It's cheaper in the long run, and better for the world. I don't want to pay tax for the Royal Family, or Northern Ireland, but here we are. Nobody will ever be happy with that type of thing.
Agreed, it's confusing that 165s seem to be causing more issues than the older Sprinters. Indeed don't the 165/166s have similar engines to the Perkins engined 158s?
It is sometimes blamed on the electronics fitted to 165s and 166s that aren't fitted to sprinters and have become obsolete.
I'd be very wary about tax dollars going to Electrification because the Americans will want something in return
Rail electrification makes railways cheaper to run, so in the long run the burden on the taxpayer is reduced. Besides, spending £1bn on electrifying the Chiltern Line is not going to move the tax dial at all, the government spent nearly £1200bn last year
I think he means that the Met should be extended to Aylesbury and the Chiltern service via the Amersham line would be abandoned.
The presumption of no third rail extension specifically does not apply to London Underground four rail installations, or to DLR third rail installations.
The stopping frequency is in no way inherent to the S-stock!
According to that long report the RSSB put together, the London Underground were able to make the safety case that their working practices effectively mitigated the risks of a ground level power suipply system.
It wouldn't surprise me - you also have to remember that Cummins is still in existence and can provide some degree of support (even if the engines are overhauled by whoever LH Group became), whereas Perkins disappeared a long time ago into the empire of Caterpillar and probably long went the support and technical know-how for the TW-H line of engines. But, like a lot of things from the 1990s, electrical components are another area of issue too - despite the advancement in the 90s of electrical tech, a lot of it has since become obsolete and tricky to maintain.
It's possible, although batteries may be a better solution anyway.
Well on the sections where the Chiltern trains share the track with LU today, I'd suggest that the S-stock would just run the stopping pattern Chiltern does.
To be fair I don't think we'd be paying more tax unless they decided to mass electrify, it will be done with piecemeal investment whoever is in power.
No the Perkins TWH 2000 engines still get OEM support from Caterpillar at the factory they were built at in Shrewsbury. It is just that some of the parts were sourced from Ukraine. Global Sourcing and all that.
Interesting, cheers!
I know... but 'tax pounds' just doesn't quite have the ring to it. Also, was on a US keyboard..I'd be very wary about tax dollars going to Electrification because the Americans will want something in return
I am not very structuralist on this, I don't think it matters if it is notionally a "tube line" or not.
Interesting it was that early; it was later than that in the early 80s e.g. there was a 2123 from Banbury to Leamington in 1982 (see Timetable World).
I recall, from my first trips between Nottingham and London in the late 1950s on Great Central line expresses, that Aylesbury was still served by the Metropolitan at that time. Steam traction was used beyond Rickmansworth, which was the limit of electrification.
