|
New York Times on Crossrail
Good article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/w...T.nav=top-news "But standing one recent morning on that empty Crossrail platform, where construction workers in orange gear and hard hats hauled shiny metal panels to line the walls, I still couldn't help wondering whether the new train leads toward another glorious era for this city, or signals the end of one." |
New York Times on Crossrail
In message 2017073115023493883-email@domaincom, at 15:02:34 on Mon, 31
Jul 2017, eastender remarked: Good article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/w...ssrail-uk-brex it.html?_r=0&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clic kSource=story-heading&m odule=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news "... Tottenham Court Road. Escalator banks descend through a sleek, silent black ticket hall where towering, empty, white-tiled passageways snake toward the new, vaulted train platform, curving like a half moon into the subterranean darkness." Ah, so the platforms do have a curve. "hauled shiny metal panels to line the walls" Oh dear, I hope those aren't inflammable cladding. -- Roland Perry |
New York Times on Crossrail
On 2017\07\31 15:02, eastender wrote:
Good article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/w...T.nav=top-news "But standing one recent morning on that empty Crossrail platform, where construction workers in orange gear and hard hats hauled shiny metal panels to line the walls, I still couldn't help wondering whether the new train leads toward another glorious era for this city, or signals the end of one." The NYT is infamous for its bias. I'm surprised they didn't manage to fit blaming Trump for something into it. |
New York Times on Crossrail
Basil Jet wrote:
The NYT is infamous for its bias. I'm surprised they didn't manage to fit blaming Trump for something into it. This. The photos were nice, but I'd ignore any of the words. The NYT is still hoping someone will step in and cancel Brexit. |
New York Times on Crossrail
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:33:50 -0600, Arthur Conan Doyle
wrote: Basil Jet wrote: The NYT is infamous for its bias. I'm surprised they didn't manage to fit blaming Trump for something into it. This. The photos were nice, but I'd ignore any of the words. The NYT is still hoping someone will step in and cancel Brexit. As probably do a fair swag of Brexiteers suffering from "OMG, what 'ave we done?" Mind you, I'm happy: you lot carved about $CAD1,000 off a $5,800 cruise, denominated in GBP. |
New York Times on Crossrail
On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 12:15:44 AM UTC+1, Nobody wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:33:50 -0600, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote: Basil Jet wrote: The NYT is infamous for its bias. I'm surprised they didn't manage to fit blaming Trump for something into it. This. The photos were nice, but I'd ignore any of the words. The NYT is still hoping someone will step in and cancel Brexit. As probably do a fair swag of Brexiteers suffering from "OMG, what 'ave we done?" Mind you, I'm happy: you lot carved about $CAD1,000 off a $5,800 cruise, denominated in GBP. This Brexiteer is not suffering at all. Nor any of my friends. We do all notice that many Remainers seem to want the U. K to fail in the cowardly new world. |
New York Times on Crossrail
On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 9:13:40 AM UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 12:15:44 AM UTC+1, Nobody wrote: On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:33:50 -0600, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote: Basil Jet wrote: The NYT is infamous for its bias. I'm surprised they didn't manage to fit blaming Trump for something into it. This. The photos were nice, but I'd ignore any of the words. The NYT is still hoping someone will step in and cancel Brexit. As probably do a fair swag of Brexiteers suffering from "OMG, what 'ave we done?" Mind you, I'm happy: you lot carved about $CAD1,000 off a $5,800 cruise, denominated in GBP. This Brexiteer is not suffering at all. Nor any of my friends. We do all notice that many Remainers seem to want the U. K to fail in the cowardly new world. Plus one. |
New York Times on Crossrail
On Tuesday, 1 August 2017 13:03:02 UTC+1, e27002 wrote:
Plus one. Thank you, e27003. |
New York Times on Crossrail
On 2017-07-31 20:22:45 +0000, Basil Jet said:
The NYT is infamous for its bias. I'm surprised they didn't manage to fit blaming Trump for something into it. So why did they run this the other day: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/o...news.html?_r=0 The Good News on Brexit They're Not Telling You By DANIEL HANNAN |
New York Times on Crossrail
e27002 wrote on 01 Aug 2017 at 13:03 ...
On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 9:13:40 AM UTC+1, wrote: On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 12:15:44 AM UTC+1, Nobody wrote: On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:33:50 -0600, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote: Basil Jet wrote: The NYT is infamous for its bias. I'm surprised they didn't manage to fit blaming Trump for something into it. This. The photos were nice, but I'd ignore any of the words. The NYT is still hoping someone will step in and cancel Brexit. As probably do a fair swag of Brexiteers suffering from "OMG, what 'ave we done?" Mind you, I'm happy: you lot carved about $CAD1,000 off a $5,800 cruise, denominated in GBP. This Brexiteer is not suffering at all. Nor any of my friends. We do all notice that many Remainers seem to want the U. K to fail in the cowardly new world. Plus one. Could we have that in proper English, please? Otherwise, I'm not sure if one of these definitions applies ... -"used in a forum post to indicate that the post serves no purpose other than to increase the poster's postcount" or - "often used in a sarcastic manner to indicate the pointlessness of the entire thread." or - you liked the previous post. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
New York Times on Crossrail
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:43:28 +0100
"Richard J." wrote: e27002 wrote on 01 Aug 2017 at 13:03 ... On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 9:13:40 AM UTC+1, wrote: On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 12:15:44 AM UTC+1, Nobody wrote: On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:33:50 -0600, Arthur Conan Doyle wrote: Basil Jet wrote: The NYT is infamous for its bias. I'm surprised they didn't manage to fit blaming Trump for something into it. This. The photos were nice, but I'd ignore any of the words. The NYT is still hoping someone will step in and cancel Brexit. As probably do a fair swag of Brexiteers suffering from "OMG, what 'ave we done?" Mind you, I'm happy: you lot carved about $CAD1,000 off a $5,800 cruise, denominated in GBP. This Brexiteer is not suffering at all. Nor any of my friends. We do all notice that many Remainers seem to want the U. K to fail in the cowardly new world. Plus one. Could we have that in proper English, please? Otherwise, I'm not sure if one of these definitions applies ... Oh come on, you can't be that out of touch. Its +1 moderation points as used on numerous web forums. -- Spud |
New York Times on Crossrail
eastender wrote:
So why did they run this the other day: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/o...news.html?_r=0 The Good News on Brexit They're Not Telling You By DANIEL HANNAN That's an Op/Ed piece that does not reflect the NYT editorial position: Daniel Hannan (@DanielJHannan), Conservative of South East England, is a member of the European Parliament and the author, most recently, of “What Next: How to Get the Best from Brexit.” Occasionaly they'll let an opposing view through, just to make themselves feel better. |
Similarly, Modern Railways has published an anti HS2 retort
from Christian Wolmar to a silly and juvenile attack from Ian Walmsley in a previous edition. I don't think Modern Railways is opposed to HS2. (For what it's worth, I normally agree with Ian Walmsley and disagree strongly with Christian Wolmar) |
New York Times on Crossrail
Robin9 wrote:
Similarly, Modern Railways has published an anti HS2 retort from Christian Wolmar to a silly and juvenile attack from Ian Walmsley in a previous edition. I don't think Modern Railways is opposed to HS2. (For what it's worth, I normally agree with Ian Walmsley and disagree strongly with Christian Wolmar) Of course Wolmar normally writes for a rival railway mag, in which he regularly attacks HS2 in between his political commentaries. Rail is also pro-HS2 and pro-privatisation, but lets Womar take the opposite position on both. |
New York Times on Crossrail
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:49:26 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: Robin9 wrote: Similarly, Modern Railways has published an anti HS2 retort from Christian Wolmar to a silly and juvenile attack from Ian Walmsley in a previous edition. I don't think Modern Railways is opposed to HS2. (For what it's worth, I normally agree with Ian Walmsley and disagree strongly with Christian Wolmar) Of course Wolmar normally writes for a rival railway mag, in which he regularly attacks HS2 in between his political commentaries. Rail is also pro-HS2 and pro-privatisation, but lets Womar take the opposite position on both. Meanwhile there's no money left in the kitty for the MML electrification north of bedford or improvements and electrification of various northern routes. I can't help thinking someone in the government wants a legacy project to look back on, rather than something thats good value for money and actually useful to the most people. -- Spud |
New York Times on Crossrail
wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:49:26 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: Robin9 wrote: Similarly, Modern Railways has published an anti HS2 retort from Christian Wolmar to a silly and juvenile attack from Ian Walmsley in a previous edition. I don't think Modern Railways is opposed to HS2. (For what it's worth, I normally agree with Ian Walmsley and disagree strongly with Christian Wolmar) Of course Wolmar normally writes for a rival railway mag, in which he regularly attacks HS2 in between his political commentaries. Rail is also pro-HS2 and pro-privatisation, but lets Womar take the opposite position on both. Meanwhile there's no money left in the kitty for the MML electrification north of bedford or improvements and electrification of various northern routes. I'm pretty sure that the MML will be electrified to Kettering (and Corby). It's the sections north of there that are now off the agenda yet again. I can't help thinking someone in the government wants a legacy project to look back on, rather than something thats good value for money and actually useful to the most people. Unfortunately, electrifying and enhancing our Victorian main lines is not turning out to be good value for money. A new build line to enhance capacity and speed might actually be much better value for money. |
New York Times on Crossrail
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 10:04:23 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:49:26 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: Robin9 wrote: Similarly, Modern Railways has published an anti HS2 retort from Christian Wolmar to a silly and juvenile attack from Ian Walmsley in a previous edition. I don't think Modern Railways is opposed to HS2. (For what it's worth, I normally agree with Ian Walmsley and disagree strongly with Christian Wolmar) Of course Wolmar normally writes for a rival railway mag, in which he regularly attacks HS2 in between his political commentaries. Rail is also pro-HS2 and pro-privatisation, but lets Womar take the opposite position on both. Meanwhile there's no money left in the kitty for the MML electrification north of bedford or improvements and electrification of various northern routes. I'm pretty sure that the MML will be electrified to Kettering (and Corby). It's the sections north of there that are now off the agenda yet again. Whats special about kettering compared to Nottingham and Derby which are much larger connurbations? I can't help thinking someone in the government wants a legacy project to look back on, rather than something thats good value for money and actually useful to the most people. Unfortunately, electrifying and enhancing our Victorian main lines is not turning out to be good value for money. A new build line to enhance capacity and speed might actually be much better value for money. HS2 isn't much use if you want to get across the pennines in a hurry. And yes, I imagine sticking up catenary can be a problem in restrictive tunnels and having to raise bridges. Of course if the HSE wasn't so against laying any more 3rd rail (which is perfectly satisfactory for commuter lines) the whole problem would go away. It doesn't have to be the type of 3rd rail in the SE or liverpool, it could be much safer bottom contact as on the DLR. -- Spud |
New York Times on Crossrail
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 10:57:43 AM UTC+1, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 09:49:26 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: Robin9 wrote: Similarly, Modern Railways has published an anti HS2 retort from Christian Wolmar to a silly and juvenile attack from Ian Walmsley in a previous edition. I don't think Modern Railways is opposed to HS2. (For what it's worth, I normally agree with Ian Walmsley and disagree strongly with Christian Wolmar) Of course Wolmar normally writes for a rival railway mag, in which he regularly attacks HS2 in between his political commentaries. Rail is also pro-HS2 and pro-privatisation, but lets Womar take the opposite position on both. Meanwhile there's no money left in the kitty for the MML electrification north of bedford or improvements and electrification of various northern routes. I can't help thinking someone in the government wants a legacy project to look back on, rather than something thats good value for money and actually useful to the most people. +1 :-) |
New York Times on Crossrail
|
New York Times on Crossrail
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 11:46:40 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:23:22 on Wed, 2 Aug 2017, d remarked: I'm pretty sure that the MML will be electrified to Kettering (and Corby). It's the sections north of there that are now off the agenda yet again. Whats special about kettering compared to Nottingham and Derby which are much larger connurbations? Only that it's the junction to Corby. Frankly, they should implement one So whats special about Corby? They're both past their best midlands towns without much going for them. of those battery EMUs shuttling between Corby and Kettering - with charging wires at either station - and leave north of Bedford to diesels. At least until they can find the money to extend Thameslink to Leicester. Either you find more paths for extra trains or no one south of Luton will be able to get on in the rush hour if you extended Thameslink that far north. Plus the timetable would probably become a work of fiction. -- Spud |
New York Times on Crossrail
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 11:46:40 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 10:23:22 on Wed, 2 Aug 2017, d remarked: I'm pretty sure that the MML will be electrified to Kettering (and Corby). It's the sections north of there that are now off the agenda yet again. Whats special about kettering compared to Nottingham and Derby which are much larger connurbations? Only that it's the junction to Corby. Frankly, they should implement one of those battery EMUs shuttling between Corby and Kettering - with charging wires at either station - and leave north of Bedford to diesels. At least until they can find the money to extend Thameslink to Leicester. A class 700 all the way to Leicester? Ouch! |
New York Times on Crossrail
In message , at 12:39:39 on
Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Recliner remarked: I'm pretty sure that the MML will be electrified to Kettering (and Corby). It's the sections north of there that are now off the agenda yet again. Whats special about kettering compared to Nottingham and Derby which are much larger connurbations? Only that it's the junction to Corby. Frankly, they should implement one of those battery EMUs shuttling between Corby and Kettering - with charging wires at either station - and leave north of Bedford to diesels. At least until they can find the money to extend Thameslink to Leicester. A class 700 all the way to Leicester? Ouch! How far further north do you think Leicester is than Peterborough? -- Roland Perry |
New York Times on Crossrail
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 13:41:37 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:52:28 on Wed, 2 Aug 2017, d remarked: They're both past their best midlands towns without much going for them. People were trying to reverse that decline. Great, but I would have thought leicester and nottingham would be first on the midlands list, especially the latter. Either you find more paths for extra trains or no one south of Luton will be able to get on in the rush hour Clearly you've not read the reports of train loading on the line. I haven't. But I did have a friend who commuted on the line from herts for a number of years and apparently it was cosy in the rush hour. Ok, this was 10 years ago now but I doubt the number of passengers has declined. if you extended Thameslink that far north. How far further north do you think Leicester is than Peterborough? IMO the Thameslink equivalent on the ELL is the Great Northern into Moorgate and that only goes as far north as Stevenage. All the peterborough trains AFAIK are fast trains that stop at very few stations. -- Spud |
New York Times on Crossrail
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 13:43:37 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 12:39:39 on Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Recliner remarked: I'm pretty sure that the MML will be electrified to Kettering (and Corby). It's the sections north of there that are now off the agenda yet again. Whats special about kettering compared to Nottingham and Derby which are much larger connurbations? Only that it's the junction to Corby. Frankly, they should implement one of those battery EMUs shuttling between Corby and Kettering - with charging wires at either station - and leave north of Bedford to diesels. At least until they can find the money to extend Thameslink to Leicester. A class 700 all the way to Leicester? Ouch! How far further north do you think Leicester is than Peterborough? By rail, I'd have thought it was nearly 20 miles further? Mind you, I wouldn't want to travel even as far as Peterborough on a class 700. |
New York Times on Crossrail
In message , at 12:57:25 on Wed, 2 Aug
2017, d remarked: On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 13:41:37 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:52:28 on Wed, 2 Aug 2017, d remarked: They're both past their best midlands towns without much going for them. People were trying to reverse that decline. Great, but I would have thought leicester and nottingham would be first on the midlands list, especially the latter. Either you find more paths for extra trains or no one south of Luton will be able to get on in the rush hour Clearly you've not read the reports of train loading on the line. I haven't. But I did have a friend who commuted on the line from herts for a number of years and apparently it was cosy in the rush hour. Ok, this was 10 years ago now but I doubt the number of passengers has declined. The Leicester pax (who currently only have a share of 4tph much shorter trains) will be spread across all the extended Bedford trains. if you extended Thameslink that far north. How far further north do you think Leicester is than Peterborough? IMO the Thameslink equivalent on the ELL is the Great Northern into Moorgate and that only goes as far north as Stevenage. All the peterborough trains AFAIK are fast trains that stop at very few stations. The only stations between Bedford and Leicester are Wellingborough, Kettering and Market Harborough. -- Roland Perry |
New York Times on Crossrail
In message , at 14:19:14 on
Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Recliner remarked: A class 700 all the way to Leicester? Ouch! How far further north do you think Leicester is than Peterborough? By rail, I'd have thought it was nearly 20 miles further? Very close in mileage. For trains with a similar number of stops it's just 7 minutes. And that's with diesel on the MML, an electric train should be able to close the gap significantly. Mind you, I wouldn't want to travel even as far as Peterborough on a class 700. That's a different issue, but affects both routes. -- Roland Perry |
New York Times on Crossrail
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 14:34:02 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 14:19:14 on Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Recliner remarked: A class 700 all the way to Leicester? Ouch! How far further north do you think Leicester is than Peterborough? By rail, I'd have thought it was nearly 20 miles further? Very close in mileage. For trains with a similar number of stops it's just 7 minutes. And that's with diesel on the MML, an electric train should be able to close the gap significantly. Or not, as the case may be: the current diesels can travel at up to 125mph, but the wiring to Bedford was only designed for 100mph running. And IEPs on diesel power probably won't be able to get up to 125mph. So if the HSTs are replaced by IEPs, the service may actually slow down. Mind you, I wouldn't want to travel even as far as Peterborough on a class 700. That's a different issue, but affects both routes. Indeed so. |
New York Times on Crossrail
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 14:27:41 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 12:57:25 on Wed, 2 Aug 2017, d remarked: IMO the Thameslink equivalent on the ELL is the Great Northern into Moorgate and that only goes as far north as Stevenage. All the peterborough trains AFAIK are fast trains that stop at very few stations. The only stations between Bedford and Leicester are Wellingborough, Kettering and Market Harborough. And those stations will attract everyone from surrounding villages and towns. Plus its twive the distance of london - stevenage so plenty of scope for the timekeeping to go pear shaped. -- Spud |
New York Times on Crossrail
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 14:43:58 +0100
Recliner wrote: On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 14:34:02 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 14:19:14 on Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Recliner remarked: A class 700 all the way to Leicester? Ouch! How far further north do you think Leicester is than Peterborough? By rail, I'd have thought it was nearly 20 miles further? Very close in mileage. For trains with a similar number of stops it's just 7 minutes. And that's with diesel on the MML, an electric train should be able to close the gap significantly. Or not, as the case may be: the current diesels can travel at up to 125mph, but the wiring to Bedford was only designed for 100mph running. And IEPs on diesel power probably won't be able to get up to 125mph. So if the HSTs are replaced by IEPs, the service may actually slow down. Thats an interesting point. I suppose the DoT would argue the better acceleration of the IEP will make up for it but I suspect thats unlikely over longer distances. -- Spud |
New York Times on Crossrail
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 14:43:58 +0100 Recliner wrote: On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 14:34:02 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 14:19:14 on Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Recliner remarked: A class 700 all the way to Leicester? Ouch! How far further north do you think Leicester is than Peterborough? By rail, I'd have thought it was nearly 20 miles further? Very close in mileage. For trains with a similar number of stops it's just 7 minutes. And that's with diesel on the MML, an electric train should be able to close the gap significantly. Or not, as the case may be: the current diesels can travel at up to 125mph, but the wiring to Bedford was only designed for 100mph running. And IEPs on diesel power probably won't be able to get up to 125mph. So if the HSTs are replaced by IEPs, the service may actually slow down. Thats an interesting point. I suppose the DoT would argue the better acceleration of the IEP will make up for it but I suspect thats unlikely over longer distances. Better acceleration under the wires, yes, but not on diesel north of Kettering. So you have three zones: 1. SPILL to Bedford. Already electrified, but only designed for 100mph trains. There was a project to upgrade it for more, faster trains, but I don't know if that project will continue. If it doesn't, IEPs will have good acceleration, but lower top speeds than the old diesels. 2. Bedford to Kettering. Newly electrified, suitable for 125 mph electric or diesel trains. IEPs will outperform the existing diesels. 3. Kettering to Leicester and on to Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield. Electrification work started, but work will be suspended indefinitely. Bi-mode IEPs will be able to run, but performance will be worse than current diesel trains, specially the Meridians. |
New York Times on Crossrail
|
New York Times on Crossrail
In message , at 14:43:58 on
Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Recliner remarked: A class 700 all the way to Leicester? Ouch! How far further north do you think Leicester is than Peterborough? By rail, I'd have thought it was nearly 20 miles further? Very close in mileage. For trains with a similar number of stops it's just 7 minutes. And that's with diesel on the MML, an electric train should be able to close the gap significantly. Or not, as the case may be: the current diesels can travel at up to 125mph, but the wiring to Bedford was only designed for 100mph Even if the latter is true (I don't recall anyone saying that the MML electrification to Sheffield would mean re-doing London-Bedford), the line speed for the InterCity trains south of Bedford isn't as high as 125mph. running. And IEPs on diesel power probably won't be able to get up to 125mph. Huh? The InterCity trains on MML will converge upon Meridians/Voyagers, once the HSTs are retired. So if the HSTs are replaced by IEPs, They won't be. the service may actually slow down. -- Roland Perry |
New York Times on Crossrail
In message
-sept ember.org, at 15:37:37 on Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Recliner remarked: A class 700 all the way to Leicester? Ouch! How far further north do you think Leicester is than Peterborough? By rail, I'd have thought it was nearly 20 miles further? Very close in mileage. For trains with a similar number of stops it's just 7 minutes. And that's with diesel on the MML, an electric train should be able to close the gap significantly. Or not, as the case may be: the current diesels can travel at up to 125mph, but the wiring to Bedford was only designed for 100mph running. And IEPs on diesel power probably won't be able to get up to 125mph. So if the HSTs are replaced by IEPs, the service may actually slow down. Thats an interesting point. I suppose the DoT would argue the better acceleration of the IEP will make up for it but I suspect thats unlikely over longer distances. Better acceleration under the wires, yes, but not on diesel north of Kettering. So you have three zones: 1. SPILL to Bedford. Already electrified, but only designed for 100mph trains. There was a project to upgrade it for more, faster trains, but I don't know if that project will continue. If it doesn't, IEPs will have good acceleration, but lower top speeds than the old diesels. But IEPs aren't expected on that line. 2. Bedford to Kettering. Newly electrified, Is it, already? suitable for 125 mph electric or diesel trains. IEPs will outperform the existing diesels. 3. Kettering to Leicester and on to Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield. Electrification work started, Just a few bridge works. but work will be suspended indefinitely. Bi-mode IEPs will be able to run, but performance will be worse than current diesel trains, specially the Meridians. So keep the Meridians. -- Roland Perry |
New York Times on Crossrail
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 17:46:36 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 14:43:58 on Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Recliner remarked: A class 700 all the way to Leicester? Ouch! How far further north do you think Leicester is than Peterborough? By rail, I'd have thought it was nearly 20 miles further? Very close in mileage. For trains with a similar number of stops it's just 7 minutes. And that's with diesel on the MML, an electric train should be able to close the gap significantly. Or not, as the case may be: the current diesels can travel at up to 125mph, but the wiring to Bedford was only designed for 100mph Even if the latter is true (I don't recall anyone saying that the MML electrification to Sheffield would mean re-doing London-Bedford), the line speed for the InterCity trains south of Bedford isn't as high as 125mph. Isn't it over 100mph in places? running. And IEPs on diesel power probably won't be able to get up to 125mph. Huh? The InterCity trains on MML will converge upon Meridians/Voyagers, once the HSTs are retired. Where will they get them from? So if the HSTs are replaced by IEPs, They won't be. I take it you don't read any railway magazines? |
New York Times on Crossrail
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 17:48:10 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message -sept ember.org, at 15:37:37 on Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Recliner remarked: A class 700 all the way to Leicester? Ouch! How far further north do you think Leicester is than Peterborough? By rail, I'd have thought it was nearly 20 miles further? Very close in mileage. For trains with a similar number of stops it's just 7 minutes. And that's with diesel on the MML, an electric train should be able to close the gap significantly. Or not, as the case may be: the current diesels can travel at up to 125mph, but the wiring to Bedford was only designed for 100mph running. And IEPs on diesel power probably won't be able to get up to 125mph. So if the HSTs are replaced by IEPs, the service may actually slow down. Thats an interesting point. I suppose the DoT would argue the better acceleration of the IEP will make up for it but I suspect thats unlikely over longer distances. Better acceleration under the wires, yes, but not on diesel north of Kettering. So you have three zones: 1. SPILL to Bedford. Already electrified, but only designed for 100mph trains. There was a project to upgrade it for more, faster trains, but I don't know if that project will continue. If it doesn't, IEPs will have good acceleration, but lower top speeds than the old diesels. But IEPs aren't expected on that line. Aren't they... 2. Bedford to Kettering. Newly electrified, Is it, already? Not completed, but intended to be. suitable for 125 mph electric or diesel trains. IEPs will outperform the existing diesels. 3. Kettering to Leicester and on to Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield. Electrification work started, Just a few bridge works. but work will be suspended indefinitely. Bi-mode IEPs will be able to run, but performance will be worse than current diesel trains, specially the Meridians. So keep the Meridians. Yes, but not the HSTs. |
New York Times on Crossrail
In article , d () wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 13:41:37 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:52:28 on Wed, 2 Aug 2017, d remarked: if you extended Thameslink that far north. How far further north do you think Leicester is than Peterborough? IMO the Thameslink equivalent on the ELL is the Great Northern into Moorgate and that only goes as far north as Stevenage. All the peterborough trains AFAIK are fast trains that stop at very few stations. I know you think it's above you to actually check before committing hands to keyboard but I think you'll find that Thameslink services to Peterborough start next year. Google "Thameslink Timetable 2018". It will be a half-hourly service to Horsham calling at all stations between Peterborough and Hatfield plus Potters Bar and Finsbury Park as far as the GN section is concerned. This is as the present hourly slow GN trains from King's Cross to Peterborough. They also replace present hourly semi-fast trains off-peak though some extra peak trains to King's Cross will remain. The latter will be the main use for residual class 365 units. GTR have already constructed some stabling sidings at Peterborough to accommodate the trains. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
New York Times on Crossrail
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:19:14 on Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Recliner remarked: A class 700 all the way to Leicester? Ouch! How far further north do you think Leicester is than Peterborough? By rail, I'd have thought it was nearly 20 miles further? Very close in mileage. Hardly: here are the actual figures: Peterborough: 76m 29h (76.36m) Leicester: 99m 07ch (99.09m) So Leicester is almost 23 miles further from London, a bit more than my quick initial guess. I note that you describe a 30% difference as 'very close'. I'll remember that the next time you nit-pick over much smaller differences. Perhaps you should know the answers *before* setting challenges for people more than capable of doing their own research? |
New York Times on Crossrail
In message , at 20:27:13 on
Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Recliner remarked: 1. SPILL to Bedford. Already electrified, but only designed for 100mph trains. There was a project to upgrade it for more, faster trains, but I don't know if that project will continue. If it doesn't, IEPs will have good acceleration, but lower top speeds than the old diesels. But IEPs aren't expected on that line. Aren't they... No, all the ones on order are spoken for by VTEC and GWR. 2. Bedford to Kettering. Newly electrified, Is it, already? Not completed, but intended to be. We are talking about NR and Grayling here. The only thing you can reasonably expect is that whatever they claim today may change tomorrow. suitable for 125 mph electric or diesel trains. IEPs will outperform the existing diesels. 3. Kettering to Leicester and on to Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield. Electrification work started, Just a few bridge works. but work will be suspended indefinitely. Bi-mode IEPs will be able to run, but performance will be worse than current diesel trains, specially the Meridians. So keep the Meridians. Yes, but not the HSTs. There's only one tph (to Nottingham) operated by HSTs, and now electrification has been cancelled they'll have to find something else to replace the HST. But I doubt it'll be IEPs. -- Roland Perry |
New York Times on Crossrail
In message , at 20:26:51 on
Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Recliner remarked: On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 17:46:36 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 14:43:58 on Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Recliner remarked: A class 700 all the way to Leicester? Ouch! How far further north do you think Leicester is than Peterborough? By rail, I'd have thought it was nearly 20 miles further? Very close in mileage. For trains with a similar number of stops it's just 7 minutes. And that's with diesel on the MML, an electric train should be able to close the gap significantly. Or not, as the case may be: the current diesels can travel at up to 125mph, but the wiring to Bedford was only designed for 100mph Even if the latter is true (I don't recall anyone saying that the MML electrification to Sheffield would mean re-doing London-Bedford), the line speed for the InterCity trains south of Bedford isn't as high as 125mph. Isn't it over 100mph in places? Why does that matter - it's 4 track so the Meridians and Thameslink trains can be segregated. running. And IEPs on diesel power probably won't be able to get up to 125mph. Huh? The InterCity trains on MML will converge upon Meridians/Voyagers, once the HSTs are retired. Where will they get them from? They only need enough for 1tph. So if the HSTs are replaced by IEPs, They won't be. I take it you don't read any railway magazines? I don't read magazines yet to be printed. MML electrification was only cancelled ten days ago. -- Roland Perry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:16 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk