"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:32:16 on Thu, 15 Dec 2016,
tim... remarked:

Why then did you bring up the topic? "it is ... on a closed track bed".

because I missed out, "presumably..."

Do you never make mistakes?

The mistake of claiming I'd brought up the subject (of closed track beds)
is a bit fundamental.

I didn't say that you brought it up

it was just my suggestion of what route would be followed, but whether it
was a closed track bed or new build was incidental to my point

I really don't know why you made an issue of it (my original mistake)

I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.

I am explaining my terminology: Eastern section and Western section

It would be more helpful if you used the same terms as everyone else,
especially Network Rail.

and how am I supposed to know what these terms are?

do you really expect me to go an plough through a pile of someone else's
documents just to make a small point?

It's not a small point. It's on the front page of the East-West Rail
website, and has featured in numerous news articles this year when the
preferred *central* corridor was announced.

I don't need to go to a web site to see whether the route is on a "improved"
line already in situ or new build (where on old track bet or new alignment).
I know that from my knowledge fop the UK rail network.

And it is only that (first) difference that was critical to my point.

So I didn't bother

As well as myself reminding you at least twice, earlier in the thread.

The Western section is the part West of Bletchley that is an in situ
freight line and the Eastern Section is the part East of Bedford that is
currently open fields (or whatever). You can put the bit in the middle
in whichever section you like.

It just happens that this terminology also fits in with the likely
service pattern which will see many trains running to (and probably
terminating at} MK just off somewhere about the mid point of the route.

The service pattern used for the latest (2016) study is:

1 train per hour (tph) London Paddington - Oxford - Cambridge semi-fast

1 tph Bletchley - Cambridge semi-fast; and

1 tph Bristol - Cambridge, with alternate trains extended to Norwich or
Ipswich.

Plus optionally 1 tph Bournemouth - Manchester
(currently -Oxford-Banbury) diverted via Bletchley, Bicester and WCML.

and what about the Oxford to Marylebone and the long proposed Aylesbury to
MK services, that will also use the line?

None of those use the line from Bedford to Cambridge (which is the one
whose business case is currently being examined by TPTB).

At the time of your intervention I wasn't discussing the business case for
the extension to Cambridge in isolation. I was discussing it in the context
of the use of a privately operated special purpose vehicle (or whatever it
is called) for the development, and AFAIA that proposal is for the complete
line to Oxford.

Hence the reason why my use of East and West refers to parts of that
complete line. The West part being the part that is, I believe, currently
funded and the East the part that is not.

If you changed the thread of some sub-set of that you should have made it
clearer, because I didn't notice

tim




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus