Major Projects that Need Doing

[me123]

According to Wikipedia; 13,766 passengers used the station. A mere 40 passengers a day (or there about). I'll be honest though, with such infrequent services, I can't really imagine any passengers using the station frequently. 40 is a small miracle. How Carstairs warrants a manned ticket office; I'll never know.

 

[djw1981]

If FTPE spoke nicely to FSR......you could have a spare EMu meet the 185's at Carstairs, so the NB 185 service to EDB pulled into one platform and an EMU was sat in the other, Passengers for GLC transfer across and off we go - I've just doubled the number of EDB-Manchster and GLC-Manchester services per day.

 

[87015]

If FTPE spoke nicely to FSR......you could have a spare EMu meet the 185's at Carstairs, so the NB 185 service to EDB pulled into one platform and an EMU was sat in the other, Passengers for GLC transfer across and off we go - I've just doubled the number of EDB-Manchster and GLC-Manchester services per day.

You'd think that serving both Edinburgh and Glasgow with the same train has never been done before :roll: I don't remember having to change either, but such is "progress".

 

[37402]

You'd think that serving both Edinburgh and Glasgow with the same train has never been done before :roll: I don't remember having to change either, but such is "progress".

Pre Voyager-isation, the morning XC departure from MIA (05bizzarre) was 2x158, splitting at Carstairs with 1 portion for GLC and one for EDB.

Shortly after that it went down to all 2 car diagram into to EDB and a connecting *Scotrail 158* from Carstairs to GLC (rather rare from my experience).

Then finally it went to the 2 car 158 to EDB with a 303 from Carstairs to GLC (stopping only at Motherwell). That was the best set up...

 

[me123]

Hmm... not bad djw, and you get a more frequent service to Carstairs...

OK, you're technically eliminating direct services to Glasgow and causing a train to reverse, but still not a bad scenario. Could it perhaps be better, however, to run the Edinburgh portion as a separate service? Would require more crew training for FSR drivers, but eliminates the need to reverse the TPE service.

 

[Edvid]

10 miles or so of the GWML compared to however many of the MML to Luton (don't know the exact mileage of the top of my head).

The GWML is electrified for approx. 12 miles between London Paddington and Stockley Bridge. In comparison the MML is electrified for nearly 50 miles between London St Pancras and Bedford.

Crossrail 1 & 2: Needs to be done to reduce congestion on cross-capital tube journeys. Needs OHL equipment and to be based on the RER in paris. Crossrail 1should serve Southend/Ebbsfleet-Reading and Crossrail 2 Peterborough/Bedford-South London

We already have a limited version of what you name Crossrail 2, it's called Thameslink! Work is currently underway to expand the network and boost capacity.

 

[class 313]

10 miles or so of the GWML compared to however many of the MML to Luton

Yes because the 319s glide to Bedford

 

[djw1981]

Hmm... not bad djw, and you get a more frequent service to Carstairs...

OK, you're technically eliminating direct services to Glasgow and causing a train to reverse, but still not a bad scenario. Could it perhaps be better, however, to run the Edinburgh portion as a separate service? Would require more crew training for FSR drivers, but eliminates the need to reverse the TPE service.

Well for the MIA-GLC services, the EMU would run the EDB portion.... the TPE service would remain the same as now, but with these connections you go from 4 trains a day to 7.

You also have guaranteed connections as opposed to waiting on Preston station for a Northern or TPE service without reservations (if you do the first leg by VWC).

Motherwell and EDB drivers both sign via Carstairs, and both sign cl322 and 318 IIRC.

 

[class 313]

Where do you propose the money for all this comes from? And where are we supposed to buy these new 91s... didn't they destroy the jigs ages ago?

For electrification... why should another London - North line be electrified, surely the GWML is the obvious candidate seeing as part has already been done, with CrossRail to Reading the first section will already be done. At least to Oxford/Westbury to allow electric units on locals surely.

If you're talking about the money side of things, the GWML would cost lots more as new trains would need to be bought. Unlike the GWML, the MML has more electric trains than diesel and would benefit FCC a lot more.

 

[me123]

On second thoughts, TPE to EDB with change at Carstairs does make more sense!

 

[bluenoxid]

If you're talking about the money side of things, the GWML would cost lots more as new trains would need to be bought. Unlike the GWML, the MML has more electric trains than diesel and would benefit FCC a lot more.

And the HST's have how many years service left in them?

The problem is maintaining paths. If the TPE service is delayed, are FSR going to be prepared to foot the bill for keeping a train there. Also, isnt it damaging for FTPE if they dont serve both Glasgow and Edinburgh as they lose money from the farebox.

Common sense says that they encourage connections with VWC services.

 

[class 313]

And the HST's have how many years service left in them?

A good amount hence the GWML shouldn't be the next to have wires.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The problem is maintaining paths.QUOTE]

Yes - they are so fragile and of such a high value that my argument is that priority should be given to projects which make paths more robust, more adaptable and susceptible to fewer delays.
Which is why (repeating myself from yesterday, sorry) I'm suggesting that most construction work should be building new flyovers(or unders), especially those on slower curves and with a high frequency of traffic.
So many lost paths can be attributed to traffic moving in the opposite direction over a crossover.

 

[bluenoxid]

A good amount hence the GWML shouldn't be the next to have wires.

Right :-?

So where am I going to electrify?

The HST's are some of the oldest diesel stock on the British Rail Network still in squadron service.

Steam Trains, 1st Generation DMU's and most LHCS has gone. The HST's are the next in line and we have a decade to get them replaced at the most.

At the end of the day, we are going to electrify the MML and GWML first as they deliver the best cost-benefit ratios.

Yes - they are so fragile and of such a high value that my argument is that priority should be given to projects which make paths more robust, more adaptable and susceptible to fewer delays.
Which is why (repeating myself from yesterday, sorry) I'm suggesting that most construction work should be building new flyovers(or unders), especially those on slower curves and with a high frequency of traffic.
So many lost paths can be attributed to traffic moving in the opposite direction over a crossover.

I don't know how my post led to that, but I agree with you in certain principles. Yes, flyovers will help in certain locations as a package of capacity enhancements. For example, the Southern ECML could have capacity created by putting a flyover in at Hitchin and Grantham. However, it would be ridiculous to do flyovers on their own. Peterborough needs remodelling and an extra platform.

Then again, there are places where capacity would be delivered better by building a brand new line rather than tinkering around the edges of an operational railway

 

[class 313]

Right :-?

So where am I going to electrify?

The HST's are some of the oldest diesel stock on the British Rail Network still in squadron service.

Steam Trains, 1st Generation DMU's and most LHCS has gone. The HST's are the next in line and we have a decade to get them replaced at the most.



I don't know how my post led to that, but I agree with you in certain principles. Yes, flyovers will help in certain locations as a package of capacity enhancements. For example, the Southern ECML could have capacity created by putting a flyover in at Hitchin and Grantham. However, it would be ridiculous to do flyovers on their own. Peterborough needs remodelling and an extra platform.

Then again, there are places where capacity would be delivered better by building a brand new line rather than tinkering around the edges of an operational railway

And what do EMT have a good number of...

HST's...

 

[bluenoxid]

Yeah, I edited my post as you were posting that. You're the one who thinks we can eke more time out of the HST frames. The HST's are going to be the first fleets to be hit in any mass electrification. Ironically, they were only a stop gap for that anyway.

 

[class 313]

wasn't there plans to wire up north of Bedford to Corby anyway?

 

[The Snap]

Re-open Woodhead, and force NG to run their cables through the Victorian tunnels instead of the 1954 tunnel. Electrify the line and run 323s from manchester to Sheffield.

 

[djw1981]

Why 323, why not go for some 350's thus avoiding the need to interfere with planned cascades.

 

[Waverley125]

357s would be best as they're similar to the turbostars. Also:

Norwich-Ely-Peterborough-Birmingham OHL

Grantham-Nottingham-Sheffield-Manchester-Liverpool OHL (this would also allow NXEC/FCC to run London-Nottingham services)

Leeds Area OHL:

Leeds-Harrogate-York
"-Wakefield Kgate-Barnsley-Sheffield
"-Castleford-Pontefract
"-Dewsbury-Huddersfield
"-Bradford Int-Halifax

using a new batch of Class 333 EMUs. We'd also need 2 or 3 new terminating platforms at Leeds (with barriers) for the 2tph service.

 

[laseandre]

I don't think you're going to get new 333s when Siemens are concentrating on Desiros and the IEP

 

[Waverley125]

true, but it'd take time to build. Station upgrades would be needed at Castleford, new West facing bays at Leeds (which would involve demolishing the current car park & building a new one, as well as removing at least one retail unit from the west concourse to give access to the bays on the site of the old Leeds Wellington station). Possibly an East Facing bay as well. Altogether, a good 2 years work including OHLing all the lines before we need new trains delivered.

Oh, and upgrade the Skipton lines so NXEC can use 225s on the Skipton services. What with some of the times they spend sitting in leeds, that should allow NXEC to diagram some more leeds services towards Skipton, Bradford FSq & Harrogate.

 

[paul1609]

To be honest whilst I would like to see a rolling program of electrification I feel that because of a cronic shortage of engineers in this country and lack of spare generating capacity it would be at least 10 to 15 years before any major projects could be completed. Thats not to say that we shouldnt make the decisions now we should and start to rebuild our industrial capability.
Its worth pointing out that virtually everything for the HS1 electrification including the majority of the workforce had to be imported from France.

 

[laseandre]

true, but it'd take time to build. Station upgrades would be needed at Castleford, new West facing bays at Leeds (which would involve demolishing the current car park & building a new one, as well as removing at least one retail unit from the west concourse to give access to the bays on the site of the old Leeds Wellington station). Possibly an East Facing bay as well. Altogether, a good 2 years work including OHLing all the lines before we need new trains delivered.

Oh, and upgrade the Skipton lines so NXEC can use 225s on the Skipton services. What with some of the times they spend sitting in leeds, that should allow NXEC to diagram some more leeds services towards Skipton, Bradford FSq & Harrogate.

Within that timescale, Siemens will be just delivering the Scottish 380s, so maybe tack on the order as 380/1s or 381s? Or if they win the IEP contract, maybe as a couple of them?

 

[Waverley125]

even if the process startewd day, i think we'd be looking 6-8 yrs for completion.

 

[djw1981]

The engineers issue is why there is a will at transport Scotland to have a rolling programme of electrification and thus keep the skillset together.

Airdrie-Bathgate - due 2010
Glasgow airport - due 2011
EDB-GLQ - due 2014 (incl diversions via Cumbernauld and Falkirk Grahamston)
Then maybe.....i.e. proposed
Glasgow suburban (Paisley Canal, Whifflet, Maryhill) by 2016
Larbert- Stirling, Dunblane, Alloa) by 2018
Fife circle by 2022

The second set of dates are of course hypothetical and depend on funding arrangements, political will and NR/TS agreeing the spec.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Fife circle by 2022

Oh! I'd missed that one.
Electrification over the Forth Bridge does raise some interesting challenges - electrical, structural and the safety of bridge maintenance personnel. I'll be watching out for that!

 

[djw1981]

It's still at the aspiration stage! As is, if financially viable, electrification to Aberdeen and then Dunblane -Dundee via Perth.

 

[Sir_Clagalot]

Electrify Leeds-York, that way if there's a problem york-donny then it doesnt cause too much chaos... Could you also electrify Ely-March-Peterborough? (As long as its good enough to cope with 91s...)

 

[djw1981]

OOOh you suggest the old Leeds electric horseshoe..........