Why so slow?

[MK Tom]

I travelled on the Shrewsbury-Wrexham line yesterday and I was astonished by the fantastically slow speeds we travelled at on the whole stretch, but especially between Shrewsbury and Gobowen. Can anyone tell me what the speed limit actually is and why it's so phenomenally low? The line looks like a decently straight double track line with no major obstacles. Could it not be increased into the 60-70mph region with fairly little work? It definitely shouldn't take an hour to go from Wrexham to Shewsbury which the same distance as Crewe to Rugeley. Thanks!

 

[The Planner]

60/70MU between Shrewsbury and Wrexham.

 

[asylumxl]

I travelled on the Shrewsbury-Wrexham line yesterday and I was astonished by the fantastically slow speeds we travelled at on the whole stretch, but especially between Shrewsbury and Gobowen. Can anyone tell me what the speed limit actually is and why it's so phenomenally low? The line looks like a decently straight double track line with no major obstacles. Could it not be increased into the 60-70mph region with fairly little work? It definitely shouldn't take an hour to go from Wrexham to Shewsbury which the same distance as Crewe to Rugeley. Thanks!

There's many contributing factors, but without knowing the line I can't tell you the speed. I recommend looking at the Baseline Decleration on NR website.

It could be the signal spacing, track alignment/quality etc etc.

 

[Penmorfa]

It seems to be a southbound problem, 37 minutes going north and up to 52 going south. Excessive recovery time?

 

[Eagle]

The speed limit is 70 for MUs, and 60 for locos.

I recommend looking at the Baseline Decleration on NR website.

Which is here (caution huge files; the route annoyingly straddles two sectors, Western and LNW North, with the boundary two miles north of Ruabon).

 

[The Planner]

Excessive recovery time?

Pathing for the long block section, not recovery time. Other Southbound trains do it in considerably less.

 

[CosherB]

Another BR home goal I'm afraid, along with closures, single lining, and junction removal. To save money they removed much of the intermediate signalling on the route.

Anyone who pines for the return of BR should remember stuff like this.

 

[yorksrob]

Government held the purse strings I'm afraid. It's about time they (of various stripes) took some responsibility for the situation. Hammond blaming BR for maintenance backlogs in parliament was laughable.

 

[HSTEd]

Another BR home goal I'm afraid, along with closures, single lining, and junction removal. To save money they removed much of the intermediate signalling on the route.

Anyone who pines for the return of BR should remember stuff like this.

Yes, because BR was part of an evil conspiracy to dismantle the railway.
Government had the purse strings, BR did the best with what it had.

 

[Railsigns]

Another BR home goal I'm afraid, along with closures, single lining, and junction removal. To save money they removed much of the intermediate signalling on the route.

Anyone who pines for the return of BR should remember stuff like this.

Anyone who says the privatised railway is an improvement on BR, all things considered, either hasn't fully grasped the situation or is letting their political loyalties dictate their beliefs.

 

[exile]

Think what BR could have done with a £5 billion a year subsidy.

 

[LE Greys]

Think what BR could have done with a £5 billion a year subsidy.

Intercity 250. From http://www.therailwaycentre.com/Recognition%20Pictures%20Loco/Artists_loco.html. Follow the link and scroll down to see what we missed/didn't miss.

 

[CosherB]

Just two points:

1) That BR was strapped for cash by the treasury was a fact. The same would apply if BR were somehow to make a comeback. There'd be insufficent money from governement!

2) Related to the above, it's no good saying "think what BR could have done with the money that's gone into rail under privatisation". That money came as a result of privatisation, and wthout privatisation it wouldn't have been spent on rail.

That's why a nationalised railway can never work, at least in UK.

If you think different, you don't understand politics. And politics, nothing else, determines these things. I'm not saying that's right (I actually think it's wrong), but it's none the less the way it is and the way it always will be under a UK constitution.

Best be a realist and accept the money privatised rail is enjoying, rather than a dreamer and go back to a severly cash-starved nationalised system.

 

[the sniper]

Anyone who pines for the return of BR should remember stuff like this.

I presumed this was a joke...

 

[CosherB]

I presumed this was a joke...

Please explain why you think that. Read my post above first.

 

[LE Greys]

Just two points:

1) That BR was strapped for cash by the treasury was a fact. The same would apply if BR were somehow to make a comeback. There'd be insufficent money from governement!

2) Related to the above, it's no good saying "think what BR could have done with the money that's gone into rail under privatisation". That money came as a result of privatisation, and wthout privatisation it wouldn't have been spent on rail.

That's why a nationalised railway can never work, at least in UK.

If you think different, you don't understand politics. And politics, nothing else, determines these things. I'm not saying that's right (I actually think it's wrong), but it's none the less the way it is and the way it always will be under a UK constitution.

Best be a realist and accept the money privatised rail is enjoying, rather than a dreamer and go back to a severly cash-starved nationalised system.

On the other hand, BR were having to do on a shoestring what other nationalised railways were doing with far more help from government. All-in-all, they did OK, as this report from Railways Archive states. It might be a bit one-sided, but we have to ask whether the stuff that they were promising for the next decade - Crossrail, Thameslink 2000, a West Coast upgrade, the CTRL (as was), Regional Eurostar, Networkerisation (which happened as Electrostars), new stock for Regional Railways (probably a diesel Networker - a.k.a. Turbostar), and potentially new freight locos (from the UK) and IC250 - would have delivered what privatisation did, just in a different and rather cheaper way.

This document has demonstrated that the opportunities for rail in the coming decade are dramatic. The issues are of national importance and the solutions to them will become clear as the transport debate evolves. The renaissance of the railways has begun and the pace will quicken throughout the coming decade. The vision is an exciting one. It is of a quality organisation delivering a quality product, of a thriving industry contributing to the prosperity of the nation.

Well, that's what BR thought of itself in 1991.

 

[yorksrob]

If you think different, you don't understand politics. And politics, nothing else, determines these things. I'm not saying that's right (I actually think it's wrong), but it's none the less the way it is and the way it always will be under a UK constitution.

Best be a realist and accept the money privatised rail is enjoying, rather than a dreamer and go back to a severly cash-starved nationalised system.

I personally think that as a country we are too accepting of the "quality" of Government. We have a real problem in that we can't seem to get anything working without flogging it off, or throwing money at the private sector.

It's not just the railways either. How much more are taxpayers going to end up paying for dodgy PFI deals for example.

The whole case for privatisation was built upon a flawed assumption that the railways were in terminal decline, yet even a cursory glance at passenger figures through the 1980's would have revealed this to be nonsense.

 

[the sniper]

Please explain why you think that. Read my post above first.

The comment was made about 'BR's own goals', which obviously weren't of their own making, so weren't really own goals. They were 'goals' for the the Treasury, BR were the losers.

On your newer post, I don't know how you can predict the budget for a nationalised railway if it were to come back today. Look how much state money is being poured into Network Rail, HS2, Cross Rail and IEP. Times and attitudes have changed over the last 20 years. I see no reason why a new BR today would be cash strapped like the old BR.

I do agree with one thing though, if BR had survived, there wouldn't be as much money being poured in as there is now. There wouldn't have been as much wasted though...

 

[tbtc]

Another BR home goal I'm afraid, along with closures, single lining, and junction removal. To save money they removed much of the intermediate signalling on the route.

Anyone who pines for the return of BR should remember stuff like this.

Do you mean "own goal"?

A home goal is generally A Good Thing, if you are the home team...

 

[yorksrob]

Times and attitudes have changed over the last 20 years. I see no reason why a new BR today would be cash strapped like the old BR.

I do agree with one thing though, if BR had survived, there wouldn't be as much money being poured in as there is now. There wouldn't have been as much wasted though...

That's a good point. If you look at the topical programming from the late 1980's and early 1990's on the railway, there was a growing perception that investment would need to increase. The railways were becoming more of a political issue at the time and I doubt any Government would have found it politically feasible to turn off the investment tap again as in times past regardless of who actually ran the railway (particularly with growing passenger numbers - which would have certainly have happenned during the economic boom of the late 90's and early 00's with or without privatisation).

Funnilly enough, if you watch those programmes, no-one with any knowledge or experience of the railway ever seems to propose carving up and selling off the railway as a sensible idea.

 

[TDK]

Another BR home goal I'm afraid, along with closures, single lining, and junction removal. To save money they removed much of the intermediate signalling on the route.

Anyone who pines for the return of BR should remember stuff like this.

Not quite correct, the line between Wrexham and Shrewsbury is double track and has always been, what intermediate signalling was removed? Only Baschurch Box and that was replace by 2 pairs of signals to compensate, as for pining for BR that is a joke - BR could have never coped with the demand put on the railway presently BR couldn't cope when it was active! There just isn't the demand for more capacity to be honest presently between Wrexham & Shrewsbury the money would be better spent elsewhere and if you are reading this Bob that is not on the doubling of the line between Wrexham and Chester

 

[yorksrob]

BR could have never coped with the demand put on the railway presently BR couldn't cope when it was active!

Absolute nonsense - BR coped with growth between 1983 and 1990 and would have coped with growth after 1994.

 

[HSTEd]

The capacity was surplus to requirements at the time, in light of the budgetary issues it would have been foolish to maintain it at additional expense when there were other things more urgently in need of attention (like actually running more trains).