Mr Rayner's views of Electrification.

On Aug 25, 3:46 pm, Tony Polson <docnews2...@> wrote:


Oh please...

The ill-informed hysterical rantings of trainspotters who get
irrationally angry when they see diesel powered trains running "under
the wires" will have to be ignored. ;-)

30 years of following railways, and quite a few of those years working
in them tells me that my point is at least informed, if not
universally agreeable. Irrational? Exactly what is irrational about
using electric traction on an electrified railway?

Lets see if you are still ignoring the facts when all the diesels
grind to a h The time will come...

Rich

On Aug 26, 9:26 pm, Tony Polson <docnews2...@> wrote:
> darkprince66 <darkprince17031....uk> wrote:
> >What is irrational Tony? WHAT???!!! You have made the claim about
> >people getting irrationally angry more than once, but, as with other
> >claims, you can't/wont back it up.
>
> It isn't a "claim", it is merely a statement of my opinion.  

Try telling us why you think what you do. It does not mean I will ever
agree with you, but at least I can try understand where you are coming
from.
>
> I also seem to be the only person on here who is asked to back up my
> opinions with the results of a multi-million pound consultancy study.
> Well, I am sorry to disappoint you, but this month's household budget
> doesn't stretch to one of those.  ;-)

Now who is being irrational? Nobody expects that, but if you are gonna
call people irrational trainspotters, you could at least try and back
it up with a little justification.

Rich

On Aug 28, 10:40 am, Tony Polson <docnews2...@> wrote:
> darkprince66 <darkprince17031....uk> wrote:
>
> >1) What is your justification for the use of diesel trains on a wholly
> >electrified route? I am not talking about putting new wires up, we are
> >both clear on each others views on that already, I am specifically
> >relating to the use of Voyagers on the West Midlands-Scotland trains.
> >If the electric rolling stock is not available for these trains, do
> >you not think that it should be procured as soon as possible?
>
> No.  Why on earth should it?

Ummm... How about a build of short Pendolino trains (say 6/7 coach),
allowing more effective use of the OLE, and releasing diesel voyagers
for use elsewhere... say XC. Rocket science it aint...

Rich

Tony Polson wrote:

....

> His ideas are uncosted and bear no relation to need. His is just
> another wish list of pet projects of the kind we so often see on here
> from ignorant trainspotters who live in a dream world. No wonder he
> is popular here. He is in good company.
>

The Liverpool and Manchester Railway employed two
experienced engineers (a loco-builder and a civil
engineer) as consultants to advise on what traction to
use. They produced a fully-costed report recommending
stationary engines hauling trains by cable.

Only after trainspotter George Stephenson made a fuss
did they agree to hold some locomotive trials.

Charlie

"Tony Polson" <docnews2011@> wrote in message
news:ap4eb4d190iqtbhp161v3p9ue4ev3r68u9@...
> Virgin Trains has never even bought *one* Pendolino. They agreed to
> lease them, but only on the proviso that all the future lease payments
> were guaranteed by the Department for Transport. They have never
> invested a single penny in them.

IIRC Virgin strictly have bought (slightly less than) one Pendolino - didn't
they buy what remains of 390033, the Grayrigg crash set, as a source of
spares off the insurers?

Yours pedantically, etc etc

;-)

> So the sum total of Virgin's "investment" in Pendolinos is to pay the
> monthly hire charge. And if they default, DfT Rail will pay it for
> them with taxpayers' money.

Absolutely correct. Angel Trains bought the Pendolino fleet and the lease is
underwritten by the DfT until the end of the West Coast franchise.

> You really have not the faintest idea about money, do you.

That's harsh but, in this case, fair!

"Tony Polson" <docnews2011@> wrote in message
news:al4eb45sa9qg8skb0kvtua3agaail9ejc4@...
> darkprince66 <darkprince17031966.uk> wrote:
>>Ummm... How about a build of short Pendolino trains (say 6/7 coach),
>>allowing more effective use of the OLE, and releasing diesel voyagers
>>for use elsewhere... say XC. Rocket science it aint...
>
>
> Why spend millions on new trains when the existing trains are doing a
> perfectly good job?

The only reason you would do that would be if the existing fleet was to be
cascaded elsewhere to replace life-expired stock. The sort of cascades, in
fact, that BR used to provide benefits to multiple areas through a single
investment.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:30:32 +0100, Paul Corfield
<aooy65@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:


>I don't think humour will work in threads involving the words Virgin
>Trains, electrification, money, explanation, rational argument,
>trainspotters and Polson.

I might add that all the talk has been about Virgin Trains so far.

TPE are running coupled 2 x 185 units on the Manchester Airport -
Scotland services, all of that under the wires too. That's six
underfloor engines vice five on a Super Voyager.

On Aug 28, 10:54 pm, "Paul Scott" <notvalidpmsc...@>
wrote:
> "darkprince66" <darkprince17031....uk> wrote in message
>
> news:3bb959fe-d5ca-4415-9d40-bce03541aeba@i76g2000hsf..com...
> On Aug 28, 10:40 am, Tony Polson <docnews2...@> wrote:
>
> > darkprince66 <darkprince17031....uk> wrote:
>
> > >1) What is your justification for the use of diesel trains on a wholly
> > >electrified route? I am not talking about putting new wires up, we are
> > >both clear on each others views on that already, I am specifically
> > >relating to the use of Voyagers on the West Midlands-Scotland trains.
> > >If the electric rolling stock is not available for these trains, do
> > >you not think that it should be procured as soon as possible?
>
> > No. Why on earth should it?
> > Ummm... How about a build of short Pendolino trains (say 6/7 coach),
> > allowing more effective use of the OLE, and releasing diesel voyagers
> > for use elsewhere... say XC. Rocket science it aint...
>
> Not a new idea really, it's already mentioned in the Pendolino 'lengthening'
> bumph on the DfT site, but for 8,9 or 11 car. Perhaps unlikely to happen,
> but it is at least being discussed:
>
> "a later Option (B) for the purchase of up to 23 new 8-car, 9-car or 11-car
> sets (for the purpose of further fleet enhancement and / or displacement of
> the Voyager fleet) as a 'run-on' to the core rolling stock procurement."
>
> Paul

A classic example of where a talking shop has been going on for years
and nothing happens, at least not for a very long time.

It has taken way too long for the Pendolino lengthening to get
started, and even now, it's only a half baked scheme.

AIUI, the current deal gets 4 new 11 coach trains (obviously one of
these replaces the set written off at Grayrigg) , and lengthens
another 31 existing trains to 11 cars, leaving the other 21 sets as 9
car trains. The other later option would also include the possibility
of lengthening the other 21 trains to 11 car as well as new build for
non Euston services

Great, except for one problem. By the time the other 21 sets got the
extra coaches, they will be a good 10 years old, and when they become
life expired, the extra cars will have another 10 years life in them,
but they will be absolutely no use to anybody. I can't see the ROSCO
involved taking too much to that idea, unless they marked up the lease
charge on those coaches to reflect this. if that was to happen, the
TOC will cry foul surely?

Much as I would like to, I can't see the current set up finding an
easy solution to this one...

Rich

On Aug 28, 10:44 pm, Mike Roebuck <mike.roeb...@> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:30:32 +0100, Paul Corfield
>
> <aoo...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> >I don't think humour will work in threads involving the words Virgin
> >Trains, electrification, money, explanation, rational argument,
> >trainspotters and Polson.
>
> I might add that all the talk has been about Virgin Trains so far.
>
> TPE are running coupled 2 x 185 units on the Manchester Airport -
> Scotland services, all of that under the wires too. That's six
> underfloor engines vice five on a Super Voyager.

I have mentioned TPX using suburban DMU's in another thread, but what
you say is quite right except for the lack of wires through Bolton and
Chorley is the only excuse for use of diesel trains on this service.
As an infill electrification scheme, this must surely be one of the
highest priorities, this would allow the procurement of electric
rolling stock for the TPX services, allowing TPX to return the diesels
to strengthen the routes they were bought for.

Rich

"Michael Bell" <michael@beaverbell.co.uk> wrote>

> You see 3rd-rail electrified routes in Kent with 2 trains/hour. But
> different rules apply there.
>
IMHO Kent was the one part of BR that the Modernisation Plan got
more-or-less right, and Beeching had little effect on passenger services,
although as a result of the Beeching Report most small freight depots were
closed.

The basket cases were closed before the Modernisation Plan (K&ESR, East Kent
Light, Sheppey Light, Canterbury - Whitstable, Canterbury - Folkestone,
Sandling - Hythe, Crystal Palace HL) or were excluded from the Modernisation
Plan and closed before Beeching (Westerham, Allhallows, Hawkhurst). The
suburban area had been electrified by the Southern Railway between the Wars;
most of the rest was electrified as part of the Modernisation Plan.

Peter