On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:07:59 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:11:18 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Or are you playing one of your silly nitpick games where you're going to say
that commuters are a specific type of passenger and you're actually referring
to passengers who arn't commuters? Whoever they may be. Trainspotters perhaps
or people going for a holiday in Reading.

Yes, you fell into the tabloid trap of thinking *all* passengers are
commuters. You also don't seem to realise the services that run on that
line.

Probably 95% of passengers on the railways are commuters. If commuting doesn't
justify electrification then its highly unlikely any other reason for travel
will.

https://news.surreycc.gov.uk/2016/05...-line-will-boo
t-economy-by-almost-2-billion/

"suggested that the electrification would create around 8,000 jobs and stimulate
£1.9 billion of economic growth."

In other words the figures were plucked out of someones arse just like those
for the heathrow 3rd runway.

"opening up exciting journey opportunities to support jobs and economic growth."

Ie: commuters. Though I'm not sure exciting is a word I'd use in this context
but politicians always over egg the pud and make themselves sound stupid.

So you think there's a weak case for electrifying the North Downs
line. And you may well be right.

But it has a *much* stronger case than electrifying a largely
single-track, quiet commuter line, which only has enough traffic for 1
tph for most of the day. And yet you're a fan of that. So make your
mind up.

On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 13:01:41 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:07:59 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
Ie: commuters. Though I'm not sure exciting is a word I'd use in this context
but politicians always over egg the pud and make themselves sound stupid.

So you think there's a weak case for electrifying the North Downs
line. And you may well be right.

But it has a *much* stronger case than electrifying a largely
single-track, quiet commuter line, which only has enough traffic for 1
tph for most of the day. And yet you're a fan of that. So make your
mind up.

I don't agree. The uckfield line if electrified and doubled or at least more
passing loops put in has the potential to turn uckfield and crowborough into
london commuter towns with a vast increase in traffic. The north downs line
has no such potential - it doesn't go to london and the towns it links already
have commuter links to the capital so where's the growth to come from? Perhaps
some extra gatwick traffic but thats about it IMO.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 13:01:41 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:07:59 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
Ie: commuters. Though I'm not sure exciting is a word I'd use in this context
but politicians always over egg the pud and make themselves sound stupid.

So you think there's a weak case for electrifying the North Downs
line. And you may well be right.

But it has a *much* stronger case than electrifying a largely
single-track, quiet commuter line, which only has enough traffic for 1
tph for most of the day. And yet you're a fan of that. So make your
mind up.

I don't agree. The uckfield line if electrified and doubled or at least more
passing loops put in has the potential to turn uckfield and crowborough into
london commuter towns with a vast increase in traffic. The north downs line
has no such potential - it doesn't go to london and the towns it links already
have commuter links to the capital so where's the growth to come from? Perhaps
some extra gatwick traffic but thats about it IMO.


It's an orbital route, not a commuter route. That's the whole point. And if
you want an example of a successful, growing orbital route, look no further
than LO.

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:07:59 on Thu, 6 Apr
2017, d remarked:

Yes, you fell into the tabloid trap of thinking *all* passengers are
commuters. You also don't seem to realise the services that run on that
line.

Probably 95% of passengers on the railways are commuters. If commuting doesn't
justify electrification then its highly unlikely any other reason for travel
will.

Not on that line. I have a friend who lives in Shalford and he cycles to
Guildford. People in Dorking will get the direct train, and people in
Reigate will use Redhill.

And the tph on the line, given you also need to change, is unsuitable
for commuters.

When I lived in Shalford, I commuted using that line. I think most
of the people on the train in the morning were commuters.

It was a poor commuting route to London (so I moved), but I'm certain
not all the commuters were commuting to London.

--
Mike Bristow

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 14:05:31 on Thu, 6 Apr 2017, Recliner
remarked:
Ie: commuters. Though I'm not sure exciting is a word I'd use in this context
but politicians always over egg the pud and make themselves sound stupid.

So you think there's a weak case for electrifying the North Downs
line. And you may well be right.

But it has a *much* stronger case than electrifying a largely
single-track, quiet commuter line, which only has enough traffic for 1
tph for most of the day. And yet you're a fan of that. So make your
mind up.

I don't agree. The uckfield line if electrified and doubled or at least more
passing loops put in has the potential to turn uckfield and crowborough into
london commuter towns with a vast increase in traffic. The north downs line
has no such potential - it doesn't go to london and the towns it links already
have commuter links to the capital so where's the growth to come from? Perhaps
some extra gatwick traffic but thats about it IMO.

It's an orbital route, not a commuter route. That's the whole point. And if
you want an example of a successful, growing orbital route, look no further
than LO.

As an orbital route it is *significantly* further (from the centre of
London) than LO.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:05:31 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
has no such potential - it doesn't go to london and the towns it links
already
have commuter links to the capital so where's the growth to come from?
Perhaps
some extra gatwick traffic but thats about it IMO.


It's an orbital route, not a commuter route. That's the whole point. And if
you want an example of a successful, growing orbital route, look no further
than LO.

Its 1/4 of an orbital route and you can hardly compare an inner city metro
type railway to one thats pretty much entirely in countryside and has very
few stops. Also orbital railways don't have the same raison d'etre as roads
like the M25 and M60. In a car there's a severe time penalty driving into
a city centre and out again (and in londons case a financial one too) compared
to driving around it. This isn't the case in a train.

You could argue that changing at reading then changing again at redhill onto
a gatwick train is quicker that staying on the HST to paddington, hopping
around to victoria and getting a southern service but I doubt there's much in
it.

--
Spud

Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:07:59 on Thu, 6 Apr
2017, d remarked:

Yes, you fell into the tabloid trap of thinking *all* passengers are
commuters. You also don't seem to realise the services that run on that
line.

Probably 95% of passengers on the railways are commuters. If commuting doesn't
justify electrification then its highly unlikely any other reason for travel
will.

Not on that line. I have a friend who lives in Shalford and he cycles to
Guildford. People in Dorking will get the direct train, and people in
Reigate will use Redhill.

And the tph on the line, given you also need to change, is unsuitable
for commuters.

When I lived in Shalford, I commuted using that line. I think most
of the people on the train in the morning were commuters.

It was a poor commuting route to London (so I moved), but I'm certain
not all the commuters were commuting to London.

Yes, it's an orbital route, not a London commuter route. As such, it should
have a decent amount of all-day traffic, unlike many commuter routes. This
would be particularly because of the Gatwick link. And if the trains were
electric, there would be the possibility of some running into the future
Heathrow western connection.

On 2017\04\06 12:58, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:07:59 on Thu, 6 Apr
2017, d remarked:

Yes, you fell into the tabloid trap of thinking *all* passengers are
commuters. You also don't seem to realise the services that run on that
line.

Probably 95% of passengers on the railways are commuters. If commuting
doesn't
justify electrification then its highly unlikely any other reason for
travel
will.

Not on that line. I have a friend who lives in Shalford and he cycles to
Guildford. People in Dorking will get the direct train, and people in
Reigate will use Redhill.

And the tph on the line, given you also need to change, is unsuitable
for commuters.

When I lived in Sutton and worked in Horsham, I often changed at Gatwick
and Dorking(s) if the last direct train home was cancelled.

In message , at 15:13:39 on Thu,
6 Apr 2017, Mike Bristow remarked:
Yes, you fell into the tabloid trap of thinking *all* passengers are
commuters. You also don't seem to realise the services that run on that
line.

Probably 95% of passengers on the railways are commuters. If commuting doesn't
justify electrification then its highly unlikely any other reason for travel
will.

Not on that line. I have a friend who lives in Shalford and he cycles to
Guildford. People in Dorking will get the direct train, and people in
Reigate will use Redhill.

And the tph on the line, given you also need to change, is unsuitable
for commuters.

When I lived in Shalford, I commuted using that line. I think most
of the people on the train in the morning were commuters.

So a whole couple of carriages full, once an hour?

It was a poor commuting route to London (so I moved), but I'm certain
not all the commuters were commuting to London.

--
Roland Perry