generated by solar, wind, biomass, diesel, coal, battery, nuclear - you can almost tell the Saudis/Iranians - go and fornicate with yourselves. That can only happen with a nice steady sparks program - again to keep on topic, Calder Valley would not be my personal number 1 .

 

[Starmill]

You could kill HS2 off tomorrow by suggesting the users pay more for the £bn of intangible benefit they are getting at which point it quickly becomes apparent they wouldn't pay and hence the most of the 'B' doesn't actually exist.

The fact that people aren't willing to pay for something means that it should not be provided? Really? Never heard anyone come up with that idea before.

Your airline doesn't want to pay for as many staff or as much safety equipment on an aircraft, so it won't be provided. These things are a 'benefit' that does not exist, so long as there is not an accident. Cheaper air fares I am sure people would be happy with. The water company no longer wishes to pay for sewage treatment, so they just dump the effluent in rivers. Treatment is a 'benefit' that does not exist so long as nobody wants to fish or go swimming in that river. Cheaper water bills I am sure people would be happy with.

 

[jayah]

The fact that people aren't willing to pay for something means that it should not be provided? Really? Never heard anyone come up with that idea before.

Your airline doesn't want to pay for as many staff or as much safety equipment on an aircraft, so it won't be provided. These things are a 'benefit' that does not exist, so long as there is not an accident. Cheaper air fares I am sure people would be happy with. The water company no longer wishes to pay for sewage treatment, so they just dump the effluent in rivers. Treatment is a 'benefit' that does not exist so long as nobody wants to fish or go swimming in that river. Cheaper water bills I am sure people would be happy with.

The point of BCR is that are getting a benefit (speed) that THEY value at x. Try and charge them half of x for it and they decide actually it is worth a quarter of x and won't wear it.

Conclusion - B doesn't exist, at least in the stated ballpark!

 

[Starmill]

You're telling me that speed isn't a benefit and that people won't pay more for it? So, you would pay the same for a 57 minute journey between cities as you would for a 2 hour journey? Really?