The Lonely Little MkIII

> In what respect? Fuel economy, yes it tops that, uses lots more fuel,
> maintenance costs? yes much more also.

As has been pointed out in other threads, HST fuel economy is achieved
against a 1970s specification (i.e. no HSE requirements). HST2 will
have to be built to a similar spec as the Voyager with similar
reduction in fuel economy.

The same goes for weight and consequent impact upon wheels and track.

> Even with tilt enabled and all those balises working it would cost a
> lot of money to save 15 minutes on a journey from London to Penzance
> over HST1 and 8 minutes over the proposed Siemens HST2.

I notice you quote the Penzance timing. Surely Plymouth and Exeter
timing would more appropriate as these are the major markets for the
West Country.
How much time could be saved using tilt to Exeter for example when it
could be 125mph all the way.

paul Hutchinson wrote:

> Most of the population between Plymouth and Exeter is concentrated south
> of Dartmoor Torbay and South Hams. This would not be well served by
> reopening the Oakhampton route.

And how is it well served now?

Dartmouth is 15 miles by a slow road from the nearest station
(Totnes). Torbay is a branch off the main line, which could continue
to run as it does now, whichever route is used to Plymouth.

Behind Torbay, and of a similar size to Newton Abbot, is Tavistock,
which is big enough to merit a rail service.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Tony Polson wrote:
>
> Speaking as a civil engineer who was personally involved in a coast
> protection project adjacent to the railway at Dawlish Warren, I
> suggest that the cost would be massive. The rock armour revetment
> actually abuts the Network Rail coast protection at the southern end
> of Dawlish Warren - just by the overline footbridge, if you know it.

I know the work to which you refer (I am a regular visitor to the
Langstone Cliff Hotel) and I have often wondered just how the rocks were
transported to the site. Were they brought in by sea and, if so, how
were they brought ashore?

--
John Ray, London UK.

Tony Polson wrote:

> True. However, that would not have explained a lack of interest from
> the quarry. BR's Railfreight Division wouldn't even look at it, even
> if we had installed - and later removed - a siding. But that was BR.
> .

In fairness to BR, it's noyt a particularly attractive traffic. 40,000
tons would be maybe 50 trainloads. If it's more trains than that they
aren't operating efficiently; fewer and the contract would be almost
fleeting.

By the time arrangements have been made, staff trained on the working
of the temporary terminal, etc, it adds up to a lot of organisation for
a pretty short contract.

Freight by rail works best with regular, heavy, long-term flows. Being
reactive to brief contracts isn't really part of the game.