"John B" wrote ...
On Feb 3, 12:27 pm, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
- the failure to electrify Gospel Oak to Barking (and twenty other false
economies);

That's territorial fighting. The UK freight resurgence is diesel-based
(the EMD Class 66 is the single best thing to happen to UK rail
freight in c.100 years: it's cheap and it Just Works) so there's no
benefit to freight operators in electrifying it. The only operator
who'd benefit is TfL, but they're not willing to pay the full cost
without any control over the infrastructure.

Very wrong; the 'resurgence' needn't be diesel-based, and with a few infill
electrifications, much of the containerised freight (the only part that's
actually resurging (!), could be entirely electric. And not territorial
fighting; I'd argue exactly the same for a dozen similarly sized schemes
(see the railway magazines - they feature regularly). And the argument for
GOB preceded the overground by several years.I don't blame the operators for
diesel; many of them would jump at the chance to run electric - but they'd
have few diversionary routes, and some key lines would be unreachable.

Much European freight is electric; if they didn't have four voltages and
five signalling systems, probably the 66 would not have been needed in
Europe!

I think you mean 'a sympathetic, low-profile extension that makes St P
useable without detracting from Barlow's architecture. I mean, what,
you'd've stuck up a giant pastiche shed extension or something?

There's absolutely nothing sympathetic about it; it's brutal.

I'll give you that one. I don't *entirely* blame people who've seen
loco-switching operations in the dying days of CrossCountry, or EMU
+loco operations from Chester to Holyhead, for viewing this as
unworkable - however, it *should* be as easy and effective as
splitting and joining units on the Southern.

And of course, electrification - already planned by Scotland - will remove
the need anyway

--
Andrew