Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras isHeathrow T6, again)
 

On 29 Sep, 07:16, Roland Perry wrote:
But poor old St Pancras, already overcrowded, in the frame again (I
suppose they could scrap the Javelin services and run to the north from
that part of the station):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7641094.stm

The proposed 180mph rail link would run between St Pancras in London and
Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

The Conservatives hope the line would increase use of the Eurostar,
based at St Pancras, to the continent, and free up the West Coast
Mainline for more commuter journeys.

Journey times would be cut from 125 minutes to 80 minutes from London to
Manchester, and from 55 minutes to 17 minutes between Manchester and
Leeds.


Wow, that would appear to be a fairly unequivocal policy commitment
from the Tories - the decision not to allow Heathrow expansion is a
really big one in itself, and as Ms Villiers points out this is a
distinct departure from the attitudes of old of the Conservatives.
Could they now renege on this commitment? I find it difficult to see
how they could. If not expanding Heathrow really does become a
manifesto commitment then I dare say it will prove a vote winner in
certain quarters - both people under the flight path and perhaps a few
'greenies' as well.

Whether the North - South HSL would ever happen is another question,
especially in light of the Crossrail funding concerns. Dare I suggest
that the choice a London terminal is flexible - as others have said
beforehand Euston would appear to be the most appropriate choice.
Though is the mention of St. Pancras perhaps more indicative of a lack
of any real research behind the Tories 'plans' - have they really
grasped the issues an HSL would present (including a potential
plethora of 'nimby' objectors in blue counties)?

Incidentally - before anyone mentions it - I really don't think this
proposal should be read together with Boris's comments about a new
artificial island airport in the Thames estuary - Bozza's comments do
not constitute Tory policy, instead they were more of a pie in the sky
fantasy plan (after all, it's easy to dream up such schemes - it
happens all the time here! - but rather more of a challenge to
actually make them happen).

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancrasis Heathrow T6, again)
 

Mizter T wrote:


Incidentally - before anyone mentions it - I really don't think this
proposal should be read together with Boris's comments about a new
artificial island airport in the Thames estuary - Bozza's comments do
not constitute Tory policy, instead they were more of a pie in the sky
fantasy plan (after all, it's easy to dream up such schemes - it
happens all the time here! - but rather more of a challenge to
actually make them happen).

Agreed - the airport plans really come from Deputy Mayor for Policing
Kit Malthouse, who's been involved with aviation before (his budget
airline failed to get off the ground in 2004) and wrote this article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle2925884.ece

which, to me at least, reads like someone who doesn't know what he's
talking about (the cruising speed on the GWML for instance). All the
talking points are identical to the ones Boris came out with last week.

Boris is easily swayed by the enthusiasms of others - don't take it
seriously, they're better at getting stuff in the papers than concrete
into the ground. At least the main party appears to be talking to
someone sensible.

Tom

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras isHeathrow T6, again)
 

On 29 Sep, 09:07, Tom Barry wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

Incidentally - before anyone mentions it - I really don't think this
proposal should be read together with Boris's comments about a new
artificial island airport in the Thames estuary - Bozza's comments do
not constitute Tory policy, instead they were more of a pie in the sky
fantasy plan (after all, it's easy to dream up such schemes - it
happens all the time here! - but rather more of a challenge to
actually make them happen).

Agreed - the airport plans really come from Deputy Mayor for Policing
Kit Malthouse, who's been involved with aviation before (his budget
airline failed to get off the ground in 2004) and wrote this article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...st_contributor...

which, to me at least, reads like someone who doesn't know what he's
talking about (the cruising speed on the GWML for instance). *All the
talking points are identical to the ones Boris came out with last week.

Boris is easily swayed by the enthusiasms of others - don't take it
seriously, they're better at getting stuff in the papers than concrete
into the ground. *At least the main party appears to be talking to
someone sensible.



Aha, interesting, didn't know about Mr Malthouse's interest in
aviation. I also see that the Times article he penned is linked to
from his own personal website www.kitmalthouse.com.

Interesting to ponder whether the Mayor and his advisers knew about
the upcoming announcements at the Tory party conference and thus went
public with their own 'plan' a week beforehand - was this thus an
attempt to upstage the conference announcements, or less
conspiratorially an attempt to throw some of their own (or should that
be Mr Malthouses's own) ideas into the mix for the new grand Tory
transport plans?

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

On 2008-09-29 09:07:41 +0100, Tom Barry said:

Mizter T wrote:


Incidentally - before anyone mentions it - I really don't think this
proposal should be read together with Boris's comments about a new
artificial island airport in the Thames estuary - Bozza's comments do
not constitute Tory policy, instead they were more of a pie in the sky
fantasy plan (after all, it's easy to dream up such schemes - it
happens all the time here! - but rather more of a challenge to
actually make them happen).

Agreed - the airport plans really come from Deputy Mayor for Policing
Kit Malthouse, who's been involved with aviation before (his budget
airline failed to get off the ground in 2004) and wrote this article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle2925884.ece

which,

to me at least, reads like someone who doesn't know what he's talking
about (the cruising speed on the GWML for instance).


I think you have misunderstood Malthouse’s remarks about trains’
speeds. He compared Brunel’s approach to civil engineering, which
allowed for speeds in the future to be much higher than those current
in 1833, to that of others active at the time. Malthouse then stated
that “And he was right: trains can run at well over 150 mph today.� In
my reading this sentence does not refer directly to speeds on the GWML.

Malthouse could have strengthened his argument by adding the airport at
Munich to his list of relocated airports. About 10 years ago the new
airport in the Erdinger Moos ('Franz Josef Strauss') was opened to
replace the cramped site very close to the city at Riem. I have used it
frequently over the last three years; it is spacious, is well laid out
and has a micro-brewery on the premises, the Air-Bräu which sells beer
at very democratic prices. What more do you need? The only snag is the
all-stations S-Bahn link to Munich via routes S1 and S8, both of which
take 45 minutes to the Hauptbahnhof.

Nevertheless the main thrust of his arguments is reasonable. However,
without the airport nearby the value of the land released by Heathrow
will most likely not be as high as land prices in the area have been.
(By the time the airport is moved we will be in the
financial/economic/political crisis after the one after this one ).
However relocating Heathrow to a site east of London will have huge
knock-on effects to those companies who have set up shop in the Thames
Valley and other areas west of London because of easy access to
Heathrow. Bracknell, Slough, Reading, Basingstoke and others will no
longer be so attractive to globally active high-tech industries unless
easy and simple access to London’s future airport is maintained.


All the talking points are identical to the ones Boris came out with
last week.

Boris is easily swayed by the enthusiasms of others - don't take it
seriously, they're better at getting stuff in the papers than concrete
into the ground. At least the main party appears to be talking to
someone sensible.

Tom

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:55:57 +0100, Robert
wrote:

I think you have misunderstood Malthouse’s remarks about trains’
speeds. He compared Brunel’s approach to civil engineering, which
allowed for speeds in the future to be much higher than those current
in 1833, to that of others active at the time. Malthouse then stated
that “And he was right: trains can run at well over 150 mph today.” In
my reading this sentence does not refer directly to speeds on the GWML.

Brunel designed a level straight route because the available engines
were too underpowered to climb hills at speed and the shortest
distance between two points is a straight line. He was designing the
best route for the trains he had at the time and wasn't considering
what might be running on it 150 years later. The fact that the route
is suitable for modern 1970s high speed trains is just luck and not
design.

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

On 2008-09-29 19:11:14 +0100, said:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:55:57 +0100, Robert
wrote:

I think you have misunderstood Malthouse’s remarks about trains’
speeds. He compared Brunel’s approach to civil engineering, which
allowed for speeds in the future to be much higher than those current
in 1833, to that of others active at the time. Malthouse then stated
that “And he was right: trains can run at well over 150 mph today.” In
my reading this sentence does not refer directly to speeds on the GWML.

Brunel designed a level straight route because the available engines
were too underpowered to climb hills at speed and the shortest
distance between two points is a straight line. He was designing the
best route for the trains he had at the time and wasn't considering
what might be running on it 150 years later. The fact that the route
is suitable for modern 1970s high speed trains is just luck and not
design.

What you say is true, but it is not the whole story. Before Brunel
became Engineer to the nascent London and Bristol railway others, such
as William Brunton and Henry Price had tried to survey a route: they
proposed a route via Bath, Bradford-on-Avon, Trowbridge, Hungerford,
Newbury, Reading and so to London. W. H. Townsend was building a
tramway (the Bristol and Gloucester Railway) from the Floating Harbour
to coal mines near Mangotsfield - it was suggested that this be
extended to London.

Although these proposals had to use the same locomotive technology as
Brunel, in no way could these be described as high speed routes. The
organising committee of the London and Bristol railway intended to hold
a competition to select a surveyor. Brunel said that he would not enter
for the competition because he was convinced it was the wrong approach,
but he would agree to survey one route from London to Bristol. It would
not be the cheapest but it would be the best. He was appointed to the
post in March 1833.

By August of that year the initials 'GWR' had started to appear in his
diary - in his imagination he had already journeyed far beyond Bristol
to Cornwall and even New York City. It was indeed, a Great Western
Railway. Not for him 'Liverpool and Manchester', 'London and
Birmingham' or 'Canterbury and Whitstable'.

The 7 foot gauge was adopted for speed. After initial teething troubles
with the track, in March 1840 'Firefly' drew the Directors' Special
train (following the opening of the railway to Reading through the
cutting at Sonning) from Twyford to Paddington, start to stop, in 37
minutes at an average speed of 50 mph. This was unheard of in 1840.
Being able to run at 125mph on the GWR's trackbed without tilt and
balises is not luck - it is the result of superb engineering.

I rest my case. Brunel thought and built on the grand scale. Nowadays
Britain does not (generally - there are exceptions) do public works
well. New hospitals seem always to be a size too small; Stansted has
been made uncomfortable at a time of increasing numbers of passengers
by reducing the circulating floor space by building shops; Heathrow is
cramped, an artifical island in the Thames Estuary with enough space
for sufficient independent runways would seem to be a good solution.
But don't fill the buildings with shops....

Robert

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:31:09 +0100, Robert wrote

I rest my case. Brunel thought and built on the grand scale. Nowadays
Britain does not (generally - there are exceptions) do public works
well. New hospitals seem always to be a size too small; Stansted has
been made uncomfortable at a time of increasing numbers of passengers
by reducing the circulating floor space by building shops; Heathrow is
cramped, an artifical island in the Thames Estuary with enough space
for sufficient independent runways would seem to be a good solution.
But don't fill the buildings with shops....

By all means provide plenty of shops but design them in from the start so
there are still more-than-adequate circulating areas

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 17:51:00 +0100, Stimpy
wrote:

By all means provide plenty of shops but design them in from the start so
there are still more-than-adequate circulating areas

In Euston they are being removed, and it is providing an improvement.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 06:29:09 +0100, Neil Williams wrote
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 17:51:00 +0100, Stimpy
wrote:

By all means provide plenty of shops but design them in from the start so
there are still more-than-adequate circulating areas

In Euston they are being removed, and it is providing an improvement.

That is because they were crammed onto the circulating area. If the station
had been designed to accommodate the shops in addition to the large
circulating hall then they wouldn't need to be removed.

On a related note, anything that restores something of the original beauty
and space of Euston is to to be applauded

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

Mizter T wrote:


On 29 Sep, 07:16, Roland Perry wrote:
But poor old St Pancras, already overcrowded, in the frame again (I
suppose they could scrap the Javelin services and run to the north from
that part of the station):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7641094.stm

The proposed 180mph rail link would run between St Pancras in London and
Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

The Conservatives hope the line would increase use of the Eurostar,
based at St Pancras, to the continent, and free up the West Coast
Mainline for more commuter journeys.

Journey times would be cut from 125 minutes to 80 minutes from London to
Manchester, and from 55 minutes to 17 minutes between Manchester and
Leeds.


Wow, that would appear to be a fairly unequivocal policy commitment
from the Tories - the decision not to allow Heathrow expansion is a
really big one in itself, and as Ms Villiers points out this is a
distinct departure from the attitudes of old of the Conservatives.


I'm surprised that no-one has noticed the Conservatives' equally
unequivocal commitment about where the money for the high speed
line(s) would come from.

The Conservatives are absolutely committed to put not a single penny
more into the railway so, as I have already predicted, all the money
for the high speed line would come from swingeing cuts to Network
Rail's subsidy.

Perhaps, when (and if) the Tories get into office, they will find the
economy in such bad shape that we will get the swingeing cuts, but no
money for the high speed line(s).

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

In message , Tony Polson
writes
I'm surprised that no-one has noticed the Conservatives' equally
unequivocal commitment about where the money for the high speed line(s)
would come from.

The Conservatives are absolutely committed to put not a single penny
more into the railway so, as I have already predicted, all the money
for the high speed line would come from swingeing cuts to Network
Rail's subsidy.

Perhaps, when (and if) the Tories get into office, they will find the
economy in such bad shape that we will get the swingeing cuts, but no
money for the high speed line(s).

That'll be the old 'it's worse than we ever imagined' excuse wheeled out
again then?
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 13:47:48 +0100, Steve Fitzgerald wrote


Perhaps, when (and if) the Tories get into office, they will find the
economy in such bad shape that we will get the swingeing cuts, but no
money for the high speed line(s).

That'll be the old 'it's worse than we ever imagined' excuse wheeled out
again then?

Which, given the way departing governments tend to behave, is probably not so
much of an excuse.

There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing' period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his - errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in advance of the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancrasis Heathrow T6, again)
 

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008, Stimpy wrote:

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 13:47:48 +0100, Steve Fitzgerald wrote

Perhaps, when (and if) the Tories get into office, they will find the
economy in such bad shape that we will get the swingeing cuts, but no
money for the high speed line(s).

That'll be the old 'it's worse than we ever imagined' excuse wheeled out
again then?

Which, given the way departing governments tend to behave, is probably not so
much of an excuse.

There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing' period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his - errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in advance of the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.

It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.

Alternatively, you'd have a longer gap between election and handover than
the hours we do at present. I'm not sure that would be a good thing.

tom

--
resistance is fertile

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:19:16 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote

There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing' period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his - errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in advance of
the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.

It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.

Not at all... Either the incumbent party or the opposition will be forming
the government, both of whom would be represented during the shadow period.

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancrasis Heathrow T6, again)
 

Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:19:16 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote
There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing' period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his - errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in advance of
the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.
It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.

Not at all... Either the incumbent party or the opposition will be forming
the government, both of whom would be represented during the shadow period.

Wrong. The next government is selected from the participants in the next
election, not from the current residents of Parliament. The former might
contain some or none of the latter.

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

Charles Ellson wrote:

Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:19:16 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote
There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing' period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his - errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in advance of
the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.
It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.

Not at all... Either the incumbent party or the opposition will be forming
the government, both of whom would be represented during the shadow period.

Wrong. The next government is selected from the participants in the next
election, not from the current residents of Parliament. The former might
contain some or none of the latter.

....leaving aside the fact (this is a democracy, right?) that the PM can
pick whomsoever he/she likes, and ennoble them.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632926.html
(40 165 on a night van train at London Kings Cross, 1979)

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 17:28:36 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:19:16 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote
There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing' period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his - errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in advance of
the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would
encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.
It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.

Not at all... Either the incumbent party or the opposition will be forming
the government, both of whom would be represented during the shadow period.

Wrong. The next government is selected from the participants in the next
election, not from the current residents of Parliament. The former might
contain some or none of the latter.

As a practical example, it would be a useful exercise for Alistair Darling to
be shadowed by the then current Conservative shadow chancellor.

If the then current Conservative shadow chancellor lost his seat in the
election, the information he had gleaned would still be of use to his
successor.

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancrasis Heathrow T6, again)
 

Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 17:28:36 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:19:16 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote
There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing' period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his - errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in advance of
the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would
encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.
It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.
Not at all... Either the incumbent party or the opposition will be forming
the government, both of whom would be represented during the shadow period.

Wrong. The next government is selected from the participants in the next
election, not from the current residents of Parliament. The former might
contain some or none of the latter.

As a practical example, it would be a useful exercise for Alistair Darling to
be shadowed by the then current Conservative shadow chancellor.

If the then current Conservative shadow chancellor lost his seat in the
election, the information he had gleaned would still be of use to his
successor.

You're assuming the (blue) Tories are the only alternative (there is
still time for both types of Tory to make massive blunders which stop
either winning the next election). You're also assuming that an outgoing
government really is going to tell everything to the "enemy".

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 22:47:43 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 17:28:36 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:19:16 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote
There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing'
period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his -
errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in advance
of
the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would
encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of
their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.
It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.
Not at all... Either the incumbent party or the opposition will be
forming
the government, both of whom would be represented during the shadow
period.

Wrong. The next government is selected from the participants in the next
election, not from the current residents of Parliament. The former might
contain some or none of the latter.

As a practical example, it would be a useful exercise for Alistair Darling
to
be shadowed by the then current Conservative shadow chancellor.

If the then current Conservative shadow chancellor lost his seat in the
election, the information he had gleaned would still be of use to his
successor.

You're assuming the (blue) Tories are the only alternative (there is
still time for both types of Tory to make massive blunders which stop
either winning the next election).

I'm not assuming anything - the Conservatives are (still) the official
opposition party.

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancrasis Heathrow T6, again)
 

Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 22:47:43 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 17:28:36 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:19:16 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote
There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing'
period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his -
errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in advance
of
the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would
encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of
their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.
It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.
Not at all... Either the incumbent party or the opposition will be
forming
the government, both of whom would be represented during the shadow
period.

Wrong. The next government is selected from the participants in the next
election, not from the current residents of Parliament. The former might
contain some or none of the latter.
As a practical example, it would be a useful exercise for Alistair Darling
to
be shadowed by the then current Conservative shadow chancellor.

If the then current Conservative shadow chancellor lost his seat in the
election, the information he had gleaned would still be of use to his
successor.

You're assuming the (blue) Tories are the only alternative (there is
still time for both types of Tory to make massive blunders which stop
either winning the next election).

I'm not assuming anything - the Conservatives are (still) the official
opposition party.

But not with absolute certainty the only winners of the next election if
NuLab [TM] lose.

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 23:27:24 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 22:47:43 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 17:28:36 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote
Stimpy wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 15:19:16 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote
There was, some years ago, a proposal for there to be a 'shadowing'
period
before an election during which each minister was shadowed by his -
errr -
shadow, in order that the incoming government had some idea in
advance
of
the
state of things. A suggested by-product of this was that it would
encourage
outgoing ministers to behave more responsibly in the dying months of
their
government.

This would, of course, require fixed election dates and fixed-term
governments.
It would also require you to know in advance who was going to win the
election.
Not at all... Either the incumbent party or the opposition will be
forming
the government, both of whom would be represented during the shadow
period.

Wrong. The next government is selected from the participants in the next
election, not from the current residents of Parliament. The former might
contain some or none of the latter.
As a practical example, it would be a useful exercise for Alistair
Darling
to
be shadowed by the then current Conservative shadow chancellor.

If the then current Conservative shadow chancellor lost his seat in the
election, the information he had gleaned would still be of use to his
successor.

You're assuming the (blue) Tories are the only alternative (there is
still time for both types of Tory to make massive blunders which stop
either winning the next election).

I'm not assuming anything - the Conservatives are (still) the official
opposition party.

But not with absolute certainty the only winners of the next election if
NuLab [TM] lose.

Not at all, but they are still the official opposition and hence were the
party to whom the privilege was to be extended.

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras isHeathrow T6, again)
 

Interesting article in Rail Management (September 22nd) which suggests
that a new 225km/h (140mph) conventional railway built to Continental
Loading Gauge may be a more cost effective option than a new high
speed line:


"It is only ten days or so since a disastrous fire broke out in the
Channel Tunnel, and as RM predicted last week it will be ‘some
months’ before the only rail link between Britain and continental
Europe is back to normal.

It is a little ironic, then, that Greengauge21 should choose now to
step up its campaign to extend the British High Speed network.

However, the fire in the Tunnel does not detract from the essential
merits of High Speed Rail, however much it may highlight the
essentially fragile nature of a fixed link of this kind.

High Speed lines, or lignes à grande vitesse as the French know them,
are indeed efficient transportation systems when they link the right
places, but their most ardent supporters could never claim that they
are cheap.

Indeed, no new railway can be called that, but LGVs cost more because
of their special engineering, with as few curves as possible. This
means that their land take can be more aggressive and therefore more
expensive.

We know 200km/h trains can deal with significant curves if they tilt –
as on the WCML – and 200km/h is a good speed: London to Manchester in
around two hours, for example, while London–Edinburgh can be done in
under four.

It is true that these are flagship figures, and imply that
conventional infrastructure is being pushed a little, while Eurostars
can embrace London and Brussels in 1h51 (fires excepted) without
apparent effort.

But if we spent more money on upgrading conventional lines, would we
get journeys which were fast enough?

We might get faster journeys but not necessarily enough of them,
because they would only improve capacity slightly. And capacity is the
issue. Because of this, Network Rail is considering if we need some
completely new main line railways.

If so, we then need to decide what kind of railways they should be.
They could be conventional 200-225km/h lines (although built to a UIC
loading gauge, one trusts), or they could be LGVs. In that case the
question of the maximum speed would remain open.

High Speed 1 is officially a 300 km/h route, although that mainly
applies to the central 40km or so between Fawkham Junction and the
Ashford approaches, and the normal timetabled speed even there is
270km/h.

But these figures belong to the 1990s – when, of course, the line was
being designed. LGVs are now being typically planned for 330 or 350km/
h, and that would appear to be the new standard.

A 350km/h line between London and Edinburgh would be quite exciting,
with journey times down to as little as 2h15. A similar line could
link London and Manchester in perhaps 1h10, as against some two hours
now.

This is where the LGV case needs closer examination. Just how much
faster do our railways need to be? One major factor cited by the LGV
lobby is the need to attract people away from cars and planes, in the
interests of the environment, but there is little chance of doing
London–Manchester by car or plane in two hours now. One would be
illegal and the other impossible, considering journey times to and
from airports, check-in delays and so on.

Eurostar has essentially won the air/rail battle between London and
Paris, which is why its market share is now over 70%. Here an LGV is
indeed necessary to compete.

But a new conventional 225km/h line to Manchester might be enough,
offering about 1h45, and the same argument could apply elsewhere.
Maybe only the Scottish run really needs more. Britain is smaller than
France or Spain, and thus the gains to be achieved from building LGVs
are proportionately less, particularly within England alone.

Greengauge21 is now planning to examine the details, but there does
appear to be an underlying assumption that LGVs are inevitable and
necessary. Between London and Paris – yes. To Edinburgh – perhaps. But
London and Bristol? London and Leeds?

LGVs are exciting, but they are also more expensive to build and run.
The gains will have to be significant, if the Greengauge dream stands
a chance."

http://viking.eukhost.com/~keepingt/...M164/index.htm

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

wrote:
Interesting article in Rail Management (September 22nd) which suggests
that a new 225km/h (140mph) conventional railway built to Continental
Loading Gauge may be a more cost effective option than a new high
speed line:


"Britain is smaller than France or Spain, and thus the gains to be
achieved from building LGVs
are proportionately less, particularly within England alone.

This is rubbish. Britain is much smaller in area but is slightly longer from
end to end, which is what matters for discussing viability of rail lines. It
also has its capital at one end, unlike Spain. No French journey from Paris
or Spanish journey from Madrid is as long as London to Aberdeen. The fact
that Britain has the same population as France in a narrow sliver of
France's area improves the viability of high speed rail.

http://viking.eukhost.com/~keepingt/...M164/index.htm

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:28:31 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

This is rubbish. Britain is much smaller in area but is slightly longer from
end to end, which is what matters for discussing viability of rail lines. It
also has its capital at one end, unlike Spain. No French journey from Paris
or Spanish journey from Madrid is as long as London to Aberdeen.

Perhaps not, but there isn't a huge demand for Aberdeen to London
either. It might actually be possible that this market is actually
best served by air, and that the money that might have gone on a HSL
is better spent on improving capacity for shorter journeys on the rail
network.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras isHeathrow T6, again)
 

On Oct 12, 12:26�pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:28:31 +0100, "John Rowland"

wrote:
This is rubbish. Britain is much smaller in area but is slightly longer from
end to end, which is what matters for discussing viability of rail lines.. It
also has its capital at one end, unlike Spain. No French journey from Paris
or Spanish journey from Madrid is as long as London to Aberdeen.

Perhaps not, but there isn't a huge demand for Aberdeen to London
either. �It might actually be possible that this market is actually
best served by air, and that the money that might have gone on a HSL
is better spent on improving capacity for shorter journeys on the rail
network.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

The main rail flows from London to Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester
are much shorter than Paris-Marseilles (410 miles) and Madrid -
Barcelona (370 miles). Therefore you could argue that a new 140mph
railway would suffice.

Passenger flows to Edinburgh and Glasgow probably can't justify a new
high speed line on economic grounds (although they might do for
political reasons).

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:51:42 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

The main rail flows from London to Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester
are much shorter than Paris-Marseilles (410 miles) and Madrid -
Barcelona (370 miles). Therefore you could argue that a new 140mph
railway would suffice.

My current view would be that the existing 125mph (or even 110mph)
railway is perfectly sufficient, and that the millions being talked
about for a HSL would be better spent on a massive new stock build and
platform lengthening project.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

Am Sun, 12 Oct 2008 01:28:31 UTC, schrieb "John Rowland"
auf uk.railway :

No French journey from Paris or Spanish journey from Madrid
is as long as London to Aberdeen.

With London - Edinburgh taking about 4:30 hours, and the short rest
more than 2:30h. What would have a stronger effect on the total trip
time - building a HSL in England, or electrifying Edinburgh to
Aberdeen?


Cheers,
L.W.

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras isHeathrow T6, again)
 

On 12 Oct, 02:28, "John Rowland"
wrote:
wrote:
Interesting article in Rail Management (September 22nd) which suggests
that a *new 225km/h (140mph) conventional railway built to Continental
Loading Gauge may be a more cost effective option than a new high
speed line:

"Britain is smaller than France or Spain, and thus the gains to be
achieved from building LGVs
are proportionately less, particularly within England alone.

This is rubbish. Britain is much smaller in area but is slightly longer from
end to end, which is what matters for discussing viability of rail lines. It
also has its capital at one end, unlike Spain. No French journey from Paris
or Spanish journey from Madrid is as long as London to Aberdeen.

Have you tried Paris to Ajaccio. That would take longer.

The fact
that Britain has the same population as France in a narrow sliver of
France's area improves the viability of high speed rail.

Not really. It depends on population density and where people want to
travel. The Paris - French Riviera traffic is probably greater than
London - Scotland.

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras isHeathrow T6, again)
 

On 11 Oct, 20:02, wrote:
Indeed, no new railway can be called that, but LGVs cost more because
of their special engineering, with as few curves as possible. This
means that their land take can be more aggressive and therefore more
expensive.
....
But a new conventional 225km/h line to Manchester might be enough,
offering about 1h45, and the same argument could apply elsewhere.
Maybe only the Scottish run really needs more. Britain is smaller than
France or Spain, and thus the gains to be achieved from building LGVs
are proportionately less, particularly within England alone.

I'd be interested to see any studies on the cost per km of a new 225km/
h line versus the cost of a new LGV - and rather surprised if they
were significantly different.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancrasis Heathrow T6, again)
 

John B wrote:
On 11 Oct, 20:02, wrote:
But a new conventional 225km/h line to Manchester might be enough,
offering about 1h45, and the same argument could apply elsewhere.
Maybe only the Scottish run really needs more. Britain is smaller than
France or Spain, and thus the gains to be achieved from building LGVs
are proportionately less, particularly within England alone.

I'd be interested to see any studies on the cost per km of a new 225km/
h line versus the cost of a new LGV - and rather surprised if they
were significantly different.

The other issue no-one has mentioned is the cost (amount of energy) used
per mile of high speed rail travel compared to medium speed. With
efficient regenerative braking, most of the energy used is to overcome
friction, which rises with the square of speed - i.e. up to twice as
much energy is needed to go at 200 mph compared to 140 mph. This matters
because the main reason for preferring rail to air is reduced CO2 emissions.

Admittedly it's easier to power trains than planes from non-fossil fuel,
but it's going to take a long time to get all our electricity from
renewable or nuclear sources.

I think 140 or 150 mph rail is fast enough for the UK. But that needs to
cover a lot more than a few principal routes, so that overall journey
time is not clobbered by 20 or 30 slow miles at each end.

The other factor in overall journey time is frequency - it's not much
use getting to Edinburgh in 2 hours if you have to wait another 2 hours
for the train to leave. That means we need increases in rail capacity as
well as line speed.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:58:32 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote:

I'd be interested to see any studies on the cost per km of a new 225km/
h line versus the cost of a new LGV - and rather surprised if they
were significantly different.

Do we need another line for that, though, or would we be better off,
say, spending the money on lengthening platforms and extending all the
Pendolinos to 14 cars?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is
 

In article
,
(disgoftunwells) wrote:

This is rubbish. Britain is much smaller in area but is slightly
longer from end to end, which is what matters for discussing
viability of rail lines. It also has its capital at one end, unlike
Spain. No French journey from Paris or Spanish journey from Madrid is
as long as London to Aberdeen.

Have you tried Paris to Ajaccio. That would take longer.

There is always Paris to Réunion if you want an even longer journey. :-)

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras isHeathrow T6, again)
 

On Oct 13, 10:58�pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:58:32 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote:

I'd be interested to see any studies on the cost per km of a new 225km/
h line versus the cost of a new LGV - and rather surprised if they
were significantly different.

Do we need another line for that, though, or would we be better off,
say, spending the money on lengthening platforms and extending all the
Pendolinos to 14 cars?

We need new lines for the additional capacity as existing lines are
filling rapidly. The new lines might as well be of a reasonably high
speed as the major cost is the price of land. We can debate the final
max speed about five years after we start to build the blasted things.
(Unless of course we insist on swerving acutely round every SSSI en
route).

George

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

On 2008-10-13 22:43:59 +0100, Colin McKenzie said:

John B wrote:
On 11 Oct, 20:02, wrote:
But a new conventional 225km/h line to Manchester might be enough,
offering about 1h45, and the same argument could apply elsewhere.
Maybe only the Scottish run really needs more. Britain is smaller than
France or Spain, and thus the gains to be achieved from building LGVs
are proportionately less, particularly within England alone.

I'd be interested to see any studies on the cost per km of a new 225km/
h line versus the cost of a new LGV - and rather surprised if they
were significantly different.

The other issue no-one has mentioned is the cost (amount of energy)
used per mile of high speed rail travel compared to medium speed. With
efficient regenerative braking, most of the energy used is to overcome
friction, which rises with the square of speed - i.e. up to twice as
much energy is needed to go at 200 mph compared to 140 mph. This
matters because the main reason for preferring rail to air is reduced
CO2 emissions.

Admittedly it's easier to power trains than planes from non-fossil
fuel, but it's going to take a long time to get all our electricity
from renewable or nuclear sources.

I think 140 or 150 mph rail is fast enough for the UK. But that needs
to cover a lot more than a few principal routes, so that overall
journey time is not clobbered by 20 or 30 slow miles at each end.

The other factor in overall journey time is frequency - it's not much
use getting to Edinburgh in 2 hours if you have to wait another 2 hours
for the train to leave. That means we need increases in rail capacity
as well as line speed.

Colin McKenzie

I don't think it's quite that simple. It's not *friction* which rises
with the square of the speed, but the *air resistance*; friction
(wheel/rail interface losses, bearings and so on) rise proportionally
with speed.
The area under the speed-time curve corresponds to the energy used in
the journey for motion. So the total energy usage for a higher speed,
but shorter (in time) journey is not necessarily much greater than that
used in a lower speed, but longer in time, journey. Don't forget also
that 'hotel' power consumption (lighting, air conditioning, the coffee
machine and so on) is proportional to journey time.

And with a faster journey the train can do more journeys in a day, so
(for the same service) fewer trains are required.

I agree about the service frequency - one of the most effective ways to
reduce the apparent journey time of transport used by the public[1] is
by reducing the gap between successive trains, buses, planes or
whatever. This is important. after all, you never 'just miss' your car!

Anyway I'm not convinced of the argument that *new* high speed rail
routes are ecologically/environmentally/economically better than air
travel. After all, the only ground based infrastructure a plane needs
is a couple of miles of concrete at each end of the journey. Is it
sensible to try to build 200 miles and more of railway through some of
the most densely populated country in Europe? Unless a lot of money is
continually spent on railhead grinding and ensuring the trains' wheels
are round, high speed railways can be LOUD.

[1] On the basis that 'public transport' seems to refer only to trains
and buses :-)
--
Robert

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancrasis Heathrow T6, again)
 

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Colin McKenzie wrote:

John B wrote:
On 11 Oct, 20:02, wrote:
But a new conventional 225km/h line to Manchester might be enough,
offering about 1h45, and the same argument could apply elsewhere.
Maybe only the Scottish run really needs more. Britain is smaller than
France or Spain, and thus the gains to be achieved from building LGVs
are proportionately less, particularly within England alone.

I'd be interested to see any studies on the cost per km of a new 225km/
h line versus the cost of a new LGV - and rather surprised if they
were significantly different.

The other issue no-one has mentioned is the cost (amount of energy) used per
mile of high speed rail travel compared to medium speed. With efficient
regenerative braking, most of the energy used is to overcome friction, which
rises with the square of speed - i.e. up to twice as much energy is needed to
go at 200 mph compared to 140 mph. This matters because the main reason for
preferring rail to air is reduced CO2 emissions.

Even if you did double the energy use, grams of CO2 per
passenger-kilometre is still quite a lot lower for a train than a plane.

According to this random and doubtless highly reliable document i just
found on the internet:

http://www.campaigncc.org/Howdoesairtravel.doc

The numbers for a London - Edinburgh trip are, in grams of CO2 per km:

car: 129
train: 73
plane: 339

A while ago, i found an EU report which had much more detailed and
reliable numbers for a variety of transport modes, mostly from a freight
point of view. They were similar to the above, but what was striking was
that ships (as in vast container ships) were about an order of magnitude
more efficient than the next best thing. Not so hot for moving passengers,
of course.

Admittedly it's easier to power trains than planes from non-fossil fuel,
but it's going to take a long time to get all our electricity from
renewable or nuclear sources.

True. Part of the TGV equation in France, i have been led to believe, is
the ready availability of fairly cheap and reliable nuclear power. They
are probably now feeling quite smug about the CO2 implications of this
too.

I think 140 or 150 mph rail is fast enough for the UK. But that needs to
cover a lot more than a few principal routes, so that overall journey
time is not clobbered by 20 or 30 slow miles at each end.

The other factor in overall journey time is frequency - it's not much
use getting to Edinburgh in 2 hours if you have to wait another 2 hours
for the train to leave. That means we need increases in rail capacity as
well as line speed.

Yes to both of these. The 'enemy' isn't the plane, it's the car, which
accounts for a much bigger share of our CO2 output. A few high-speed
long-distance routes won't attract much modal share from cars; for that,
we need more capacity and reliability on existing routes, and to restore
and build more local routes where they're currently missing.

tom

--
Baby got a masterplan. A foolproof masterplan.

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras isHeathrow T6, again)
 

Yes to both of these. The 'enemy' isn't the plane, it's the car, which
accounts for a much bigger share of our CO2 output. A few high-speed
long-distance routes won't attract much modal share from cars; for that,
we need more capacity and reliability on existing routes, and to restore
and build more local routes where they're currently missing.

It may go unsaid as obvious, but crucial to achieving that aim is the
development of coherent integrated public transport schemes. A good
radial dawn to late night local bus network, feeding good transport
interchanges (preferably rail, but I'll be realistic and accept
express bus routes or somesuch are more likely in this day and age).
These express routes then need to run both radially towards regional
population centres (i.e. London, Birmingham, etc.) *as well as
orbitally around them*. As a case in point, it's criminal that it's so
damn difficult to do a 11-odd mile journey near me orbitally (on the
London periphery between the WCML and the ECML), with either several
mode changes required to zig zag up and down radial rail routes
through to the central zones (which you really don't need to be in),
or you just give up on rail and stay with the expensive, infrequent,
and unreliable local buses you were using to get to the station all
the way to your destination, though you will have to endure multiple
services usually, some of which become even less frequent past 6pm.
Even with the extortionate car parking charges it can still be cheaper
to drive than use public transport, which is somewhat disappointing.
By way of comparison, it's about ~20-30 minutes by car, but well over
an hour by public transport (buses).

On a final note, ideally I'd like to catch a regular, frequent,
inexpensive bus to Watford Junction (hurrah for TfL), catch a fast,
frequent service to Hatfield from there, then continue my onward
journey from Hatfield, by train, bus or otherwise. Doesn't sound too
extravagant, but my current options for public transport between them
are either:
a) The aforementioned multi-stage local buses
b) Walking the Euston Road between Euston and KX
c) Via Birmingham and Peterborough :)

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras is Heathrow T6, again)
 

Jamie Thompson wrote:

It may go unsaid as obvious, but crucial to achieving that aim is the
development of coherent integrated public transport schemes. A good
radial dawn to late night local bus network, feeding good transport
interchanges (preferably rail, but I'll be realistic and accept
express bus routes or somesuch are more likely in this day and age).
These express routes then need to run both radially towards regional
population centres (i.e. London, Birmingham, etc.) *as well as
orbitally around them*. As a case in point, it's criminal that it's so
damn difficult to do a 11-odd mile journey near me orbitally (on the
London periphery between the WCML and the ECML), with either several
mode changes required to zig zag up and down radial rail routes
through to the central zones (which you really don't need to be in),
or you just give up on rail and stay with the expensive, infrequent,
and unreliable local buses you were using to get to the station all
the way to your destination, though you will have to endure multiple
services usually, some of which become even less frequent past 6pm.
Even with the extortionate car parking charges it can still be cheaper
to drive than use public transport, which is somewhat disappointing.
By way of comparison, it's about ~20-30 minutes by car, but well over
an hour by public transport (buses).


Providing public transport on this scale would be horrendously
expensive, and it would be very poorly patronised in the late
evenings.

There is no good reason why people who choose to go out late and who
are not served by a skeleton service of late night buses should not be
expected to pay for a taxi, which is public transport after all.

Tories 20BN railway to replace Heathrow expansion (St Pancras isHeathrow T6, again)
 

On 16 Oct, 12:56, Tony Polson wrote:
Jamie *Thompson wrote:





It may go unsaid as obvious, but crucial to achieving that aim is the
development of coherent integrated public transport schemes. A good
radial dawn to late night local bus network, feeding good transport
interchanges (preferably rail, but I'll be realistic and accept
express bus routes or somesuch are more likely in this day and age).
These express routes then need to run both radially towards regional
population centres (i.e. London, Birmingham, etc.) *as well as
orbitally around them*. As a case in point, it's criminal that it's so
damn difficult to do a 11-odd mile journey near me orbitally (on the
London periphery between the WCML and the ECML), with either several
mode changes required to zig zag up and down radial rail routes
through to the central zones (which you really don't need to be in),
or you just give up on rail and stay with the expensive, infrequent,
and unreliable local buses you were using to get to the station all
the way to your destination, though you will have to endure multiple
services usually, some of which become even less frequent past 6pm.
Even with the extortionate car parking charges it can still be cheaper
to drive than use public transport, which is somewhat disappointing.
By way of comparison, it's about ~20-30 minutes by car, but well over
an hour by public transport (buses).

Providing public transport on this scale would be horrendously
expensive, and it would be very poorly patronised in the late
evenings. *

There is no good reason why people who choose to go out late and who
are not served by a skeleton service of late night buses should not be
expected to pay for a taxi, which is public transport after all.

Perhaps. I'm spoilt in that regard that a pair of London bus routes
run between Watford and London right past my house, giving me an
public transport option to get home until 1:30am, with a very
reasonable for that time of night 30 minute interval (one of the
county buses mentioned in my earlier rant goes is 1 an hour after
6:30pm!). Both are extremely well used all day, expect for the last
service(s) which I imagine only exist to run buses back to depot. My
friends nearby but off the beaten track get bled dry a tenner a time
for a equivalent trip that costs me less than 90p. As such, I don't
feel the need to hang around in town with them drinking later than I
would like, just so I could split the taxi fare. Perhaps a
relationship with D&D offences and public transport provision that
could be studied :)

Anyway, that's all beside the point.

The main point I was going for of course being that the service in the
peaks needs to be sufficiently versatile and dependable to justify
leaving the car at home, which means at the very least the whole
morning peak from 6:30-10am and the evening peak from 5-8:30pm.
Weekends you need to cater for the shoppers. The only way to achieve
decent speeds is express routes, and that's essentially what we have.
Buses stop at every lamppost in town, metros stop at every town,
trains stop at major towns, and intercity trains stop at major
interchanges only. All you need is to have a web linking them together
somewhere other than zone 1 and the *sigh* Circle Line. That's why
public transport is so widely used in places like London...you can
generally get from 'a' to 'b' without having to go miles out of your
way via 'c' & 'd'.