"Tom Anderson" wrote ...
On Feb 3, 12:27 pm, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:
- the failure to electrify Gospel Oak to Barking (and twenty other false
economies);
snips
Very wrong; the 'resurgence' needn't be diesel-based,
But it *is* diesel-based.
Everyone, in every camp (except diesel trainbuilders), would like it if it
was electric-based, and the necessary bits of line were electrified to
make that possible, but that hasn't happened, and nobody feels like paying
for it, so it hasn't happened. So the growth of freight *is*, whether you
like it or not, diesel-based.

Sorry, I was looking to a future when the current small resugence *could* be
a bigger, electric one; I know what *is*; my whole point is that with a few
minor chnages, the future could be *better*; the fact that it *isn't*, is
why I'm suggesting a certain 'British Rail' type outlook - "It is, it
evermore shall be so"

I'm no fan of privatization, but I readily admit there's been more
progress - either in fact or in planning - over the last 15 years, than in
the 50 before that. And on so much, it's the TOCs making the running, and
NR/Dft/RR resisting; electrification is the perfect example.

*IF* the infill schemes happened, it would allow much freight to be
electric, which in turn would speed up freight, allow more paths, less knock
on damage if one pasenger train fell behind the freight it should have
preceded, allow more options for diversion and expansion, etc., etc., etc.

That's why schemes *like* GOB electrification are so important. And that's
why a real resurgence of freight can only really be achieved with
electrification.

Ironically, the man we should thank for the 66 'revolution', Ed Burkhart,
had a dream of faster freight, and faster growth, and a greater
understanding of the passenger vs. freight capacity problems than the
current NR/Dft/RR - I don't know his views on electrification, but I
suspect whatever his preference, he was simply a realist. For *that* time.
But times have changed.