Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
The government being able to have a confidence and supply agreement is *slightly* more important than environmental concerns with running diesel under the wires. They would have cancelled it anyway, with diesels running the routes going off-wires.
Literally the only person entirely blaming...
If bimodes didn't exist we simply would have seen a lot more diesel running under the wires. Do you really think the government would have happily funded billions more in electrification if bimodes didn't exist?
Yes, of course. The point is the same though: electrifying new lines is not necessarily more efficient than conversion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Sure; I was just making a point though.
It's not hard to find lines with less than 1/10 of the use of the intensive...
Not necessarily. Any unelectrified railway with less than 1/5 of the usage of the BML, SWML or SEML should not be prioritised over converting any of those 3 (for instance).
I don't see how this makes a difference. Human drivers don't decrease train stopping distances.
Why would technology not be able to spot things fouling the tracks at a great distance?
On that note - are there any trains that call at every single station in between? I've seen trains that will call at Radley, Culham and Appleford, but they then run semi-fast from Didcot.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.