Why are Chiltern's London services crap?
 

On 2016\08\29 08:28, e27002 aurora wrote:

Most stations on the GCGW joint route had four tracks between the
platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.

Is the tunnel between Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park four-track?

Why are Chiltern's London services crap?
 

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 14:15:49 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\08\29 08:28, e27002 aurora wrote:

Most stations on the GCGW joint route had four tracks between the
platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.

Is the tunnel between Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park four-track?

No.

Why are Chiltern's London services crap?
 

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\08\29 08:28, e27002 aurora wrote:

Most stations on the GCGW joint route had four tracks between the
platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.

Is the tunnel between Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park four-track?

You're joking, right? There are no four-track sections between Marylebone
and Banbury, and none outside a station.

But why should the British taxpayer have to pay for it?
To a great extent, it doesn't matter who owns the railway.
It's a major industry and should be run properly, and that
includes keeping costs down. It also includes making sure
that income is sufficient to pay for everything.

How can Chiltern trains with their minimal three coach
payload finance high track costs? They probably can't pay
for a single track!

Why are Chiltern's London services crap?
 

On 2016\08\29 16:55, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\08\29 08:28, e27002 aurora wrote:

Most stations on the GCGW joint route had four tracks between the
platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.

Is the tunnel between Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park four-track?

You're joking, right? There are no four-track sections between Marylebone
and Banbury, and none outside a station.

I didn't mean are there four tracks, I meant is it wide enough for four
tracks.

Why are Chiltern's London services crap?
 

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 14:23:23 +0100, e27002 aurora
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 14:15:49 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\08\29 08:28, e27002 aurora wrote:

Most stations on the GCGW joint route had four tracks between the
platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.

Is the tunnel between Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park four-track?

No.

And it is cuit-and-cover so very difficult to do anything with.

Guy Gorton

Why are Chiltern's London services crap?
 

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:19:30 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Hearn
wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 8:28:32 AM UTC+1, e27002 wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:27:24 +0200, Robin9
wrote:

Corrected versio.

e27002 aurora;157776 Wrote:


It is intended to be a four track mainline. The fasts to Birmingham
would use the fast pair. The stopping service to Aylesbury, and
Milton Keynes would use the slow pair.

A four track mainline? How many trains a day will run
on it? And carrying how many passengers? The Chiltern
trains I've seen are three coaches long!

Since the privatisation of the railways, it seems no-one
any longer cares about track and signalling costs and cares
even less about who is paying for them.

Network Rail are projecting demand forward to 2043.

Most stations on the GCGW joint route had four tracks between the
platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.

Sadly, the socialists, and their nationalized railway, did rather a
good(1) job of managing decline. The British taxpayer is now paying
the price.

(1) for some perverse value of good.

Total Route Modernisation included building wider platforms on the formation, so making re-four tracking much more difficult. It was under the Conservatives btw.

Patrick

British Railways was clearly a socialist creation. Its creation
followed the 1945 post war labour victory.

It is conceivable that the DfT (DoT?) had some input to the Total
Route Modernization. I would need evidence before believing there was
cabinet level input regarding destruction of the platform loops.

Why are Chiltern's London services crap?
 

On 30/08/2016 18:30, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:19:30 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Hearn
wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 8:28:32 AM UTC+1, e27002 wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:27:24 +0200, Robin9
wrote:

Corrected versio.

e27002 aurora;157776 Wrote:


It is intended to be a four track mainline. The fasts to Birmingham
would use the fast pair. The stopping service to Aylesbury, and
Milton Keynes would use the slow pair.

A four track mainline? How many trains a day will run
on it? And carrying how many passengers? The Chiltern
trains I've seen are three coaches long!

Since the privatisation of the railways, it seems no-one
any longer cares about track and signalling costs and cares
even less about who is paying for them.

Network Rail are projecting demand forward to 2043.

Most stations on the GCGW joint route had four tracks between the
platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.

Sadly, the socialists, and their nationalized railway, did rather a
good(1) job of managing decline. The British taxpayer is now paying
the price.

(1) for some perverse value of good.

Total Route Modernisation included building wider platforms on the formation, so making re-four tracking much more difficult. It was under the Conservatives btw.

Patrick

British Railways was clearly a socialist creation. Its creation
followed the 1945 post war labour victory.


Where do you get this strange idea that the Labour party is socialist?



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Why are Chiltern's London services crap?
 

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:40:41 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 30/08/2016 18:30, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:19:30 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Hearn
wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 8:28:32 AM UTC+1, e27002 wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:27:24 +0200, Robin9
wrote:

Corrected versio.

e27002 aurora;157776 Wrote:


It is intended to be a four track mainline. The fasts to Birmingham
would use the fast pair. The stopping service to Aylesbury, and
Milton Keynes would use the slow pair.

A four track mainline? How many trains a day will run
on it? And carrying how many passengers? The Chiltern
trains I've seen are three coaches long!

Since the privatisation of the railways, it seems no-one
any longer cares about track and signalling costs and cares
even less about who is paying for them.

Network Rail are projecting demand forward to 2043.

Most stations on the GCGW joint route had four tracks between the
platforms. Moreover,
enough land was purchased to enable a four track route.

Sadly, the socialists, and their nationalized railway, did rather a
good(1) job of managing decline. The British taxpayer is now paying
the price.

(1) for some perverse value of good.

Total Route Modernisation included building wider platforms on the formation, so making re-four tracking much more difficult. It was under the Conservatives btw.

Patrick

British Railways was clearly a socialist creation.

It was created by the government but the previous government had
itself threatened the railways with nationalisation when they got
uppity about government control in WW2.

Its creation
followed the 1945 post war labour victory.


Where do you get this strange idea that the Labour party is socialist?

Er, 1945 not 2016.