On 14/09/2022 17:32, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:46:05 +0200
>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-09-14 15:38:40 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:42:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> The Voyagers and derivatives, the Pendilinos, and the IETs. For a
>>>>>> start. The Flirts will be better when they finally get rid of all
>>>>>> jointed lines they use.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd nominate good/bad stock based on its longevity with its first operator,
>>>>> and whether there had been repeat orders from the same or other operators.
>>>>> On that basis, the 22x, 390 and 7x5 stocks are all clear successes.
>>>>>
>>>>> The post-BR failures would be the 460, 332, and 180 stocks, as well as the
>>>>> 230 and 769 conversions. From the late BR era, the 365 and maybe the IC225
>>>>> would be regarded as disappointing.
>>>>
>>>> The 225s never had a chance to run at 225kmh because the money to upgrade
>>>> the ECML vanished. I wonder what could be done with the ECML and WCML with
>>>> the money currently being blown on HS2.....
>>>
>>> The 91s needed a quite significant rebuild to correct reliability
>>> issues not that long after introduction into service.
>>
>> Just saying, they were built for 140mph but never got a chance to use it.
>> If both the ECML and WCML ran at 140mph there would be zero case for HS2
>> as opposed to the microscopically small case it has now.
>>
>>
>
> HS2 is for relieving capacity, not for speed.
>
> Build it without the journey time reductions and even without the
> Birmingham branch at all and the justification (freeing up passenger and
> freight paths) still stands IMO.

I quite agree.

I've never understood the justification for going beyond this. But I
don't understand politicians either. We do really need a way to ensure
we have more able politicians.

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 14/09/2022 17:32, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:46:05 +0200
>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-09-14 15:38:40 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:42:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> The Voyagers and derivatives, the Pendilinos, and the IETs. For a
>>>>>>> start. The Flirts will be better when they finally get rid of all
>>>>>>> jointed lines they use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd nominate good/bad stock based on its longevity with its first operator,
>>>>>> and whether there had been repeat orders from the same or other operators.
>>>>>> On that basis, the 22x, 390 and 7x5 stocks are all clear successes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The post-BR failures would be the 460, 332, and 180 stocks, as well as the
>>>>>> 230 and 769 conversions. From the late BR era, the 365 and maybe the IC225
>>>>>> would be regarded as disappointing.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 225s never had a chance to run at 225kmh because the money to upgrade
>>>>> the ECML vanished. I wonder what could be done with the ECML and WCML with
>>>>> the money currently being blown on HS2.....
>>>>
>>>> The 91s needed a quite significant rebuild to correct reliability
>>>> issues not that long after introduction into service.
>>>
>>> Just saying, they were built for 140mph but never got a chance to use it.
>>> If both the ECML and WCML ran at 140mph there would be zero case for HS2
>>> as opposed to the microscopically small case it has now.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> HS2 is for relieving capacity, not for speed.
>>
>> Build it without the journey time reductions and even without the
>> Birmingham branch at all and the justification (freeing up passenger and
>> freight paths) still stands IMO.
>
> I quite agree.
>
> I've never understood the justification for going beyond this. But I
> don't understand politicians either. We do really need a way to ensure
> we have more able politicians.
>
>

If you're building a new line (effectively a new pair of fast lines for the
WCML, and MML/ECML had it been built in full), you might as well make it
faster too, for the comparatively little extra outlay.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 14/09/2022 18:21, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/09/2022 17:32, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:46:05 +0200
>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-09-14 15:38:40 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:42:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Voyagers and derivatives, the Pendilinos, and the IETs. For a
>>>>>>>> start. The Flirts will be better when they finally get rid of all
>>>>>>>> jointed lines they use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd nominate good/bad stock based on its longevity with its first operator,
>>>>>>> and whether there had been repeat orders from the same or other operators.
>>>>>>> On that basis, the 22x, 390 and 7x5 stocks are all clear successes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The post-BR failures would be the 460, 332, and 180 stocks, as well as the
>>>>>>> 230 and 769 conversions. From the late BR era, the 365 and maybe the IC225
>>>>>>> would be regarded as disappointing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 225s never had a chance to run at 225kmh because the money to upgrade
>>>>>> the ECML vanished. I wonder what could be done with the ECML and WCML with
>>>>>> the money currently being blown on HS2.....
>>>>>
>>>>> The 91s needed a quite significant rebuild to correct reliability
>>>>> issues not that long after introduction into service.
>>>>
>>>> Just saying, they were built for 140mph but never got a chance to use it.
>>>> If both the ECML and WCML ran at 140mph there would be zero case for HS2
>>>> as opposed to the microscopically small case it has now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> HS2 is for relieving capacity, not for speed.
>>>
>>> Build it without the journey time reductions and even without the
>>> Birmingham branch at all and the justification (freeing up passenger and
>>> freight paths) still stands IMO.
>>
>> I quite agree.
>>
>> I've never understood the justification for going beyond this. But I
>> don't understand politicians either. We do really need a way to ensure
>> we have more able politicians.
>>
>>
>
> If you're building a new line (effectively a new pair of fast lines for the
> WCML, and MML/ECML had it been built in full), you might as well make it
> faster too, for the comparatively little extra outlay.
>

Making it faster is fine but going beyond the original remit of
increasing ECML capacity is not.

On 14/09/2022 16:38, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:42:01 -0000 (UTC)
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> The Voyagers and derivatives, the Pendilinos, and the IETs. For a
>>> start. The Flirts will be better when they finally get rid of all
>>> jointed lines they use.
>>
>> I'd nominate good/bad stock based on its longevity with its first operator,
>> and whether there had been repeat orders from the same or other operators.
>> On that basis, the 22x, 390 and 7x5 stocks are all clear successes.
>>
>> The post-BR failures would be the 460, 332, and 180 stocks, as well as the
>> 230 and 769 conversions. From the late BR era, the 365 and maybe the IC225
>> would be regarded as disappointing.
>
> The 225s never had a chance to run at 225kmh because the money to upgrade
> the ECML vanished. I wonder what could be done with the ECML and WCML with
> the money currently being blown on HS2.....
>

They already tried that on the WCML, a roaring success, not.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 14/09/2022 18:21, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 14/09/2022 17:32, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:46:05 +0200
>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-09-14 15:38:40 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:42:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The Voyagers and derivatives, the Pendilinos, and the IETs. For a
>>>>>>>>> start. The Flirts will be better when they finally get rid of all
>>>>>>>>> jointed lines they use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd nominate good/bad stock based on its longevity with its first operator,
>>>>>>>> and whether there had been repeat orders from the same or other operators.
>>>>>>>> On that basis, the 22x, 390 and 7x5 stocks are all clear successes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The post-BR failures would be the 460, 332, and 180 stocks, as well as the
>>>>>>>> 230 and 769 conversions. From the late BR era, the 365 and maybe the IC225
>>>>>>>> would be regarded as disappointing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 225s never had a chance to run at 225kmh because the money to upgrade
>>>>>>> the ECML vanished. I wonder what could be done with the ECML and WCML with
>>>>>>> the money currently being blown on HS2.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 91s needed a quite significant rebuild to correct reliability
>>>>>> issues not that long after introduction into service.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just saying, they were built for 140mph but never got a chance to use it.
>>>>> If both the ECML and WCML ran at 140mph there would be zero case for HS2
>>>>> as opposed to the microscopically small case it has now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HS2 is for relieving capacity, not for speed.
>>>>
>>>> Build it without the journey time reductions and even without the
>>>> Birmingham branch at all and the justification (freeing up passenger and
>>>> freight paths) still stands IMO.
>>>
>>> I quite agree.
>>>
>>> I've never understood the justification for going beyond this. But I
>>> don't understand politicians either. We do really need a way to ensure
>>> we have more able politicians.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If you're building a new line (effectively a new pair of fast lines for the
>> WCML, and MML/ECML had it been built in full), you might as well make it
>> faster too, for the comparatively little extra outlay.
>>
>
> Making it faster is fine but going beyond the original remit of
> increasing ECML capacity is not.
>
>

I'm going to assume you mean WCML.

Was phase 2, to the MML and ECML, part of the original plan or was it added
later? (Genuine question! I'd be interested to know)

Why, having built a HSL capable of handling 18tph, but connected to lines
which can supply around half that, should you not build connecting lines so
that trains from other lines can use it, thus also relieving those lines of
non-stop trains and freeing up capacity for stopping trains and freight?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 14:23:52 -0000 (UTC)
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 17:14:39 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> The UK doesn't have much variation in conditions so if EMU A is suitable
>>>>> then why is EMU B ordered by someone else? They can't both be the best
>>>> solution.
>>>>> They're just boxes on wheels and can be specced as appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why doesn't everyone drive a Ford Mondeo? Ban the Vauxhall Astra, we don't
>>>> need that many different types of car!
>>>
>>> Not the same thing and you know it. A car purchase is based on many factors
>>> not least of which how it looks. The only thing that should matter with a
>>> train is motive power, speed/acceleration which can be sorted by gearing and
>>
>>> seating capacity which doesn't necessitate a different type of train. 1 type
>> of
>>> EMU should suffice for 99% of situations in the UK except for very high speed
>>
>>> lines.
>>>
>>
>> You'd define trains of similar appearance but differently geared as "the
>> same type"? Interesting.
>
> Yes. Class 66s are geared differently for different applications.
>

Numbered as a sub-class, yes. 37s had the same, plus sub-classes of ETH
variants etc.

So you'd be happy with the current variety of units if they were just
numbered as sub-classes? Current classes 345, 701, 720, 730 all just
sub-classes of 701? Etc etc.

>> You've also conveniently ignored my point about factory capacity.
>
> Manufacturers tend to increase capacity based on order size. Hitachi even
> built a brand new factory.
>

But you've just said they shouldn't have been permitted to do so, because
we have enough train manufacturers already.

Besides which, do you really think that when, say, Northern issue a tender
for 43 EMUs, Alstom are going to say "Sure, we'll build a new factory for
that" rather than "sure, in five years time after we've finished all the
other orders we've got"? Which leaves space for CAF, who *are* prepared to
do that, on the basis of other prospective orders.

Besides which, IINM, at the time when Northern and GA were seeking some new
DMUs, *none* of the existing UK-fleet train manufacturers were offering
one. None. CAF and Stadler filled that gap.

>>> Given how many different manufacturers are building trains for the UK right
>>> now they can't all be better than each other.
>>>
>>
>> But we may have been stuck with only a fleet built by ShitBoxTrains Ltd,
>> rather than having some built by QualityRail Ltd.
>
> So which new stocks are the shit ones?
>

Alstom Aventra had great software problems but seem to have settled down
now, though the interiors of the 720s attract great criticism.

The Stadler units initially gained the nickname Basils because they were
always faulty but also seem to have settled down, but I believe there are
ongoing issues with the Stansted Express units.

CAF have the nickname "Cheap As Fuck" which tells you all you need to know.
They've also got cracking problems on yaw damper supports, though rather
less publicised than Hitachi's.

Hitachi's windscreen and cracking problems have been well-publicised.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 12/09/2022 13:06, Theo wrote:

>
> I don't know if any foreign railways are still continuing the BR model where
> design is in-house, or are they also just purchasing from the usual
> suspects like the UK does?

Indian Railways as a whole has in-house manufacturing units, albeit in
some cases with specialist partners, but I think pretty much everywhere
else buys in.

A lot of trains are more or less customised, eg TGVs are based on what
SNCF wants, or the obscure Swiss railways with weird gauges and
electrification which only Stadler can be bothered with.

--
Arthur Figgis

In message <odg3ih5i9i48geohvrmq5gsd10s19m40nb@4ax.com>, at 13:01:38 on
Wed, 14 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:20:08 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:53:02 -0000 (UTC)
>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 15:18:05 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 21:12:33 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Both Stansted and Gatwick have had dedicated fleets of units built for
>>>>>>>> their respective airport services (322s and 460s), and in both cases
>>>>>>>> maintaining a small dedicated fleet for this use has proven to be
>>>>>>>> troublesome, with the units having short lives on their intended
>>>>>>>> services and getting rebuilt as basically standard suburban EMUs for
>>>>>>>> use elsewhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 332s were just sent for scrap, and not even offered for sale and
>>>>>>> refurbishment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another criminal waste of kit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Privately-owned, nothing to do with the taxpayer.
>>>>
>>>> And where did they get their money from? Presumably donors, nothing to do
>>>> with the government or ticket sales?
>>>
>>>Donors? It's certainly nothing to do with the government.
>>
>>So where did the money come from? Airport taxes, hex ticket sales, wherever.
>>Ultimately the public paid for them.
>
>It came from BAA, which obviously hoped to recoup the cost (and make a
>contribution to the cost of building the stations and tunnels) from
>ticket sales.

I don't think they expected to fund the investment primarily from train
ticket sales, the main imperative was increasing their green credentials
sufficiently to be allowed to expand the airport (and hence get more
money from landing fees, and renting out space in shopping malls to
service the increasing numbers of passengers).
--
Roland Perry

In message <tfsr60$30ok4$3@dont-email.me>, at 15:15:12 on Wed, 14 Sep
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:44:21 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 14:54:23 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tfq0n6$1a13$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:31:18 on Tue, 13 Sep
>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 17:27:36 +0100
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tfnlt1$g8u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:14:25 on Mon, 12 Sep
>>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's your solution? A prescribed list of classes from which
>>>>>>>>>operators can
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> order? Forbid new manufacturers from entering the UK market?
>>>>>>>>>(Sorry Stadler
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and CAF, we've got enough already thanks)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it saves the taxpayer money then yes. LU finally got the
>>>>>>>>memo and ordered
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a single stock for the subsurface lines so why can't TOCs do the same
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hold on! GA got the memo, and now you are criticizing them for doing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GA already had a perfectly servicable fleet of EMUs.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROFL! You can't seriously mean that.
>>>>
>>>> Tbh I got GA and C2C conflated. The c2c 357s were in good nick.
>>>
>>> And they're still in service.
>>>
>>> I don't think any Electrostars have been scrapped. They, and their diesel
>>> cousins, have been very successful.
>>>
>>
>> Though they've [1] had their troublesome times over the years, haven't
>> they? Or is that just the subsequent Aventras?
>
>I don't recall any major problems with Electrostars

Their introduction (on Southern I think) was plagued with teething
problems.

--
Roland Perry

In message <tfsugl$udo$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:12:05 on Wed, 14 Sep
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:46:05 +0200
>Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>On 2022-09-14 15:38:40 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:42:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> The Voyagers and derivatives, the Pendilinos, and the IETs. For a
>>>>> start. The Flirts will be better when they finally get rid of all
>>>>> jointed lines they use.
>>>>
>>>> I'd nominate good/bad stock based on its longevity with its first operator,
>>>> and whether there had been repeat orders from the same or other operators.
>>>> On that basis, the 22x, 390 and 7x5 stocks are all clear successes.
>>>>
>>>> The post-BR failures would be the 460, 332, and 180 stocks, as well as the
>>>> 230 and 769 conversions. From the late BR era, the 365 and maybe the IC225
>>>> would be regarded as disappointing.
>>>
>>> The 225s never had a chance to run at 225kmh because the money to upgrade
>>> the ECML vanished. I wonder what could be done with the ECML and WCML with
>>> the money currently being blown on HS2.....
>>
>>The 91s needed a quite significant rebuild to correct reliability
>>issues not that long after introduction into service.
>
>Just saying, they were built for 140mph but never got a chance to use it.
>If both the ECML and WCML ran at 140mph there would be zero case for HS2
>as opposed to the microscopically small case it has now.

Only if you erroneously believe the reason for HS2 is to get passengers
from A to B sooner ((yes, I know, that's how they try to sell it to a
gullible public).

When it's really about freeing up freight paths. When you hear of a
140mph container train which could slot in between the passenger trains.
do let us know.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tft0a1$31i60$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:42:41 on Wed, 14 Sep
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:

>> HS2 is for relieving capacity, not for speed.
>> Build it without the journey time reductions and even without the
>> Birmingham branch at all and the justification (freeing up passenger and
>> freight paths) still stands IMO.
>
>I quite agree.
>
>I've never understood the justification for going beyond this. But I
>don't understand politicians either. We do really need a way to ensure
>we have more able politicians.

That's very difficult when there's a culture of envy which says we can't
pay the more able potential candidates the market rate, so have to put
up with underpaid candidates who then have to spend much of their time
using their position to gain extra income from non-Parliamentary
activities.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <odg3ih5i9i48geohvrmq5gsd10s19m40nb@4ax.com>, at 13:01:38 on
> Wed, 14 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:20:08 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:53:02 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 15:18:05 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 21:12:33 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Both Stansted and Gatwick have had dedicated fleets of units built for
>>>>>>>>> their respective airport services (322s and 460s), and in both cases
>>>>>>>>> maintaining a small dedicated fleet for this use has proven to be
>>>>>>>>> troublesome, with the units having short lives on their intended
>>>>>>>>> services and getting rebuilt as basically standard suburban EMUs for
>>>>>>>>> use elsewhere.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 332s were just sent for scrap, and not even offered for sale and
>>>>>>>> refurbishment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another criminal waste of kit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Privately-owned, nothing to do with the taxpayer.
>>>>>
>>>>> And where did they get their money from? Presumably donors, nothing to do
>>>>> with the government or ticket sales?
>>>>
>>>> Donors? It's certainly nothing to do with the government.
>>>
>>> So where did the money come from? Airport taxes, hex ticket sales, wherever.
>>> Ultimately the public paid for them.
>>
>> It came from BAA, which obviously hoped to recoup the cost (and make a
>> contribution to the cost of building the stations and tunnels) from
>> ticket sales.
>
> I don't think they expected to fund the investment primarily from train
> ticket sales, the main imperative was increasing their green credentials
> sufficiently to be allowed to expand the airport (and hence get more
> money from landing fees, and renting out space in shopping malls to
> service the increasing numbers of passengers).

Yes, agreed. But they could have achieved the necessary greenwash benefit
just by building the tunnels and stations and letting somebody else run the
trains, as happens now.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tft0a1$31i60$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:42:41 on Wed, 14 Sep
> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>
>>> HS2 is for relieving capacity, not for speed.
>>> Build it without the journey time reductions and even without the
>>> Birmingham branch at all and the justification (freeing up passenger and
>>> freight paths) still stands IMO.
>>
>> I quite agree.
>>
>> I've never understood the justification for going beyond this. But I
>> don't understand politicians either. We do really need a way to ensure
>> we have more able politicians.
>
> That's very difficult when there's a culture of envy which says we can't
> pay the more able potential candidates the market rate, so have to put
> up with underpaid candidates who then have to spend much of their time
> using their position to gain extra income from non-Parliamentary
> activities.

True, plus I think social media and the modern demands that they sort out
all sorts of local issues make politicians' lives much harder than in the
old days, when they were much more remote from the public

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tfsr60$30ok4$3@dont-email.me>, at 15:15:12 on Wed, 14 Sep
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:44:21 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 14:54:23 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tfq0n6$1a13$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:31:18 on Tue, 13 Sep
>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 17:27:36 +0100
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <tfnlt1$g8u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:14:25 on Mon, 12 Sep
>>>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What's your solution? A prescribed list of classes from which
>>>>>>>>>> operators can
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> order? Forbid new manufacturers from entering the UK market?
>>>>>>>>>> (Sorry Stadler
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and CAF, we've got enough already thanks)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If it saves the taxpayer money then yes. LU finally got the
>>>>>>>>> memo and ordered
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a single stock for the subsurface lines so why can't TOCs do the same
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hold on! GA got the memo, and now you are criticizing them for doing it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GA already had a perfectly servicable fleet of EMUs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ROFL! You can't seriously mean that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tbh I got GA and C2C conflated. The c2c 357s were in good nick.
>>>>
>>>> And they're still in service.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think any Electrostars have been scrapped. They, and their diesel
>>>> cousins, have been very successful.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Though they've [1] had their troublesome times over the years, haven't
>>> they? Or is that just the subsequent Aventras?
>>
>> I don't recall any major problems with Electrostars
>
> Their introduction (on Southern I think) was plagued with teething
> problems.
>

I'm sure there must have been some early teething problems, but I don't
recall anything noteworthy, not even power supply issues (those came with
the Desiros). Ditto with the 168s and 170s, which have never been
troublesome.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tfsr60$30ok4$3@dont-email.me>, at 15:15:12 on Wed, 14 Sep
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:44:21 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 14:54:23 +0100
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tfq0n6$1a13$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 13:31:18 on Tue, 13 Sep
>>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 17:27:36 +0100
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <tfnlt1$g8u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:14:25 on Mon, 12 Sep
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What's your solution? A prescribed list of classes from which
>>>>>>>>>>> operators can
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> order? Forbid new manufacturers from entering the UK market?
>>>>>>>>>>> (Sorry Stadler
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and CAF, we've got enough already thanks)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If it saves the taxpayer money then yes. LU finally got the
>>>>>>>>>> memo and ordered
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a single stock for the subsurface lines so why can't TOCs do the same
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hold on! GA got the memo, and now you are criticizing them for doing it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> GA already had a perfectly servicable fleet of EMUs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ROFL! You can't seriously mean that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tbh I got GA and C2C conflated. The c2c 357s were in good nick.
>>>>>
>>>>> And they're still in service.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think any Electrostars have been scrapped. They, and their diesel
>>>>> cousins, have been very successful.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Though they've [1] had their troublesome times over the years, haven't
>>>> they? Or is that just the subsequent Aventras?
>>>
>>> I don't recall any major problems with Electrostars
>>
>> Their introduction (on Southern I think) was plagued with teething
>> problems.
>>
>
> I'm sure there must have been some early teething problems, but I don't
> recall anything noteworthy,

Their horns got complained about and they retrofitted whistles, I remember
that.

> not even power supply issues (those came with
> the Desiros).
> Ditto with the 168s and 170s, which have never been
> troublesome.
>

Ross might disagree ;)

170s had various coupling compatibility issues.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 15/09/2022 10:00, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tfsugl$udo$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:12:05 on Wed, 14 Sep
> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:46:05 +0200
>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 2022-09-14 15:38:40 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:42:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> The Voyagers and derivatives, the Pendilinos, and the IETs.  For a
>>>>>> start.  The Flirts will be better when they finally get rid of all
>>>>>> jointed lines they use.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd nominate good/bad stock based on its longevity with its first
>>>>> operator,
>>>>> and whether there had been repeat orders from the same or other
>>>>> operators.
>>>>> On that basis, the 22x, 390 and 7x5 stocks are all clear successes.
>>>>>
>>>>> The post-BR failures would be the 460, 332, and 180 stocks, as well
>>>>> as the
>>>>> 230 and 769 conversions. From the late BR era, the 365 and maybe
>>>>> the IC225
>>>>> would be regarded as disappointing.
>>>>
>>>> The 225s never had a chance to run at 225kmh because the money to
>>>> upgrade
>>>> the ECML vanished. I wonder what could be done with the ECML and
>>>> WCML with
>>>> the money currently being blown on HS2.....
>>>
>>> The 91s needed a quite significant rebuild to correct reliability
>>> issues not that long after introduction into service.
>>
>> Just saying, they were built for 140mph but never got a chance to use it.
>> If both the ECML and WCML ran at 140mph there would be zero case for HS2
>> as opposed to the microscopically small case it has now.
>
> Only if you erroneously believe the reason for HS2 is to get passengers
> from A to B sooner ((yes, I know, that's how they try to sell it to a
> gullible public).
>
> When it's really about freeing up freight paths. When you hear of a
> 140mph container train which could slot in between the passenger trains.
> do let us know.

That's an interesting idea. Of course, on the existing lines only 125
would be useful, and 110 probably enough in practice. Could we build a
fleet of 110 mph container trains (with acceptable acceleration) for
considerably less than the cost of HS2, or are there technical problems
that money couldn't solve?

On the other hand, the problem may be that all the trains we want to run
won't fit on the WCML together, whatever speeds we path them at.

Certes <none@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On 15/09/2022 10:00, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tfsugl$udo$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:12:05 on Wed, 14 Sep
>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:46:05 +0200
>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2022-09-14 15:38:40 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:42:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> The Voyagers and derivatives, the Pendilinos, and the IETs.  For a
>>>>>>> start.  The Flirts will be better when they finally get rid of all
>>>>>>> jointed lines they use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd nominate good/bad stock based on its longevity with its first
>>>>>> operator,
>>>>>> and whether there had been repeat orders from the same or other
>>>>>> operators.
>>>>>> On that basis, the 22x, 390 and 7x5 stocks are all clear successes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The post-BR failures would be the 460, 332, and 180 stocks, as well
>>>>>> as the
>>>>>> 230 and 769 conversions. From the late BR era, the 365 and maybe
>>>>>> the IC225
>>>>>> would be regarded as disappointing.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 225s never had a chance to run at 225kmh because the money to
>>>>> upgrade
>>>>> the ECML vanished. I wonder what could be done with the ECML and
>>>>> WCML with
>>>>> the money currently being blown on HS2.....
>>>>
>>>> The 91s needed a quite significant rebuild to correct reliability
>>>> issues not that long after introduction into service.
>>>
>>> Just saying, they were built for 140mph but never got a chance to use it.
>>> If both the ECML and WCML ran at 140mph there would be zero case for HS2
>>> as opposed to the microscopically small case it has now.
>>
>> Only if you erroneously believe the reason for HS2 is to get passengers
>> from A to B sooner ((yes, I know, that's how they try to sell it to a
>> gullible public).
>>
>> When it's really about freeing up freight paths. When you hear of a
>> 140mph container train which could slot in between the passenger trains.
>> do let us know.
>
> That's an interesting idea. Of course, on the existing lines only 125
> would be useful, and 110 probably enough in practice. Could we build a
> fleet of 110 mph container trains (with acceptable acceleration) for
> considerably less than the cost of HS2, or are there technical problems
> that money couldn't solve?
>
> On the other hand, the problem may be that all the trains we want to run
> won't fit on the WCML together, whatever speeds we path them at.

That's believed to be the situation on the southern WCML. Unfortunately,
capacity is much lower on a mixed traffic railway compared to a metro where
all the trains have identical performance and stopping distances.

That's why moving the high speed, non-stop expresses off the congested WCML
frees up more train paths on the classic lines than you remove to HS2
(which is planned to be a sort of high speed metro). For maximum capacity
on the post-HS2 WCML, the line speed might be reduced to 110mph, with most
of the non-local passenger services moving to the (no longer so) fast
lines, freeing up more freight paths on the slow lines.

On 14/09/2022 19:41, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/09/2022 18:21, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 14/09/2022 17:32, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:46:05 +0200
>>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-09-14 15:38:40 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:42:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The Voyagers and derivatives, the Pendilinos, and the IETs. For a
>>>>>>>>>> start. The Flirts will be better when they finally get rid of all
>>>>>>>>>> jointed lines they use.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd nominate good/bad stock based on its longevity with its first operator,
>>>>>>>>> and whether there had been repeat orders from the same or other operators.
>>>>>>>>> On that basis, the 22x, 390 and 7x5 stocks are all clear successes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The post-BR failures would be the 460, 332, and 180 stocks, as well as the
>>>>>>>>> 230 and 769 conversions. From the late BR era, the 365 and maybe the IC225
>>>>>>>>> would be regarded as disappointing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 225s never had a chance to run at 225kmh because the money to upgrade
>>>>>>>> the ECML vanished. I wonder what could be done with the ECML and WCML with
>>>>>>>> the money currently being blown on HS2.....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 91s needed a quite significant rebuild to correct reliability
>>>>>>> issues not that long after introduction into service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just saying, they were built for 140mph but never got a chance to use it.
>>>>>> If both the ECML and WCML ran at 140mph there would be zero case for HS2
>>>>>> as opposed to the microscopically small case it has now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> HS2 is for relieving capacity, not for speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Build it without the journey time reductions and even without the
>>>>> Birmingham branch at all and the justification (freeing up passenger and
>>>>> freight paths) still stands IMO.
>>>>
>>>> I quite agree.
>>>>
>>>> I've never understood the justification for going beyond this. But I
>>>> don't understand politicians either. We do really need a way to ensure
>>>> we have more able politicians.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you're building a new line (effectively a new pair of fast lines for the
>>> WCML, and MML/ECML had it been built in full), you might as well make it
>>> faster too, for the comparatively little extra outlay.
>>>
>>
>> Making it faster is fine but going beyond the original remit of
>> increasing ECML capacity is not.
>>
>>
>
> I'm going to assume you mean WCML.
Yep. Sorry.
>
> Was phase 2, to the MML and ECML, part of the original plan or was it added
> later? (Genuine question! I'd be interested to know)
I've no idea. I've never been comfortable with the plans to go beyond
than the original necessity to relieve the southern part of the WCML.
>
> Why, having built a HSL capable of handling 18tph, but connected to lines
> which can supply around half that, should you not build connecting lines so
> that trains from other lines can use it, thus also relieving those lines of
> non-stop trains and freeing up capacity for stopping trains and freight?
The trouble is we haven't built an HSL to achieve the original
objective. The time to extend that to other destinations is when that
has been opened and operational.

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 14/09/2022 19:41, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 14/09/2022 18:21, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 14/09/2022 17:32, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:46:05 +0200
>>>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-09-14 15:38:40 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:42:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The Voyagers and derivatives, the Pendilinos, and the IETs. For a
>>>>>>>>>>> start. The Flirts will be better when they finally get rid of all
>>>>>>>>>>> jointed lines they use.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd nominate good/bad stock based on its longevity with its first operator,
>>>>>>>>>> and whether there had been repeat orders from the same or other operators.
>>>>>>>>>> On that basis, the 22x, 390 and 7x5 stocks are all clear successes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The post-BR failures would be the 460, 332, and 180 stocks, as well as the
>>>>>>>>>> 230 and 769 conversions. From the late BR era, the 365 and maybe the IC225
>>>>>>>>>> would be regarded as disappointing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The 225s never had a chance to run at 225kmh because the money to upgrade
>>>>>>>>> the ECML vanished. I wonder what could be done with the ECML and WCML with
>>>>>>>>> the money currently being blown on HS2.....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 91s needed a quite significant rebuild to correct reliability
>>>>>>>> issues not that long after introduction into service.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just saying, they were built for 140mph but never got a chance to use it.
>>>>>>> If both the ECML and WCML ran at 140mph there would be zero case for HS2
>>>>>>> as opposed to the microscopically small case it has now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HS2 is for relieving capacity, not for speed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Build it without the journey time reductions and even without the
>>>>>> Birmingham branch at all and the justification (freeing up passenger and
>>>>>> freight paths) still stands IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> I quite agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never understood the justification for going beyond this. But I
>>>>> don't understand politicians either. We do really need a way to ensure
>>>>> we have more able politicians.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you're building a new line (effectively a new pair of fast lines for the
>>>> WCML, and MML/ECML had it been built in full), you might as well make it
>>>> faster too, for the comparatively little extra outlay.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Making it faster is fine but going beyond the original remit of
>>> increasing ECML capacity is not.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm going to assume you mean WCML.
> Yep. Sorry.
>>
>> Was phase 2, to the MML and ECML, part of the original plan or was it added
>> later? (Genuine question! I'd be interested to know)
> I've no idea. I've never been comfortable with the plans to go beyond
> than the original necessity to relieve the southern part of the WCML.
>>
>> Why, having built a HSL capable of handling 18tph, but connected to lines
>> which can supply around half that, should you not build connecting lines so
>> that trains from other lines can use it, thus also relieving those lines of
>> non-stop trains and freeing up capacity for stopping trains and freight?
> The trouble is we haven't built an HSL to achieve the original
> objective. The time to extend that to other destinations is when that
> has been opened and operational.
>

You can't have two different construction sites going on at once?

To me it would seem to make sense to move the civil engineering crews on to
the next phase while the track and OLE crews work on the first phase.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/09/2022 19:41, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 14/09/2022 18:21, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 14/09/2022 17:32, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:46:05 +0200
>>>>>>>> Bob <email@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-09-14 15:38:40 +0000, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 14:42:01 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Voyagers and derivatives, the Pendilinos, and the IETs. For a
>>>>>>>>>>>> start. The Flirts will be better when they finally get rid of all
>>>>>>>>>>>> jointed lines they use.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd nominate good/bad stock based on its longevity with its first operator,
>>>>>>>>>>> and whether there had been repeat orders from the same or other operators.
>>>>>>>>>>> On that basis, the 22x, 390 and 7x5 stocks are all clear successes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The post-BR failures would be the 460, 332, and 180 stocks, as well as the
>>>>>>>>>>> 230 and 769 conversions. From the late BR era, the 365 and maybe the IC225
>>>>>>>>>>> would be regarded as disappointing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The 225s never had a chance to run at 225kmh because the money to upgrade
>>>>>>>>>> the ECML vanished. I wonder what could be done with the ECML and WCML with
>>>>>>>>>> the money currently being blown on HS2.....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The 91s needed a quite significant rebuild to correct reliability
>>>>>>>>> issues not that long after introduction into service.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just saying, they were built for 140mph but never got a chance to use it.
>>>>>>>> If both the ECML and WCML ran at 140mph there would be zero case for HS2
>>>>>>>> as opposed to the microscopically small case it has now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HS2 is for relieving capacity, not for speed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Build it without the journey time reductions and even without the
>>>>>>> Birmingham branch at all and the justification (freeing up passenger and
>>>>>>> freight paths) still stands IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I quite agree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've never understood the justification for going beyond this. But I
>>>>>> don't understand politicians either. We do really need a way to ensure
>>>>>> we have more able politicians.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're building a new line (effectively a new pair of fast lines for the
>>>>> WCML, and MML/ECML had it been built in full), you might as well make it
>>>>> faster too, for the comparatively little extra outlay.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Making it faster is fine but going beyond the original remit of
>>>> increasing ECML capacity is not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm going to assume you mean WCML.
>> Yep. Sorry.
>>>
>>> Was phase 2, to the MML and ECML, part of the original plan or was it added
>>> later? (Genuine question! I'd be interested to know)
>> I've no idea. I've never been comfortable with the plans to go beyond
>> than the original necessity to relieve the southern part of the WCML.
>>>
>>> Why, having built a HSL capable of handling 18tph, but connected to lines
>>> which can supply around half that, should you not build connecting lines so
>>> that trains from other lines can use it, thus also relieving those lines of
>>> non-stop trains and freeing up capacity for stopping trains and freight?
>> The trouble is we haven't built an HSL to achieve the original
>> objective. The time to extend that to other destinations is when that
>> has been opened and operational.
>>
>
> You can't have two different construction sites going on at once?
>
> To me it would seem to make sense to move the civil engineering crews on to
> the next phase while the track and OLE crews work on the first phase.

As I understand it, the whole route to Crewe is being treated as a single
project. Work has already started along the southern end of the route, but
should be well underway all the way to Crewe before trains are running to
Birmingham.

I don't know if the East Midlands spur will also be treated as part of the
same project, or as a follow-on. Ditto with Crewe to Manchester, though
that section may be treated as part of the NPR project. There's also the
question of whether the cancelled Golborne Link gets replaced by some other
equivalent or better link. Without that, the benefit of HS2 to Scotland is
minimal.

On 2022-09-14 19:22:31 +0000, Arthur Figgis said:

> On 12/09/2022 13:06, Theo wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't know if any foreign railways are still continuing the BR model where
>> design is in-house, or are they also just purchasing from the usual
>> suspects like the UK does?
>
> Indian Railways as a whole has in-house manufacturing units, albeit in
> some cases with specialist partners, but I think pretty much everywhere
> else buys in.
>
> A lot of trains are more or less customised, eg TGVs are based on what
> SNCF wants, or the obscure Swiss railways with weird gauges and
> electrification which only Stadler can be bothered with.

Stadler have made a good business out of making the "wierd stuff".
Things like new trains for the Schwebebahn, the Glasgow Subway, as well
as various Swiss mountain railways.

Robin

In message <tfutpi$39tn0$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:12:03 on Thu, 15 Sep
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>>>> I don't recall any major problems with Electrostars
>>>
>>> Their introduction (on Southern I think) was plagued with teething
>>> problems.
>>
>> I'm sure there must have been some early teething problems, but I don't
>> recall anything noteworthy,
>
>Their horns got complained about and they retrofitted whistles, I remember
>that.

I think one of the problems was station-specific operational issues
implemented by [as it turned out unreliable] GPS, but there were
probably traditional mechanical issues too.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tfv1de$3afh5$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:13:50 on Thu, 15 Sep
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>> To me it would seem to make sense to move the civil engineering crews on to
>> the next phase while the track and OLE crews work on the first phase.
>
>As I understand it, the whole route to Crewe is being treated as a single
>project. Work has already started along the southern end of the route, but
>should be well underway all the way to Crewe before trains are running to
>Birmingham.
>
>I don't know if the East Midlands spur will also be treated as part of the
>same project, or as a follow-on. Ditto with Crewe to Manchester,

The maps for the currently being constructed phase have been online for
years.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 10:00:25 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <tfsugl$udo$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:12:05 on Wed, 14 Sep
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>Just saying, they were built for 140mph but never got a chance to use it.
>>If both the ECML and WCML ran at 140mph there would be zero case for HS2
>>as opposed to the microscopically small case it has now.
>
>Only if you erroneously believe the reason for HS2 is to get passengers
>from A to B sooner ((yes, I know, that's how they try to sell it to a
>gullible public).
>
>When it's really about freeing up freight paths. When you hear of a
>140mph container train which could slot in between the passenger trains.
>do let us know.

If thats all it was about they could have simply built a new north south
freight line for probably 1/10th the cost, possibly even using part of the
old great central alignment.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 10:12:03 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm sure there must have been some early teething problems, but I don't
>> recall anything noteworthy,
>
>Their horns got complained about and they retrofitted whistles, I remember
>that.

Which is daft because its well know that the higher the frequency the harder
the brain finds it locating the source of the sound presumably because it
needs a certain minimum time phase difference between one ear and the other.