[Cast_Iron]

Peter Beale wrote:
In article ,
(Cast_Iron) wrote:

The community railway approach is not what the users want - they
would prefer a through service to London"

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Bring back the Atlantic Coast Express!

And slip coaches?

[Aidan Stanger]

Acrosticus wrote:

[Watford to St.Albans]

The SRA plans to designate the line a '' community railway'' to cut costs and
enhance low-frequency low-speed lines without lessening safety and quality.

Would this make it easier to convert to a tramway?

How do you cut costs without lessening safety and quality?

By more efficient use of your workforce, taking advantage of
technological innovation, and better understanding of your requirements.

A good example is the use of steel sleepers. They're cheaper to buy than
concrete or wood, and lighter, so quicker to lay than wooden sleepers
(and don't require machines to lay them like concrete sleepers do).
Although you may regard this as a reduction in quality (the weight of
concrete sleepers is a big advantage on high speed lines) they'd make
very little difference on lines like the St.Albans branch. Even if there
were a small reduction in quality, some of the money saved could be
spent on seating improvements that more than make up for it.

There are other ways of cutting costs, but they're difficult because
they involve factors beyond your control. Even with a non unionized
workforce, you're unlikely to be able to cut wages much before people
start leaving (and you may find that those who are good at their jobs
are the first to walk). And if the companies that make the products you
require charge too much you could try making the products yourself - but
watch out for subsequent falls in the price!

This seems to be another case of Bowker's boys talking out of their anuses.

I couldn't disagree more! Things were a lot cheaper under BR. Do you
honestly think all the extra cost nowadays is due to safety and quality
improvements?

[Peter Lawrence]

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 12:41:00 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:11:50 +0000, Cast_Iron wrote:


The two are not mutually exclusive.


Indeed. What (other than lack of demand and easy interchange, or "it's
always been that way") is the reason why the branch does not have a
through service to London, at least in the peaks?

Is it stock-related? Can the 321s operate the branch, or only the 313s
for some reason (e.g. clearance)? Or is it simply line capacity?

321s can and sometimes do operate the branch. The problem is
hand-operated points connecting the branch to the WCML slow lines.
Capacity at Euston is also claimed as a problem so there seems to be
no enthusiasm to sort out the points.

I was under the impression that it was the need for trains to cross over
the whole WCML on the flat to reach the DC lines. (BICBW)

This is not necessary. Through trains to Euston stopping at all DC
stations would not be well received.

--
Peter Lawrence

[Dave Arquati]

Peter Lawrence wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 12:41:00 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote:


Neil Williams wrote:


On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:11:50 +0000, Cast_Iron wrote:



The two are not mutually exclusive.


Indeed. What (other than lack of demand and easy interchange, or "it's
always been that way") is the reason why the branch does not have a
through service to London, at least in the peaks?

Is it stock-related? Can the 321s operate the branch, or only the 313s
for some reason (e.g. clearance)? Or is it simply line capacity?


321s can and sometimes do operate the branch. The problem is
hand-operated points connecting the branch to the WCML slow lines.
Capacity at Euston is also claimed as a problem so there seems to be
no enthusiasm to sort out the points.


I was under the impression that it was the need for trains to cross over
the whole WCML on the flat to reach the DC lines. (BICBW)


This is not necessary. Through trains to Euston stopping at all DC
stations would not be well received.

Is there capacity for anything else? I was thinking just of extending
Euston - Watford Jcn DCs to St Albans.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7

[Peter Lawrence]

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:07:48 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote:

Peter Lawrence wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 12:41:00 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote:


Neil Williams wrote:


Indeed. What (other than lack of demand and easy interchange, or "it's
always been that way") is the reason why the branch does not have a
through service to London, at least in the peaks?

Is it stock-related? Can the 321s operate the branch, or only the 313s
for some reason (e.g. clearance)? Or is it simply line capacity?


321s can and sometimes do operate the branch. The problem is
hand-operated points connecting the branch to the WCML slow lines.
Capacity at Euston is also claimed as a problem so there seems to be
no enthusiasm to sort out the points.


I was under the impression that it was the need for trains to cross over
the whole WCML on the flat to reach the DC lines. (BICBW)


This is not necessary. Through trains to Euston stopping at all DC
stations would not be well received.

Is there capacity for anything else? I was thinking just of extending
Euston - Watford Jcn DCs to St Albans.

I believe Silverlink were told that even the resignalled Euston
approaches could not handle any more trains once Virgin needs were
met. They asked for suggestions as to where else through trains might
usefully go - I don't think any practical ones were forthcoming.
--
Peter Lawrence