Next 5 years until 2022

[Gareth Marston]

DfT and the RDG will launch a rail fare "simplification" that's in fact back door fare increases.

The Welsh Labour Government will spend all its transport budget on the duplicate M4 around Newport and then blame London and the Torys for the cancellation of the South Wales Metro.

Hundreds of current Labour MP's will need new jobs after being deselected by Corbyns supporters however hopes of them getting jobs on the railway will be dashed by ongoing Booking Office closures and DOO.

A 230 will catch fire spectacularly whilst working a scheduled service and the project is binned despite hysterical intransigence from the DfT Officials mumbling about value for money.

A spate of casualties caused by poorly maintained buildings/canopies/footbridges will be a big embarrassment despite claims of biggest investment since Victorian times.

A passenger will die on a hot overcrowded train dubbed the Blackhole of Calcutta by the media.

IEP's will not keep to HST schedules.

Fare strikes will blight various regional cities in protests about overcrowding.

 

[The Planner]

The first stage of increased speeds up Lickey Incline. This 1:37 slog has slugged both passenger and freight services northwards from Bromsgrove for over a century. The improvements to passenger travel times will pave the way for further electrification of the route down towards Bristol.

You could make it 140mph but it makes naff all difference if the trains cannot utilise it.

 

[swt_passenger]

London Overground colonisation!!

Not really significant. TfL have already got most of the improvements in the areas of 'low hanging fruit' on the NLL, WLL and ELL etc.

Their ability to make major changes to frequency in the Southeastern and Southern areas requires massive changes to infrastructure that they'll never afford. Improving frequency to the notional 4 tph minimum by removing choice of City and West End routes has been discussed here often, and wouldn't go down well with existing passengers.

Painting the stations and putting a man on the platform all day could be done by anyone if they were paid to do it, so I don't see that as a major improvement...

 

[Tio Terry]

I'd be interested to know how this is seen as 'transformational' for the industry.

It has the potential to be.

More and more of NR's Infrastructure is having to comply with the requirements of TSI's which are EU Directives. Whilst some make good sense others impose a level of engineering excellence that is not appropriate to some of our railways. It will require an act of parliament once we are no longer EU members to change ROGS to remove the need to apply these directives, however, there's nothing to stop us applying them by choice.

 

[J-2739]

Not really significant. TfL have already got most of the improvements in the areas of 'low hanging fruit' on the NLL, WLL and ELL etc.

Their ability to make major changes to frequency in the Southeastern and Southern areas requires massive changes to infrastructure that they'll never afford. Improving frequency to the notional 4 tph minimum by removing choice of City and West End routes has been discussed here often, and wouldn't go down well with existing passengers.

Painting the stations and putting a man on the platform all day could be done by anyone if they were paid to do it, so I don't see that as a major improvement...

I don't know... If you slapped a LO logo on the stations and gave the existing trains a lick of good paint (or maybe new trains as a 'wow' factor), then surely the average generic person would call the new takeover a 'revolution, and 100x better than that spawn of Satan that used to run the services and thus isn't worth calling by full name', right?

 

[Class 170101]

Hundreds of current Labour MP's will need new jobs after being deselected by Corbyns supporters however hopes of them getting jobs on the railway will be dashed by ongoing Booking Office closures and DOO.

Painting the stations and putting a man on the platform all day could be done by anyone if they were paid to do it, so I don't see that as a major improvement...

There is a job for those de-selected MPs after all.

 

[Harbornite]

For me locally, one of the big changes will be seeing Class 323s shuffling up and down the Lickey incline.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Which lines/routes would TFL most likely grab over the next 5 years to transfer over to LO?

 

[J-2739]

Which lines/routes would TFL most likely grab over the next 5 years to transfer over to LO?

I'd say the suburban routes part of the Integrated Kent Franchise.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

New XC and ATW franchises.

Both are currently minimal-investment, minimal-commitment operations little improved from the previous franchise. Both suffer severe overcrowding at times, much of ATW's stock is destined for the scrapheap, and XC's stock is, um, not without issues. It will be interesting to see what DfT specify, and bidders come up with.

 

[Requeststop]

A Secretary of State for Transport in office for the five years of a Parliament. Maybe we'd get constant decisions and not review after review after review from DafT.

Announcement of Electrification of Derby, to Birmingham and Bristol to Exeter, linking the South West to the rest of the nation.

Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton and Tavistock given the go-ahead.

Oh! Look! Flying Pigs.

 

[AM9]

You could make it 140mph but it makes naff all difference if the trains cannot utilise it.

Could you explain what you mean by that please.

 

[Class 170101]

A Secretary of State for Transport in office for the five years of a Parliament. Maybe we'd get constant decisions and not review after review after review from DafT.

Announcement of Electrification of Derby, to Birmingham and Bristol to Exeter, linking the South West to the rest of the nation.


Oh! Look! Flying Pigs.

Well Patrick Mcloughlin last three years don't be greedy.

In terms of OLE adding Birmingham to Bristol is more important than Bristol to Exeter.

I would do Bristol to Exeter as part of Newbury / Bristol to Plymouth plus the infill between Chippenham / Bath to Westbury and Frome.

However I think the pigs will be flying for long time on this one.

 

[The Planner]

Could you explain what you mean by that please.

It is a 1 in 37 hill but basically applies anywhere regardless really, if a train cannot attain that line speed at that location there is no point having infrastructure to support it.

 

[CdBrux]

Normal I suppose for an enthusiasts forum but the ast majority of suggestions so far do not seem to focus on the consumer experience, i.e. what gets more people to choose rail travel above other alternatives and be satisfied by their choice. Here are some ideas:

WiFi
Easy access via mobile apps to timetables and journey planners. Possibility to purchase tickets on these apps
Significantly expanded capacity on many routes
Easier to understand fares (although as mentioned be careful what you wish for, reduced choice will take out the often very good value fares that can be found today and this is no different to airlines and people are used to that)
Flexible season tickets for people travelling less than 5 days a week

 

[swt_passenger]

Which lines/routes would TFL most likely grab over the next 5 years to transfer over to LO?

Probably the same ones discussed in a number of earlier threads about that specific subject. You could try searching, else we end up with yet another repeated discussion...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Well Patrick Mcloughlin last three years don't be greedy.
In terms of OLE adding Birmingham to Bristol is more important than Bristol to Exeter.

He did just short of 4 years actually (arrived just in time for the hospital pass on ICWC in 2012).
With any luck Chris Grayling will stay up to the 2020 election.
He still has to say anything significant about rail policy.

I can't see CP6 doing more than repeat the electrification schemes that have already been announced and deferred.
What price the electric spine?

Nobody seems to have mentioned tram-train as transformational.
Probably reflects the level of enthusiasm for the project.

 

[superkev]

Seems to take longer than have WW2 to do even the simplist things. If it had took 4 years to make a Lancaster like it does now to procure a train we would have lost.
K

 

[jimm]

Seems to take longer than have WW2 to do even the simplist things. If it had took 4 years to make a Lancaster like it does now to procure a train we would have lost.
K

I hate to break it to you, but the Lancaster was the result of a development process that began with Air Ministry specification p13/36, issued in September 1936.

This resulted in the Avro Manchester twin-engine bomber - first prototype flew in the summer of 1939 but it took until 1940 for the second to appear. The plane was hobbled by its dodgy Rolls Royce Vulture engines. Small numbers of Manchesters were built in 1940-41 and used by the RAF from November 1940. One was converted by Avro to have four engines and a larger wingspan - resulting in the Lancaster, which first flew at the start of 1941.

The four-engine Handley-Page Halifax was also a result of P13/36, with the prototype first flying in October 1939. Entry to service was November 1940
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With any luck Chris Grayling will stay up to the 2020 election.

I hope not, given his less-than-inspiring track record in previous ministerial jobs.

 

[najaB]

Seems to take longer than have WW2 to do even the simplist things. If it had took 4 years to make a Lancaster like it does now to procure a train we would have lost.
K

I hate to break it to you, but the Lancaster was the result of a development process that began with Air Ministry specification p13/36, issued in September 1936.

I hope that superkev has a parachute, 'cause he got shot down!

Back to topic, up in my part of the world I'd like to think that Levenmouth will be reopened by 2020 and Invergowrie replaced by Dundee West Gateway station. Pushing it timescale wise, but hopefully work will at least have started on Montrose-Usan doubling.

 

[snowball]

It has the potential to be.

More and more of NR's Infrastructure is having to comply with the requirements of TSI's which are EU Directives. Whilst some make good sense others impose a level of engineering excellence that is not appropriate to some of our railways. It will require an act of parliament once we are no longer EU members to change ROGS to remove the need to apply these directives, however, there's nothing to stop us applying them by choice.

You seem to be arguing the opposite side to in the discussion we had in the GWR electrification thread a few weeks ago.

 

[Mordac]

Oh! Look! Flying Pigs.

442 conversion to airliners as well?

 

[Tio Terry]

You seem to be arguing the opposite side to in the discussion we had in the GWR electrification thread a few weeks ago.

Not really.

For major routes, like GWML, I can see a lot of sense with complying with the current TSI's for most, but not all, things. If we take a look at electrifying the existing non-electrified lines as an example. At some bridges Brunel's famous (almost) flat track bed is being lowered to provide greater clearance for OHEL. I doubt he would be impressed with deliberate dips in his track bed! But we know, because we have so many other sites that don't comply across the network, that we can operate a reliable service without doing this. Similarly we have a number of sites across the network where the rate of change of OHEL height is outside of the current requirements but, again, we operate a reliable service without meeting the current requirements. By having the choice of where and when to apply EU TSI's we can provide improvements faster, cheaper and easier than having to gain Interoperability Authorisation before entry in to service.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Not really.
For major routes, like GWML, I can see a lot of sense with complying with the current TSI's for most, but not all, things. If we take a look at electrifying the existing non-electrified lines as an example. At some bridges Brunel's famous (almost) flat track bed is being lowered to provide greater clearance for OHEL. I doubt he would be impressed with deliberate dips in his track bed! But we know, because we have so many other sites that don't comply across the network, that we can operate a reliable service without doing this. Similarly we have a number of sites across the network where the rate of change of OHEL height is outside of the current requirements but, again, we operate a reliable service without meeting the current requirements. By having the choice of where and when to apply EU TSI's we can provide improvements faster, cheaper and easier than having to gain Interoperability Authorisation before entry in to service.

Some (most?) of the tougher OHLE spec is down to 140mph capability, where the old standards are insufficient.
H&S probably determines the rest, regardless of the EU TSI (which I think we helped to write).

 

[matacaster]

Return of loco-hauled services on Transpennine.
Return of a direct London service from Middlesbrough.

"Return of loco-hauled services on Transpennine."

I'll vote for that (although the 185's are the best of bunch DMU's -just way too short)

 

[Busaholic]

With any luck Chris Grayling will stay up to the 2020 election.
He still has to say anything significant about rail policy.

If his past record is anything to go by, the fewer policy decisions he makes the better.

 

[AM9]

It is a 1 in 37 hill but basically applies anywhere regardless really, if a train cannot attain that line speed at that location there is no point having infrastructure to support it.

I assume that the alignment (horizontal as opposed to vertical) wouldn't preclude speeds of 80-100mph with a little tweaking. If the major practical constraint to northbound speeds could be mitigated, which I assume is traction limitations on the gradient, the operating speeds could be raised. Obviously the forthcomoming switch to 323s for the locals will reduce the procession of 170s slogging up the hill, and there would be an opportunity to allow through trains to take a run at the slope. If the Bristol to Brum route (eventually) gets wired, XC and freight with electric traction could almost eradicate most of the incline's operating impact.

 

[ABB125]

If the Bristol to Brum route (eventually) gets wired, XC and freight with electric traction could almost eradicate most of the incline's operating impact.

I would have thought that voyagers get up without a problem.

 

[Tio Terry]

Some (most?) of the tougher OHLE spec is down to 140mph capability, where the old standards are insufficient.
H&S probably determines the rest, regardless of the EU TSI (which I think we helped to write).

The current EU Energy TSI - which we did help to write - is for 300kph trains, that's closer to 190mph than 140mph. In terms of H&S BS EN 50122 applies, that can be met without meeting all the requirements of the Energy TSI.

The point is that when (if?) we exit the EU we can decide which parts of which TSI we want to apply to which parts of our infrastructure and when.

 

[jimm]

Not really.

For major routes, like GWML, I can see a lot of sense with complying with the current TSI's for most, but not all, things. If we take a look at electrifying the existing non-electrified lines as an example. At some bridges Brunel's famous (almost) flat track bed is being lowered to provide greater clearance for OHEL. I doubt he would be impressed with deliberate dips in his track bed! But we know, because we have so many other sites that don't comply across the network, that we can operate a reliable service without doing this. Similarly we have a number of sites across the network where the rate of change of OHEL height is outside of the current requirements but, again, we operate a reliable service without meeting the current requirements. By having the choice of where and when to apply EU TSI's we can provide improvements faster, cheaper and easier than having to gain Interoperability Authorisation before entry in to service.

Sorry, but I fail to see what on earth you're on about when it comes to lowering the track under some Brunel bridges - it's about getting clearance for the overhead underneath - and with those Brunel flat arches it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference which specific standard you were working to - whether European or some UK one - there isn't the clearance available for overhead without either a. demolishing the bridge; b. lowering the track.