Railways to get £8bn investment

[swt_passenger]

One last thing, How will Crossrail EMU's help release Thameslink trains? Or is this a reinforcing the point one to many times?

I reckon it's just a normal press office cock up. Crossrail does release trains, but they'll be EMUs from the GE Shenfield Metro, and DMUs from some FGW locals.

Same idea as you pointed out already for the SN and SE services that will be absorbed into Thameslink

 

[Oswyntail]

...
One last thing, How will Crossrail EMU's help release Thameslink trains? Or is this a reinforcing the point one to many times?

When i read the release, I thought that perhaps DfT had seen the light and were lumping the two tenders into one standard design, the Crossrail-and-Thameslink units. Makes sense economically, and I cannot see too much difference in the requirements.

And then there is the question of which TOCs will be responsible, at least for Crossrail. Now if the lead on the stock was TfL....

 

[tbtc]

When i read the release, I thought that perhaps DfT had seen the light and were lumping the two tenders into one standard design, the Crossrail-and-Thameslink units. Makes sense economically, and I cannot see too much difference in the requirements.

And then there is the question of which TOCs will be responsible, at least for Crossrail. Now if the lead on the stock was TfL....

Well, they really ought to be the same - there's no reason why the two *need* to be different, and a common fleet would bring a lot of benefits (e.g. ironing out any initial faults, rather than testing two different fleets), as well as being a template for other routes too.

Of course what we'll end up with will be different fleets built by different manufacturers which are incompatible and both have their own teething problems

 

[swt_passenger]

It's already been announced that the 365/313/321 are staying on the GN. The NXEMU are doing new services. (As for the Kings Lynn's services, anyone's guesses is as good as mine as IEP was supposed to be replacing these services!)

I've just been right through the ECML RUS, because your explanation didn't sound possible, and it appears Thameslink is definitely replacing some existing services on the GN, just like it will on SN and SE.

They cannot just fit an extra 8tph on top of what is already running on the GN inner and outer suburbans, where would they get the paths?

However it does go on to say there are different options for which services will be taken over by Thameslink depending on decisions on IEP.

For instance it explicitly states that IF IEP is used to run King Lynn services into Kings Cross, then additional inner suburban services will have to go onto Thameslink instead.

It's nearly 200 pages though and references to Thameslink appear throughout, if there was a short paragraph I'd have copied it here...

 

[Clip]

Out of all of the numbers and fumblers i liked how the shadow Labour doris actually tried to make the present government sound bad about how long it will take to make the carriges.

I was wondering what and how her last 13 years in power had improved things..

NOT ONE IOTA. so how can she comment.. dumb bint

 

[Class377/5]

Well, they really ought to be the same - there's no reason why the two *need* to be different, and a common fleet would bring a lot of benefits (e.g. ironing out any initial faults, rather than testing two different fleets), as well as being a template for other routes too.

Of course what we'll end up with will be different fleets built by different manufacturers which are incompatible and both have their own teething problems

Oh that would have made sense, one general fleet that can be tested away from the public to make sure they are working before going into service. Especially as they won't be that fair apart time wise now.

I've just been right through the ECML RUS, because your explanation didn't sound possible, and it appears Thameslink is definitely replacing some existing services on the GN, just like it will on SN and SE.

They cannot just fit an extra 8tph on top of what is already running on the GN inner and outer suburbans, where would they get the paths?

However it does go on to say there are different options for which services will be taken over by Thameslink depending on decisions on IEP.

For instance it explicitly states that IF IEP is used to run King Lynn services into Kings Cross, then additional inner suburban services will have to go onto Thameslink instead.

It's nearly 200 pages though and references to Thameslink appear throughout, if there was a short paragraph I'd have copied it here...

I haven't read that for awhile. I may have been wrong about the GN as I'm more TL orinated. I was under the impression that GN was generally having simlar pattern. Then again Ive only had an general overview.

Problem with all this is no matter how much we work it out they can change their minds before we get there anyway!

 

[tbtc]

Oh that would have made sense, one general fleet that can be tested away from the public to make sure they are working before going into service. Especially as they won't be that fair apart time wise now.

It ought to work like that, a rolling programme, so that Thameslink and Crossrail get built, get tested, get new "ready to run" EMUs (e.g. are fully tested before they start running), then the production line is up and running to mean similar "boxfresh" EMUs can be ordered for any other electrifications - given the economies of scale and simplicity

 

[jopsuk]

If the Moorgate services go to TfL Overground, the other "local" GN services to TL and the "Express" Cambridge & Kings Lynn (and Peterborough?) services get commuter IEP, that'll leave a fleet of 40 Networkers going spare to a good home- by the time this all happens mind the 317/321 fleet will be nearing retirement. As I understand it, expanded Thamelink will also be displacing some 465s from Southeastern- or will they strengthen existing services?

 

[tbtc]

If the Moorgate services go to TfL Overground, the other "local" GN services to TL and the "Express" Cambridge & Kings Lynn (and Peterborough?) services get commuter IEP, that'll leave a fleet of 40 Networkers going spare to a good home

Its been suggested elsewhere that they could do London - Oxford route. In fact, four-car 100mph units built for middle-distance routes could be handy for a number of areas; hmm...

 

[tripleseis]

Networkers would be perfect for the Oxford to London express route. They're like Turbos on steroids!

I'm actually excited that I'm actually going to see electric trains serving Oxford within my lifetime! LOL.

 

[tbtc]

Networkers would be perfect for the Oxford to London express route. They're like Turbos on steroids!

I'm actually excited that I'm actually going to see electric trains serving Oxford within my lifetime! LOL.

Talking of Turbostars - the 365s could replace the Chiltern ones if that was ever electrified - they seem perfect for those hour-long journeys (longer than "commuter" units, but not quite Intercity)

 

[YorkshireBear]

tbtc i just note your from sheffield, have you seen the star this morning? they are not happy at all

I doubt chiltern will ever be electrified because theyve gone mental at high speed i imagine they wont be happy with chiltern main line either (or are they not near each other?)

 

[WatcherZero]

Networkers would be perfect for the Oxford to London express route. They're like Turbos on steroids!

I'm actually excited that I'm actually going to see electric trains serving Oxford within my lifetime! LOL.

Dont jinx yourself, youve got almost 10 years to wait...

 

[tbtc]

tbtc i just note your from sheffield, have you seen the star this morning? they are not happy at all

http://www.thestar.co.uk/headlines/Rail-funds-head-south.6640421.jp

TRAIN overcrowding is set to continue in Sheffield as the Government has made only 100 new rail carriages available to be shared with Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds - compared to 1,800 to be provided in London

Hmm. 100 carriages = 30-40 for Manchester Airport - WCML - Glasgow/Edinburgh routes, which leaves 60-70 other units? = 20x 3 coach trains?

the Government has also shelved plans to electrify the Midland Mainline - which would speed up journey times between Sheffield and London - until after 2014/15.

A government source blamed the previous Labour administration for prioritising the electrification of the Great Western route between London and South Wales

Bit of a confusing quote - the coalition Government can't electrify the MML because Labour prioritised the GWML to South Wales, but the current Government won't be electrifying this either? Have the Star got confused?

 

[swt_passenger]

tbtc i just note your from sheffield, have you seen the star this morning? they are not happy at all

Then they were rather naive to assume electrification would happen mostly based on rumour. So it goes back to second in the queue of about 50 schemes - it'll still get done eventually I reckon.

I doubt chiltern will ever be electrified because theyve gone mental at high speed i imagine they wont be happy with chiltern main line either (or are they not near each other?)

'Chiltern Main line' is only a relatively minor speed increase to the existing route, there are very few infrastructure changes at all. I doubt many residents are even aware of it happening to be honest. I guess they would complain about electrification masts, but they wouldn't get far as they exist on the WCML in the Chilterns.

I think they are being a bit precious about their AONB, but ISTM it isn't actually that special - and their are no rules that actually prevent a railway through an AONB or a National Park for that matter. It's only a presumption against development, it isn't a 100% ban at all costs...

 

[tbtc]

I think they are being a bit precious about their AONB, but ISTM it isn't actually that special - and their are no rules that actually prevent a railway through an AONB or a National Park for that matter. It's only a presumption against development, it isn't a 100% ban at all costs...

We have railways through the Lake District, Peak District, Scottish Highlands... I can't class the Chilterns as "outstanding" natural beauty, sorry

 

[YorkshireBear]

I know, they get quite a few things wrong on the whole. Theyve only said they cant afford for next 5 years its hardly that bad really meridians will do a more than decent job until then.

I just thought there take on it was interesting saying the north is really hard done by and everything to be honest with you id be suprised if we get 100 that would be great

at this rate by 2020 neither will be electrified
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We have railways through the Lake District, Peak District, Scottish Highlands... I can't class the Chilterns as "outstanding" natural beauty, sorry

yeah i second that

if they can do WCML through lake district they can do anywhere as that is one of the most beautiful places in the country

 

[route:oxford]

I think they are being a bit precious about their AONB, but ISTM it isn't actually that special - and their are no rules that actually prevent a railway through an AONB or a National Park for that matter. It's only a presumption against development, it isn't a 100% ban at all costs...

If they were really worried about the AONB, they'd be petitioning to have the council tower at Aylesbury demolished!

The Chilterns do have some very attractive parts to them - but generally speaking from ground level (where the railway will be) looking upwards, from the hills looking downwards you've got Dunstable, Luton, Aylesbury, Didcot... There is no way the narrow snake of a railway line would ever manage to compete with them for the "Ugliest in Chilternshire" prize.

 

[northwichcat]

if they can do WCML through lake district they can do anywhere as that is one of the most beautiful places in the country

They also obviously have railways through the Hope Valley and Saddleworth Moors and the Swiss have railways through the Alps.

 

[philjo]

I don't remember hearing about complaints for the M40 being built through the area (with constant traffic noise & fumes etc & takes up much more land than a rail line )

 

[tbtc]

I know, they get quite a few things wrong on the whole. Theyve only said they cant afford for next 5 years its hardly that bad really meridians will do a more than decent job until then.

I just thought there take on it was interesting saying the north is really hard done by and everything to be honest with you id be suprised if we get 100 that would be great

Yeah, Meridians will do for now

100 coaches (even if it's only two thirds of that when you take away the WCML EMUs) would be better than I was expecting. All I think we may get are cascades...

 

[The Barlow Boy]

I don't remember hearing about complaints for the M40 being built through the area (with constant traffic noise & fumes etc & takes up much more land than a rail line )

Have a look to see where the M40 is and then where the proposed railway is going.

 

[Geezertronic]

I don't remember hearing about complaints for the M40 being built through the area (with constant traffic noise & fumes etc & takes up much more land than a rail line )

They had a good go in Oxfordshire, I expect this sort of tactic to be used for HS2:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/01/conservation-developers-countryside-uk

 

[jon0844]

I don't remember hearing about complaints for the M40 being built through the area (with constant traffic noise & fumes etc & takes up much more land than a rail line )

The thing is, we shouldn't be building one thing over another. We still need roads, but hopefully we can reduce traffic and congestion by encouraging people to use other modes of transport where possible.

There are times I need to drive, but I'll generally prefer to use the train - but that's because I commute and am used to train travel and all the pitfalls (and there are many). Someone who doesn't travel more is put off in a number of ways thanks to the way the industry operates.

What about building future large road projects, like motorways, with railway lines running alongside? Build the whole thing at once, to save money and minimise the impact on the environment. Joined-up-thinking and all that.

 

[philjo]

I agree with that - you need both.
It just seems that there are fare more complaining about new rail lines than new motorways even though the motorway has a greater impact on the landscape once building work is completed.

HS1 has got quite a large section of the route through Kent running alongside either the M2 or M20.
Would running HS2 alongside the M40 (or other similar existing major roads through the Chilterns lessen the perceived impact? though it isn't necessarily the most direct route.

 

[sprinterguy]

HS1 has got quite a large section of the route through Kent running alongside either the M2 or M20.
Would running HS2 alongside the M40 (or other similar existing major roads through the Chilterns lessen the perceived impact? though it isn't necessarily the most direct route.

It probably would lessen the perceived impact quite a bit. It's already been ruled out as impossible in the case of HS2 as the radius of the curves required to run anything approaching parallel to the M40 would be too tight to allow High Speed running.

And I was under the impression that there was quite a lot of vocal opposition to construction of the M40 through Oxfordshire, though it does seem that when something other than a road is being constructed the feelings of ill will get blown completely out of proportion: Apparently Staffordshire constituencies are getting on board to oppose HS2 where it passes through their domain on the link to WCML and onward arm to Manchester :roll: