Search results

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?

Oil prices will go up, and these will be back on the table on future. Bimodes at least allow for this to not be a complete and utter disaster.

I suppose if funding them greatly benefits London then it makes sense.

Well if a train just stops reporting, expect the system to send out stop signals to any trains behind it. This would be the case for level 3 too.

It seems like they're trying to find any way out of actually completing the project!

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?

Chiltern has about an average number, and the Watford DC lines are the reason the WCML doesn't have to.

??? There were loads of issues at the start of ECML wiring. Your rose-tinted glasses are showing.

Yes, but they won't ever be contracted to scale with unprojected additional costs. That would be insane.

That isn't how consultancy fees are calculated. Ever.

So why do they want to electrify anything at all? This is a question you have still yet to answer, despite being asked it many, many times.

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.

They do it for the slow trains, so that people wanting to go to the real destination don't spend an age getting there: PAD-RDG fast: 29m non-stop. PAD-RDG slow: 1h 12m with 11 intermediary stops. PAD-OXF fast: 57m with 2 intermediary stops. PAD-OXF slow: 1h 58m with 18 intermediary stops. I...

Precisely...

No-one is suggesting we go 100% wind. You can't just sweep aside statistics in favour of extreme outliers (no wind in the middle of winter on a Friday night). You're also ignoring the Dutch interconnector, which usually supplies us with surplus wind energy (currently 1GW).

So what if it doesn't get used? That's just the gambler's fallacy. Your argument only makes sense if electrification provides no benefit. This is not true; therefore, your argument doesn't make sense.

Dare I say... a replacement for Marylebone for those services? It's short enough on platform capacity as it is.