mahoneysharman at google mail dot com

wrote in message
...
In article , (Roland
Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 16:55:40 on Mon, 12 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:
What a pity the line between Hitchin and Bedford was
closed all those years ago.

what a pity the line from Bedford to Cambridge was closed (all those
years ago)

as otherwise we wouldn't be looking for a different route at all
because some of it (presumably) has been built over

Not just built over (Radio telescope, M11, Trumpington Meadows
Estate, Trumpington P&R, Guided Bus; as well as numerous other
stretches including a school and housing estate in north Sandy and
quite a lot of roads/buildings in south east Bedford) but also a very
wiggly route you couldn't suddenly have 100mph trains careering along.

People don't seem to realise how paltry the Cambridge-Oxford train service
was until 1967. Trains were slow and infrequent.

1953
M-F
It's not clear which, if any, are through trains
Cambridge d 7:37 9:29 11:18 2:05 4:40 6:15 9:45
Bletchley a 9:14 11:00 12:53 3:42 6:16 7:55 10:57
Oxford a 10:30 1:18 2:38 6:12 9:24 --:-- --:--
Sat same number of services slightly different timings
Sun two services.

1964
M-F
Cambridge d 7:30 9:52 10:43 2:12 4:47 6:18 7:01 9:10
Bedford a 8:27 10:51 11:24 3:05 5:40 7:11 7:41 10:04
Oxford a 10:29 12:40 12:40 4:53 --:-- --:-- 9:01 10:57
Sat one extra service slightly different timings
Sun two services.

Sorry if it comes out all messed up

tim



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

In article , (tim...)
wrote:

*Subject:* Oxford to Cambridge rail route.
*From:* "tim..."
*Date:* Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:19:28 -0000

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 16:55:40 on Mon, 12 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:
What a pity the line between Hitchin and Bedford was
closed all those years ago.

what a pity the line from Bedford to Cambridge was closed (all
those
years ago)

as otherwise we wouldn't be looking for a different route at all
because some of it (presumably) has been built over

Not just built over (Radio telescope, M11, Trumpington Meadows
Estate, Trumpington P&R, Guided Bus; as well as numerous other
stretches including a school and housing estate in north Sandy and
quite a lot of roads/buildings in south east Bedford) but also a
very
wiggly route you couldn't suddenly have 100mph trains careering
along.

People don't seem to realise how paltry the Cambridge-Oxford train
service
was until 1967. Trains were slow and infrequent.

1953
M-F
It's not clear which, if any, are through trains
Cambridge d 7:37 9:29 11:18 2:05 4:40 6:15 9:45
Bletchley a 9:14 11:00 12:53 3:42 6:16 7:55 10:57
Oxford a 10:30 1:18 2:38 6:12 9:24 --:-- --:--
Sat same number of services slightly different timings
Sun two services.

1964
M-F
Cambridge d 7:30 9:52 10:43 2:12 4:47 6:18 7:01 9:10
Bedford a 8:27 10:51 11:24 3:05 5:40 7:11 7:41 10:04
Oxford a 10:29 12:40 12:40 4:53 --:-- --:-- 9:01 10:57
Sat one extra service slightly different timings
Sun two services.

Sorry if it comes out all messed up

The timetable in the 1962 Varsity Handbook (valid until 16th June 1963) was
quite like that in 1964 but only 3 trains on Mondays-Fridays, 2 out and 3
back on Saturdays, went through without changing at Bletchley. There were no
through trains on Sundays and only 1 journey there and 2 back, all changing
at Bletchley.

The timetable was:

Cambridge Oxford Oxford Cambridge
dep. arr. dep. arr.
Weekdays
7.30 10.28 C 7.58 10.27
10.45 12.49 SO 9.40 11.34 SO
10.45 12.52 MF 9.48 11.44 MF
11.22 2,45 SO C 11.30 3.33 C
2.12 4.47 SO 2.48 5.21 MF
2.12 4.53 MF 2.55 5.21 SO
7.1 9.0 5.25 8.18 SO C
9.0 10.57 MF 6.48 8.54 MF
6.53 8.54 SO
7.55 10.19 SO C
7.55 10.21 MF C

Sunday
10.10 2.0 C 10.40 2.12 C
4.55 8.11 C

MF = Monday to Friday only.
SO = Saturday only.
C = Change at Bletchley; otherwise through carriages Oxford and Cambridge.

I hope it is clear which times are AM and which are PM (bold in the
original).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 16:19:28 on Wed, 14 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:
People don't seem to realise how paltry the Cambridge-Oxford train service
was until 1967. Trains were slow and infrequent.

1953
M-F
It's not clear which, if any, are through trains

Those will be the two with ~1.5hrs between the arrivals, rather than
~2.5hrs.

Cambridge d 7:37 9:29 11:18 2:05 4:40 6:15 9:45
Bletchley a 9:14 11:00 12:53 3:42 6:16 7:55 10:57
Oxford a 10:30 1:18 2:38 6:12 9:24 --:-- --:--

--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:16:18 on Tue, 13 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:

East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.

but it is the complete new build part, albeit on a closed track bed,

No it's not.

so which part of Bedford (St John's) to Sandy has track in situ then

Are you completely incapable of looking at the plans for yourself?

As I was just discussing the route's potential as a useful "profitable"
service, I didn't really see it necessary. All that was relevant here
was that the route was new build and not simply a restoration of a
passenger service on a freight line, and therefore zillions of times
more expensive to build.

It was you who started nit-picking about whether the route was on
long-closed track bed or a completely new route, but that's irrelevant
to my point.

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

And how come suddenly "closed track bed" turns into "track in situ".

you claimed that it wasn't a closed track

I naturally assumed that you thought it a currently open (in part) track

Rather than say what things *aren't*, more clarity would emerge if you
said at the time what you thought they *were*,

To try to nail down this blizzard of shifting goalposts, the current
preferred C2-2 route is on existing tracks to just south of Bedford,
then 39km of new build to Shepreth, where it joins the existing tracks.

The point is that West of Bletchley is not "closed" - technically anyway.

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.

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.

The possibility of a Cambridge - MK - Manchester service was discounted
due to insufficient through passengers being forecast versus the need to
buy new (rather than divert existing) rolling stock.

--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:16:18 on Tue, 13 Dec 2016,
tim... remarked:

East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.

but it is the complete new build part, albeit on a closed track bed,

No it's not.

so which part of Bedford (St John's) to Sandy has track in situ then

Are you completely incapable of looking at the plans for yourself?

As I was just discussing the route's potential as a useful "profitable"
service, I didn't really see it necessary. All that was relevant here was
that the route was new build and not simply a restoration of a passenger
service on a freight line, and therefore zillions of times more expensive
to build.

It was you who started nit-picking about whether the route was on
long-closed track bed or a completely new route, but that's irrelevant to
my point.

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?


And how come suddenly "closed track bed" turns into "track in situ".

you claimed that it wasn't a closed track

I naturally assumed that you thought it a currently open (in part) track

Rather than say what things *aren't*, more clarity would emerge if you
said at the time what you thought they *were*,

I did say what I thought it was - "a closed track bed".

That I was wrong doesn't change the fact that I said it.


To try to nail down this blizzard of shifting goalposts, the current
preferred C2-2 route is on existing tracks to just south of Bedford, then
39km of new build to Shepreth, where it joins the existing tracks.

The point is that West of Bletchley is not "closed" - technically
anyway.

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?

Is that really reasonable?

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?

tim



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

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 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.

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).
--
Roland Perry

"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

In message , at 11:43:39 on Sun, 18 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:


"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

Who wrote "why then did you bring up the topic?"

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)

Because you pile on more mistakes with every posting, it's become
ridiculous.

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.

We've moved on, to trying to get you to realise it's the
"West/Central/Eastern" terminology that you are mistaken about.

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.

AFAIA it's just for the Bedford-Cambridge section.

Hence the reason why my use of East and West refers to parts of that
complete line.

THE COMPLETE LINE IS OXFORD TO THE COAST

The West part being the part that is, I believe, currently funded and
the East the part that is not.

THE EASTERN PART IS ALREADY BUILT. IT'S FROM CAMBRIDGE TO THE COAST.

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

I GIVE UP. YOU'VE BEEN TOLD THIS STUFF OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
--
Roland Perry