"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 16:51:10 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:33:50 on Mon, 12 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant local
journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern

Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.

From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else at
all, that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.

There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services and
as there are already established customers for the local stations west
of Bedford opening up more destinations for these travelers could be
advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a complete white elephant.

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.


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


and therefore has to meet new higher standards at road intersections (if
there are any)

So would a track on either a closed track bed

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

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.

(which it's not) or a new track bed (which it is).

so your argument is that it's on a new alignment

See "new alignment" vs "closed track bed".

still doesn't negate my point that East of Bedford is the completely new
build,

On "closed track bed", or something else?

It doesn't' matter. It is new build and therefore much more expensive to
do.


West of Bedford is existing track

I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.

we are

I am explaining my rational by referring back to the rest of the route

tim




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

tim... wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 16:51:10 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:33:50 on Mon, 12 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant local
journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern

Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.

From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else at
all, that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.

There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services and
as there are already established customers for the local stations west
of Bedford opening up more destinations for these travelers could be
advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a complete white elephant.

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.


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


and therefore has to meet new higher standards at road intersections (if
there are any)

So would a track on either a closed track bed

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

The Western section is the part West of Bletchley that is an in situ freight
line

Really? When did a train of any description last run between Bletchley and
Calvert?

It's been disused for years, and allegedly some of the track has been
nicked.

In article , (tim...)
wrote:

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.

I wouldn't assume new construction is much more expensive than restoring a
mothballed freight route or a line currently open like the Marston vale
section.

I was surprised to see estimated costs for the various East-West Rail
sections which shown the most expensive bit to be the Marston Vale upgrade.
A lot of work has since been done on that section but, new construction
doesn't generate so much compensation to existing operators. Its costs are
also a lot more predictable as HS1 discovered.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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