In message , at 16:51:10 on Mon, 12 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:33:50 on Mon, 12 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant
local journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern

Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.

From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else
at all, that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.

There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services
and as there are already established customers for the local
stations west of Bedford opening up more destinations for these
travelers could be advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a
complete white elephant.

East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.

but it is the complete new build part, albeit on a closed track bed,

No it's not.

so which part of Bedford (St John's) to Sandy has track in situ then

Are you completely incapable of looking at the plans for yourself?

And how come suddenly "closed track bed" turns into "track in situ".

and therefore has to meet new higher standards at road intersections
(if there are any)

So would a track on either a closed track bed

The point is that West of Bletchley is not "closed" - technically anyway.

I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.

(which it's not) or a new track bed (which it is).

so your argument is that it's on a new alignment

See "new alignment" vs "closed track bed".

still doesn't negate my point that East of Bedford is the completely
new build,

On "closed track bed", or something else?

West of Bedford is existing track

I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.
--
Roland Perry