Mr Rayner's views of Electrification.

No wonder he got sacked!

Anyone coming out with simple common sense like that had no place in
today's industry - same for me too!

The joke is that we will probably have to pay for Major's Folly for
another generation before anyone big enough to bring the present
structure down appears.

>
> One he hasn't mentioned is the gap between Trafford Park Freightliner
> terminal and Liverpool South Parkway which would allow full electric
> operation between Liverpool and Newcastle.
>

Except, the TPexpress services to / from Newcastle don't go to
Liverpool anymore.

Nowadays, the Scarborough services are the only ones that run through
to Liverpool.

>
> With regard to ECML services to Aberdeen and Inverness
> an electro-diesel option might be the best option.  With diesel electric
> power cars the option of directly powering the traction motors from the OLE,
> with necessary transformation/possible rectification should be looked at.


Latest is that a hybrid IEP has been completely ruled out.

On 22 Aug, 14:12, Graeme Wall <R...@greywall.> wrote:
> The weakest point of his arguement is the proposal to extend 3rd rail from
> Basingstoke to Salisbury and from Southampton to Salisbury.  AFAIK all
> services on those routes[1] involve further travel on non-electrified lines
> so would still need diesel traction.
>

Ah, yes, but that's the current services. One of the operational
challenges at Basingstoke is that there's no east bay (that's
electrified and can access the main line), so Basingstoke stoppers lay
over in Platform 1 (on the Down Slow) between duties, often having to
shunt to a siding while AXC or freight services pass. Extending these
services to Salisbury in lieu of the existing Salisbury stoppers would
remove this conflict. This would slow down direct London journeys for
Overton, Whitchurch and Grateley passengers, but they would be
compensated by an increase from one to two trains per hour - and
journeys almost as fast as before could be achieved with a change at
Basingstoke.

A further option - given that there appears to be plenty of capacity
on the Salisbury-Basingstoke line - might be to end the practice of
adding units to Exeter services at Salisbury, and instead start
electric services from Salisbury which couple to the Portsmouth
services at Basingstoke (chosen because these are normally only 4 or 5
car) for the onward journey to Waterloo. This would improve frequency
at Salisbury (and Andover).

Both of the above options would free up 159s to enable more 6-car
operation west of Salisbury, though of course they would require a few
more Desiros...

Steve Adams

>
> Even if modern stock didn't need shunters to do the
> coupling/ uncoupling it seems pretty obvious to me that it's better value to
> use HSTs (or other diesel trains) throughout on these runs.
>

Hmm.. but how long before the continued rises in oil price put paid to
that.

Where do we think the Government's sudden enthusiasm (conversion) for
electrification has come from recently?

The events of the summer with imported oil and gas prices rising
sharply together with our reliance on imported energy resources,
through an increasingly loose cannon Russia, has caused many to
consider just how exposed we could become on energy, once our North
Sea oil reserves become depleted.

With North Sea oil and sensible management of the economy (somewhat
lacking recently) the worst consequences of high energy prices can be
avoided but once that oil runs out ……

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:31:53 +0100, "Peter Masson"
<peter.masson1@> wrote:

>
>"allan tracy" <thunderbird57303@m> wrote
>>
>>Again why is a slick loco change such a big ask?
>
>At a minimum, the current NXEC timetable needs, to cover Aberdeen,
>Inverness, Hull, Harrogate, and Skipton (where the power supply can't cope
>with a 225 set)

snip

What would it cost to upgrade that power supply? The problem seems to
be north of Shipley, as NXEC have no problems running their 225s to
Bradfrod Forster Square (or what's left of it!).

Tony Polson wrote:

>
> Still, I am sure he will get a lot of support on uk.railway from
> people who believe there is, or should be, a bottomless pit of money
> to be spent on the railways even when it produces no financial return.
>

You mean there isn't? Money's being squandered all over
the system, from management bonuses through leasing
charges and on down.

Charlie

On Aug 22, 10:25 pm, Tony Polson <docnews2...@> wrote:
> Charlie Hulme <i...@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:
> >Tony Polson wrote:
>
> >> Still, I am sure he will get a lot of support on uk.railway from
> >> people who believe there is, or should be, a bottomless pit of money
> >> to be spent on the railways even when it produces no financial return.
>
> >You mean there isn't? Money's being squandered all over
> >the system, from management bonuses through leasing
> >charges and on down.
>
> If, at the end of the day, the shareholders are making a profit, then
> the money isn't being squandered.  And if it is being squandered, the
> shareholders have the power to hold to account whoever is responsible.
>
> But I do accept your point that, overall, we have an incredibly
> expensive railway.  

This is really going to upset you, but sod the shareholders! The only
shareholders should be the UK population. The railway is a service,
not a profit making entity. No-one expects the NHS or schools to make
a profit, so why the railway?

Rich

"Tony Polson" <docnews2011@> wrote in message
news:iprva4hseq79mb4v6k07jm4e31qqncq7e7@...
> "D1039" <patrick.hearn@virgin.net> wrote:
>>
>>IMO we have in many ways a very successful one - I'd point to train
>>frequencies, age of stock, average speeds on some routes, lower subsidy
>>than
>>its peers, growing usage
>
>
> The subsidy is hugely greater than under BR.

True

> Usage was already
> growing before privatisation and is a direct result of two things; 16
> years of continuing economic growth (1992-2008) and the combination of
> strongly growing road traffic with historically low investment in
> increasing road capacity, causing chronic road congestion. Rail is
> the only alternative for many.
>

True.

>
>>Also IMO if the rail industry had spent its money wisely (cf Modernisation
>>Plan, PUG1, much of post-privatisation railway) it could have had a much
>>better one. Regretfully the industry often hasn't handled well the
>>investment when it has been available
>
>
> At least under BR the "investment" did not go towards shareholder
> dividends, fat cat directors' and senior managers' salaries and
> bonuses, and the inefficiencies of 100+ sets of admin and support
> staff instead of one.
>
>

Leaving the emotive language aside, that's true. But I would add that BR had
its own inefficiencies and the public sector must recruit and retain top
talent

Patrick

In article <rh5ua4p0ian527bmu8onpt6q4dnc72u74t@>,
Tony Polson <docnews2011@> wrote:

> ... In a world of unlimited taxpayer's
> money, or Scotland (much the same thing), ...

For the avoidance of doubt, Tony, you are referring to an English
taxpayer's money here, right? You wouldn't want to give the impression
that the Scots ever paid for anything.

And would you be the taxpayer whose money is unlimited?

Sam

Tony Polson <docnews2011@> writes:

> All energy prices are in the same spiral. As oil prices rise, so will
> the prices of the other fuels, and all by about the same amount.

Why? With the current 'obsession' with carbon footprints, global
warming, carbon tax etc, would it not be better to reduce the relative
price of energy not generated by hydrocarbon combustion?