Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tg4aef$5aof$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:18:39 on Sat, 17 Sep
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 19:34:37 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> The problem with that is that currently there are very few
>>>>>>>> freight paths,
>>>>>>>> so removing them frees up remarkably little space for extra passenger
>>>>>>>> trains.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So HS2 *IS* about high speed passenger travel then? Do make your mind up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's about freeing up paths on the existing WCML (and MML/ECML, if
>>>>>> built in
>>>>>> full) for freight *and* stopping passenger trains. It can absolutely do
>>>>>> both, as well as providing higher speed travel too.
>>>>>
>>>>> I simply don't believe that for far less than 100bn (and counting)
>>>>> there isn't
>>>>> a better solution that couldn't have achieved the first 2 of those things.
>>>>
>>>> The best way to cut the eye-watering cost would have been to build HS2 much
>>>> more cheaply. They planned for excessively fast, excessively frequent,
>>>> excessively long trains, and excessive tunnelling, to placate NIMBYs in
>>>> Tory constituencies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Building a railway through the Home Counties that doesn’t have stations
>>> there seems to be the big mistake. And of course making it high speed makes
>>> it impractical to have anything other than widely spaced stations. I’d have
>>> thought a number of parkway stations along the route would have been of far
>>> more use to potential passengers.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Consider it an extra pair of fast lines for the WCML. The stations which
>> gain are the existing stations on that line.
>>
>> Also consider that unlike many HSLs elsewhere, HS2 (particularly if built
>> in full) is proposed to have a *very* intensive service (18tph I think).
>> Adding wayside stations gives three options:
>>
>> You stop all trains at those stations and (a) lose the advantage from the
>> high speed and (b) lose capacity on those trains too, as you need space for
>> people boarding along the way.
>>
>> You stop a handful of trains at those stations, but that consumes at least
>> three extra paths, I think: the path the train is in, a path lost while it
>> brakes. Another train passes while it stops. You need a vacant path while
>> it accelerates, and another for it to run in. Depending how many stopping
>> trains you intend to run, you've just reduced the capacity of the line by
>> 30%.
>>
>> The choices for stopping a handful of trains are, I suppose, as follows -
>> you run perhaps one stopper per hour, but it gets overtaken by the next
>> train from the same origin. Or you stop a different train at each stop, at
>> around the same time (eg every intermediate station is served at xx:20 but
>> you can't travel between them).
>
> The indicative HS2 service pattern has been published long ago (which no
> doubt has some leap-frogging at both Interchange and EM-hub):
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2#/media/File:HS2_vector_map>
>

I'm suggesting the options for if there were a number of intermediate
stations.

> But we no longer expect all of that to get built.

Not much use as an "indicative HS2 service pattern" then is it *rollseyes*

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 17/09/2022 10:54, Tweed wrote:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 19:34:37 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The problem with that is that currently there are very few freight paths,
>>>>>>>>> so removing them frees up remarkably little space for extra passenger
>>>>>>>>> trains.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So HS2 *IS* about high speed passenger travel then? Do make your mind up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's about freeing up paths on the existing WCML (and MML/ECML, if built in
>>>>>>> full) for freight *and* stopping passenger trains. It can absolutely do
>>>>>>> both, as well as providing higher speed travel too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I simply don't believe that for far less than 100bn (and counting) there isn't
>>>>>> a better solution that couldn't have achieved the first 2 of those things.
>>>>>
>>>>> The best way to cut the eye-watering cost would have been to build HS2 much
>>>>> more cheaply. They planned for excessively fast, excessively frequent,
>>>>> excessively long trains, and excessive tunnelling, to placate NIMBYs in
>>>>> Tory constituencies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Building a railway through the Home Counties that doesn’t have stations
>>>> there seems to be the big mistake. And of course making it high speed makes
>>>> it impractical to have anything other than widely spaced stations. I’d have
>>>> thought a number of parkway stations along the route would have been of far
>>>> more use to potential passengers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is what the classic line is for.
>>>
>>
>> Not many parkway stations. The problem with a lot of railway stations is
>> they are now inconvenient to get to from where people now live.
>>
>>
>
> Start a campaign to build some then ;)
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
>

Wot? Given the vast cost of building a new station these days!! £20 million
for Reston station.

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 19:34:38 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 18:19:11 +0100
>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15/09/2022 14:35, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What Great Central alignment? Most of it went years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The preserved GCR has a nice chunk of it from north leicester to just south
>>>>>> of nottingham. I'm sure if it was needed again they could be persuaded to
>>>>>> hand it over for a nice sum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not particularly useful for a WCML relief line, though.
>>>>
>>>> No, was pointing it out though.
>>>>
>>>>> And can you imagine the outcry…
>>>>
>>>> I imagine the rail buffs would be rather pissed off, but the citizens of
>>>> loughborough might be rather pleased. Anyway, it'll never happen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why would the citizens of Loughborough be pleased? Don't they like having a
>>> major tourist attraction in their town centre?
>>>
>>
>> It’s not really in the town centre. Sadly the GCR steam railway is an
>> irrelevance to the vast bulk of Loughborough and Leicester citizens.
>>
>>
>
> Still doesn't tell me why they'd be happy to get rid of it ;)
>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>
>

Lots of annoying toot toots and smoke

In message <b0gbihpag2cqtfr217a3qe6r5r9ssbkvdc@4ax.com>, at 13:51:12 on
Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>Less frequent trains saves platforms in Euston and perhaps OOC and the
>Birmingham Interchange, and would make it possible to have a parkway
>station in the Chilterns. It would still be possible to have 2tph to
>each of Birmingham, Manchester, Scotland and Derby (and beyond), and
>1tph to Liverpool, Preston and Nottingham.

And what will shorter less frequent trains do to the fares basket?

Leeds seems to get the short straw in your plan, and 2tph to East
Midlands hub and local transport onwards would be more useful for
Nottingham than 1tph direct (and is that one every two hours from
each of London and Birmingham?)
--
Roland Perry

In message <tg4hsd$5ukf$2@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:33 on Sat, 17 Sep
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:

>>>> Building a railway through the Home Counties that doesn’t have stations
>>>> there seems to be the big mistake. And of course making it high speed makes
>>>> it impractical to have anything other than widely spaced stations. I’d have
>>>> thought a number of parkway stations along the route would have been of far
>>>> more use to potential passengers.
>>>
>>> Consider it an extra pair of fast lines for the WCML. The stations which
>>> gain are the existing stations on that line.
>>>
>>> Also consider that unlike many HSLs elsewhere, HS2 (particularly if built
>>> in full) is proposed to have a *very* intensive service (18tph I think).
>>> Adding wayside stations gives three options:
>>>
>>> You stop all trains at those stations and (a) lose the advantage from the
>>> high speed and (b) lose capacity on those trains too, as you need space for
>>> people boarding along the way.
>>>
>>> You stop a handful of trains at those stations, but that consumes at least
>>> three extra paths, I think: the path the train is in, a path lost while it
>>> brakes. Another train passes while it stops. You need a vacant path while
>>> it accelerates, and another for it to run in. Depending how many stopping
>>> trains you intend to run, you've just reduced the capacity of the line by
>>> 30%.
>>>
>>> The choices for stopping a handful of trains are, I suppose, as follows -
>>> you run perhaps one stopper per hour, but it gets overtaken by the next
>>> train from the same origin. Or you stop a different train at each stop, at
>>> around the same time (eg every intermediate station is served at xx:20 but
>>> you can't travel between them).
>>
>> The indicative HS2 service pattern has been published long ago (which no
>> doubt has some leap-frogging at both Interchange and EM-hub):
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2#/media/File:HS2_vector_map>
>
>I'm suggesting the options for if there were a number of intermediate
>stations.

Having more intermediate stations merely increases the number of places
the leap-frogging might take place (in order to preserve a useful number
of TPH on the lines in between).

>> But we no longer expect all of that to get built.
>
>Not much use as an "indicative HS2 service pattern" then is it

It was before the cuts were announced, and in particular shows how there
*would* have been leap-frogging, as well as a substantial number of
trains NOT merely on the London-Birmingham route.

Pretty much every discussion here in the past has airbrushed out the
Birmingham to Not-London flows.

>*rollseyes*

What might be helpful if someone could come up with an equivalent,
taking into account the various proposed cuts in the pipeline.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <b0gbihpag2cqtfr217a3qe6r5r9ssbkvdc@4ax.com>, at 13:51:12 on
> Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>> Less frequent trains saves platforms in Euston and perhaps OOC and the
>> Birmingham Interchange, and would make it possible to have a parkway
>> station in the Chilterns. It would still be possible to have 2tph to
>> each of Birmingham, Manchester, Scotland and Derby (and beyond), and
>> 1tph to Liverpool, Preston and Nottingham.
>
> And what will shorter less frequent trains do to the fares basket?
>
> Leeds seems to get the short straw in your plan, and 2tph to East
> Midlands hub

Stop living in your fantasy world. There won't be a Toton hub.

> and local transport onwards would be more useful for
> Nottingham than 1tph direct (and is that one every two hours from
> each of London and Birmingham?)

Those are the tph from London, where the proposed high frequency is an
issue. Trains from Birmingham would be on top, and i assume 1 or 2tph on
each route.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tg4hsd$5ukf$2@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:33 on Sat, 17 Sep
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>
>>>>> Building a railway through the Home Counties that doesn’t have stations
>>>>> there seems to be the big mistake. And of course making it high speed makes
>>>>> it impractical to have anything other than widely spaced stations. I’d have
>>>>> thought a number of parkway stations along the route would have been of far
>>>>> more use to potential passengers.
>>>>
>>>> Consider it an extra pair of fast lines for the WCML. The stations which
>>>> gain are the existing stations on that line.
>>>>
>>>> Also consider that unlike many HSLs elsewhere, HS2 (particularly if built
>>>> in full) is proposed to have a *very* intensive service (18tph I think).
>>>> Adding wayside stations gives three options:
>>>>
>>>> You stop all trains at those stations and (a) lose the advantage from the
>>>> high speed and (b) lose capacity on those trains too, as you need space for
>>>> people boarding along the way.
>>>>
>>>> You stop a handful of trains at those stations, but that consumes at least
>>>> three extra paths, I think: the path the train is in, a path lost while it
>>>> brakes. Another train passes while it stops. You need a vacant path while
>>>> it accelerates, and another for it to run in. Depending how many stopping
>>>> trains you intend to run, you've just reduced the capacity of the line by
>>>> 30%.
>>>>
>>>> The choices for stopping a handful of trains are, I suppose, as follows -
>>>> you run perhaps one stopper per hour, but it gets overtaken by the next
>>>> train from the same origin. Or you stop a different train at each stop, at
>>>> around the same time (eg every intermediate station is served at xx:20 but
>>>> you can't travel between them).
>>>
>>> The indicative HS2 service pattern has been published long ago (which no
>>> doubt has some leap-frogging at both Interchange and EM-hub):
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2#/media/File:HS2_vector_map>
>>
>> I'm suggesting the options for if there were a number of intermediate
>> stations.
>
> Having more intermediate stations merely increases the number of places
> the leap-frogging might take place (in order to preserve a useful number
> of TPH on the lines in between).
>
>>> But we no longer expect all of that to get built.
>>
>> Not much use as an "indicative HS2 service pattern" then is it
>
> It was before the cuts were announced, and in particular shows how there
> *would* have been leap-frogging, as well as a substantial number of
> trains NOT merely on the London-Birmingham route.
>
> Pretty much every discussion here in the past has airbrushed out the
> Birmingham to Not-London flows.

Because they aren't a problem.

>
>> *rollseyes*
>
> What might be helpful if someone could come up with an equivalent,
> taking into account the various proposed cuts in the pipeline.

I did, but you keep trying to re-introduce deleted sections.

In message <tg9au6$11lfb$3@dont-email.me>, at 08:57:42 on Mon, 19 Sep
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tg4hsd$5ukf$2@dont-email.me>, at 13:25:33 on Sat, 17 Sep
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>>> Building a railway through the Home Counties that doesn’t have stations
>>>>>> there seems to be the big mistake. And of course making it high
>>>>>>speed makes
>>>>>> it impractical to have anything other than widely spaced
>>>>>>stations. I’d have
>>>>>> thought a number of parkway stations along the route would have
>>>>>>been of far
>>>>>> more use to potential passengers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider it an extra pair of fast lines for the WCML. The stations which
>>>>> gain are the existing stations on that line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also consider that unlike many HSLs elsewhere, HS2 (particularly if built
>>>>> in full) is proposed to have a *very* intensive service (18tph I think).
>>>>> Adding wayside stations gives three options:
>>>>>
>>>>> You stop all trains at those stations and (a) lose the advantage from the
>>>>> high speed and (b) lose capacity on those trains too, as you need
>>>>>space for
>>>>> people boarding along the way.
>>>>>
>>>>> You stop a handful of trains at those stations, but that consumes at least
>>>>> three extra paths, I think: the path the train is in, a path lost while it
>>>>> brakes. Another train passes while it stops. You need a vacant path while
>>>>> it accelerates, and another for it to run in. Depending how many stopping
>>>>> trains you intend to run, you've just reduced the capacity of the line by
>>>>> 30%.
>>>>>
>>>>> The choices for stopping a handful of trains are, I suppose, as follows -
>>>>> you run perhaps one stopper per hour, but it gets overtaken by the next
>>>>> train from the same origin. Or you stop a different train at each stop, at
>>>>> around the same time (eg every intermediate station is served at xx:20 but
>>>>> you can't travel between them).
>>>>
>>>> The indicative HS2 service pattern has been published long ago (which no
>>>> doubt has some leap-frogging at both Interchange and EM-hub):
>>>>
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2#/media/File:HS2_vector_map>
>>>
>>> I'm suggesting the options for if there were a number of intermediate
>>> stations.
>>
>> Having more intermediate stations merely increases the number of places
>> the leap-frogging might take place (in order to preserve a useful number
>> of TPH on the lines in between).
>>
>>>> But we no longer expect all of that to get built.
>>>
>>> Not much use as an "indicative HS2 service pattern" then is it
>>
>> It was before the cuts were announced, and in particular shows how there
>> *would* have been leap-frogging, as well as a substantial number of
>> trains NOT merely on the London-Birmingham route.
>>
>> Pretty much every discussion here in the past has airbrushed out the
>> Birmingham to Not-London flows.
>
>Because they aren't a problem.

In the sense that they won't be cut, and people will in fact have much
reduced journey times between Birmingham and points north (both
northeast and northwest?)

>>> *rollseyes*
>>
>> What might be helpful if someone could come up with an equivalent,
>> taking into account the various proposed cuts in the pipeline.
>
>I did, but you keep trying to re-introduce deleted sections.

I must have missed it, or do you mean your "Trains from Birmingham would
be on top, and i assume 1 or 2tph on each route", which is sorely
lacking detail on what those routes are.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tg9au5$11lfb$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:57:41 on Mon, 19 Sep
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <b0gbihpag2cqtfr217a3qe6r5r9ssbkvdc@4ax.com>, at 13:51:12 on
>> Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>> Less frequent trains saves platforms in Euston and perhaps OOC and the
>>> Birmingham Interchange, and would make it possible to have a parkway
>>> station in the Chilterns. It would still be possible to have 2tph to
>>> each of Birmingham, Manchester, Scotland and Derby (and beyond), and
>>> 1tph to Liverpool, Preston and Nottingham.
>>
>> And what will shorter less frequent trains do to the fares basket?
>>
>> Leeds seems to get the short straw in your plan, and 2tph to East
>> Midlands hub
>
>Stop living in your fantasy world. There won't be a Toton hub.

I'm not claiming there will be, just pointing out that the lack of one
is a disaster for the overall transport plan.

Your fantasy is that East Midlands Parkway will be anything but a white
elephant as a substitute.

>> and local transport onwards would be more useful for
>> Nottingham than 1tph direct (and is that one every two hours from
>> each of London and Birmingham?)
>
>Those are the tph from London, where the proposed high frequency is an
>issue. Trains from Birmingham would be on top, and i assume 1 or 2tph on
>each route.

A revised spider-map would highly qualify for "one picture is worth
1,000 words".
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tg9au5$11lfb$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:57:41 on Mon, 19 Sep
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <b0gbihpag2cqtfr217a3qe6r5r9ssbkvdc@4ax.com>, at 13:51:12 on
>>> Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>> Less frequent trains saves platforms in Euston and perhaps OOC and the
>>>> Birmingham Interchange, and would make it possible to have a parkway
>>>> station in the Chilterns. It would still be possible to have 2tph to
>>>> each of Birmingham, Manchester, Scotland and Derby (and beyond), and
>>>> 1tph to Liverpool, Preston and Nottingham.
>>>
>>> And what will shorter less frequent trains do to the fares basket?
>>>
>>> Leeds seems to get the short straw in your plan, and 2tph to East
>>> Midlands hub
>>
>> Stop living in your fantasy world. There won't be a Toton hub.
>
> I'm not claiming there will be, just pointing out that the lack of one
> is a disaster for the overall transport plan.

Yes, we know your opinion.

>
> Your fantasy is that East Midlands Parkway will be anything but a white
> elephant as a substitute.

You keep think it's meant to be a substitute. It's not. There may not even
be HS2 platforms there.

In message <tgkoqe$2jacj$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:02:06 on Fri, 23 Sep
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tg9au5$11lfb$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:57:41 on Mon, 19 Sep
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <b0gbihpag2cqtfr217a3qe6r5r9ssbkvdc@4ax.com>, at 13:51:12 on
>>>> Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> Less frequent trains saves platforms in Euston and perhaps OOC and the
>>>>> Birmingham Interchange, and would make it possible to have a parkway
>>>>> station in the Chilterns. It would still be possible to have 2tph to
>>>>> each of Birmingham, Manchester, Scotland and Derby (and beyond), and
>>>>> 1tph to Liverpool, Preston and Nottingham.
>>>>
>>>> And what will shorter less frequent trains do to the fares basket?
>>>>
>>>> Leeds seems to get the short straw in your plan, and 2tph to East
>>>> Midlands hub
>>>
>>> Stop living in your fantasy world. There won't be a Toton hub.
>>
>> I'm not claiming there will be, just pointing out that the lack of one
>> is a disaster for the overall transport plan.
>
>Yes, we know your opinion.

I'm just repeating what the transport planners in the region are saying.

>> Your fantasy is that East Midlands Parkway will be anything but a white
>> elephant as a substitute.
>
>You keep think it's meant to be a substitute. It's not. There may not even
>be HS2 platforms there.

That's a new one!

Pub quiz: how many places currently on the UK rail network where trains
split and couple, are not at platforms?
--
Roland Perry

On 24/09/2022 11:29, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <tgkoqe$2jacj$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:02:06 on Fri, 23 Sep
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tg9au5$11lfb$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:57:41 on Mon, 19 Sep
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <b0gbihpag2cqtfr217a3qe6r5r9ssbkvdc@4ax.com>, at
>>>>> 13:51:12 on
>>>>> Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Less frequent trains saves platforms in Euston and perhaps OOC and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Birmingham Interchange, and would make it possible to have a parkway
>>>>>> station in the Chilterns. It would still be possible to have 2tph to
>>>>>> each of Birmingham, Manchester, Scotland and Derby (and beyond), and
>>>>>> 1tph to Liverpool, Preston and Nottingham.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what will shorter less frequent trains do to the fares basket?
>>>>>
>>>>> Leeds seems to get the short straw in your plan, and 2tph to East
>>>>> Midlands hub
>>>>
>>>> Stop living in your fantasy world. There won't be a Toton hub.
>>>
>>> I'm not claiming there will be, just pointing out that the lack of one
>>> is a disaster for the overall transport plan.
>>
>> Yes, we know your opinion.
>
> I'm just repeating what the transport planners in the region are saying.
>
>>> Your fantasy is that East Midlands Parkway will be anything but a white
>>> elephant as a substitute.
>>
>> You keep think it's meant to be a substitute. It's not.  There may not
>> even
>> be HS2 platforms there.
>
> That's a new one!
>
> Pub quiz: how many places currently on the UK rail network where trains
> split and couple, are not at platforms?

In passenger service, I'd say none, but I suspect you are about to
surprise me. The last one I can think of was Mossend yard.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tgkoqe$2jacj$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:02:06 on Fri, 23 Sep
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tg9au5$11lfb$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:57:41 on Mon, 19 Sep
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <b0gbihpag2cqtfr217a3qe6r5r9ssbkvdc@4ax.com>, at 13:51:12 on
>>>>> Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Less frequent trains saves platforms in Euston and perhaps OOC and the
>>>>>> Birmingham Interchange, and would make it possible to have a parkway
>>>>>> station in the Chilterns. It would still be possible to have 2tph to
>>>>>> each of Birmingham, Manchester, Scotland and Derby (and beyond), and
>>>>>> 1tph to Liverpool, Preston and Nottingham.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what will shorter less frequent trains do to the fares basket?
>>>>>
>>>>> Leeds seems to get the short straw in your plan, and 2tph to East
>>>>> Midlands hub
>>>>
>>>> Stop living in your fantasy world. There won't be a Toton hub.
>>>
>>> I'm not claiming there will be, just pointing out that the lack of one
>>> is a disaster for the overall transport plan.
>>
>> Yes, we know your opinion.
>
> I'm just repeating what the transport planners in the region are saying.
>
>>> Your fantasy is that East Midlands Parkway will be anything but a white
>>> elephant as a substitute.
>>
>> You keep think it's meant to be a substitute. It's not. There may not even
>> be HS2 platforms there.
>
> That's a new one!

Only if you can't read.

>
> Pub quiz: how many places currently on the UK rail network where trains
> split and couple, are not at platforms?

Why would they need to split and couple there?

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 13:41:24 +0100, Certes wrote:
> On 24/09/2022 11:29, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Pub quiz: how many places currently on the UK rail network where trains
>> split and couple, are not at platforms?
>
> In passenger service, I'd say none, but I suspect you are about to
> surprise me. The last one I can think of was Mossend yard.

The Caledonian Sleeper normally splits/couples in stations (Carstairs and
Edinburgh Waverley), but if it's not able to access them I think some of
the alternate locations aren't in a station. It can also have locos
attached and removed in various random locations around London if
diverted at that end, though the coaches stay coupled.

Mike

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.

Coming late to this, but the aerodynamics of (current) container trains
would probably make 110 mph wildly expensive and uneconomic.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <tgn3ce$30883$3@dont-email.me>, at 14:14:38 on Sat, 24 Sep
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tgkoqe$2jacj$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:02:06 on Fri, 23 Sep
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tg9au5$11lfb$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:57:41 on Mon, 19 Sep
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <b0gbihpag2cqtfr217a3qe6r5r9ssbkvdc@4ax.com>, at 13:51:12 on
>>>>>> Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Less frequent trains saves platforms in Euston and perhaps OOC and the
>>>>>>> Birmingham Interchange, and would make it possible to have a parkway
>>>>>>> station in the Chilterns. It would still be possible to have 2tph to
>>>>>>> each of Birmingham, Manchester, Scotland and Derby (and beyond), and
>>>>>>> 1tph to Liverpool, Preston and Nottingham.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what will shorter less frequent trains do to the fares basket?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Leeds seems to get the short straw in your plan, and 2tph to East
>>>>>> Midlands hub
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop living in your fantasy world. There won't be a Toton hub.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not claiming there will be, just pointing out that the lack of one
>>>> is a disaster for the overall transport plan.
>>>
>>> Yes, we know your opinion.
>>
>> I'm just repeating what the transport planners in the region are saying.
>>
>>>> Your fantasy is that East Midlands Parkway will be anything but a white
>>>> elephant as a substitute.
>>>
>>> You keep think it's meant to be a substitute. It's not. There may not even
>>> be HS2 platforms there.
>>
>> That's a new one!
>
>Only if you can't read.

What is it that you expect me to have read? Specifics please, not just
arm-waving.

>> Pub quiz: how many places currently on the UK rail network where trains
>> split and couple, are not at platforms?
>
>Why would they need to split and couple there?

To send half the train via Derby and the other half via Nottingham.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tgmttl$2vnvv$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:41:24 on Sat, 24 Sep
2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>On 24/09/2022 11:29, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tgkoqe$2jacj$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:02:06 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tg9au5$11lfb$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:57:41 on Mon, 19 Sep
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <b0gbihpag2cqtfr217a3qe6r5r9ssbkvdc@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>13:51:12 on
>>>>>> Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Less frequent trains saves platforms in Euston and perhaps OOC
>>>>>>>and the
>>>>>>> Birmingham Interchange, and would make it possible to have a parkway
>>>>>>> station in the Chilterns. It would still be possible to have 2tph to
>>>>>>> each of Birmingham, Manchester, Scotland and Derby (and beyond), and
>>>>>>> 1tph to Liverpool, Preston and Nottingham.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what will shorter less frequent trains do to the fares basket?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Leeds seems to get the short straw in your plan, and 2tph to East
>>>>>> Midlands hub
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop living in your fantasy world. There won't be a Toton hub.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not claiming there will be, just pointing out that the lack of one
>>>> is a disaster for the overall transport plan.
>>>
>>> Yes, we know your opinion.
>> I'm just repeating what the transport planners in the region are
>>saying.
>>
>>>> Your fantasy is that East Midlands Parkway will be anything but a
>>>>white
>>>> elephant as a substitute.
>>>
>>> You keep think it's meant to be a substitute. It's not.  There may
>>>not even
>>> be HS2 platforms there.
>> That's a new one!
>> Pub quiz: how many places currently on the UK rail network where
>>trains split and couple, are not at platforms?
>
>In passenger service, I'd say none, but I suspect you are about to
>surprise me.

I have none in mind. Not even a handful of EMUs which have been reported
to have accidentally split at speed on the lower stretches of the ECML.

>The last one I can think of was Mossend yard.

--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 17:01:39 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <tgmttl$2vnvv$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:41:24 on Sat, 24 Sep
>2022, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>>On 24/09/2022 11:29, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tgkoqe$2jacj$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:02:06 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tg9au5$11lfb$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:57:41 on Mon, 19 Sep
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <b0gbihpag2cqtfr217a3qe6r5r9ssbkvdc@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>13:51:12 on
>>>>>>> Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Less frequent trains saves platforms in Euston and perhaps OOC
>>>>>>>>and the
>>>>>>>> Birmingham Interchange, and would make it possible to have a parkway
>>>>>>>> station in the Chilterns. It would still be possible to have 2tph to
>>>>>>>> each of Birmingham, Manchester, Scotland and Derby (and beyond), and
>>>>>>>> 1tph to Liverpool, Preston and Nottingham.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what will shorter less frequent trains do to the fares basket?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leeds seems to get the short straw in your plan, and 2tph to East
>>>>>>> Midlands hub
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop living in your fantasy world. There won't be a Toton hub.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not claiming there will be, just pointing out that the lack of one
>>>>> is a disaster for the overall transport plan.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we know your opinion.
>>> I'm just repeating what the transport planners in the region are
>>>saying.
>>>
>>>>> Your fantasy is that East Midlands Parkway will be anything but a
>>>>>white
>>>>> elephant as a substitute.
>>>>
>>>> You keep think it's meant to be a substitute. It's not.  There may
>>>>not even
>>>> be HS2 platforms there.
>>> That's a new one!
>>> Pub quiz: how many places currently on the UK rail network where
>>>trains split and couple, are not at platforms?
>>
>>In passenger service, I'd say none, but I suspect you are about to
>>surprise me.
>
>I have none in mind. Not even a handful of EMUs which have been reported
>to have accidentally split at speed on the lower stretches of the ECML.

<https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/126000089/manufacturing-fault-likely-reason-for-te-huias-carriages-separating-midjourney>

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> 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.

ISTR the ScotRail T*s had a snagging list stretching to something like 400
items.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tgn3ce$30883$3@dont-email.me>, at 14:14:38 on Sat, 24 Sep
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tgkoqe$2jacj$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:02:06 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tg9au5$11lfb$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:57:41 on Mon, 19 Sep
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <b0gbihpag2cqtfr217a3qe6r5r9ssbkvdc@4ax.com>, at 13:51:12 on
>>>>>>> Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Less frequent trains saves platforms in Euston and perhaps OOC and the
>>>>>>>> Birmingham Interchange, and would make it possible to have a parkway
>>>>>>>> station in the Chilterns. It would still be possible to have 2tph to
>>>>>>>> each of Birmingham, Manchester, Scotland and Derby (and beyond), and
>>>>>>>> 1tph to Liverpool, Preston and Nottingham.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what will shorter less frequent trains do to the fares basket?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leeds seems to get the short straw in your plan, and 2tph to East
>>>>>>> Midlands hub
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop living in your fantasy world. There won't be a Toton hub.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not claiming there will be, just pointing out that the lack of one
>>>>> is a disaster for the overall transport plan.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we know your opinion.
>>>
>>> I'm just repeating what the transport planners in the region are saying.
>>>
>>>>> Your fantasy is that East Midlands Parkway will be anything but a white
>>>>> elephant as a substitute.
>>>>
>>>> You keep think it's meant to be a substitute. It's not. There may not even
>>>> be HS2 platforms there.
>>>
>>> That's a new one!
>>
>> Only if you can't read.
>
> What is it that you expect me to have read? Specifics please, not just
> arm-waving.

I've said it often enough here.

>
>>> Pub quiz: how many places currently on the UK rail network where trains
>>> split and couple, are not at platforms?
>>
>> Why would they need to split and couple there?
>
> To send half the train via Derby and the other half via Nottingham.

No, send a single train from London to Nottingham, and split a double at
Derby. But I think it would be better if all the trains were single ~260m
trains.

On 24/09/2022 16:29, Sam Wilson wrote:
> 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.
>
> Coming late to this, but the aerodynamics of (current) container trains
> would probably make 110 mph wildly expensive and uneconomic.
>
And dangerous for passengers on platforms.

In message <tgno67$3283a$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:09:43 on Sat, 24 Sep
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tgn3ce$30883$3@dont-email.me>, at 14:14:38 on Sat, 24 Sep
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tgkoqe$2jacj$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:02:06 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tg9au5$11lfb$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:57:41 on Mon, 19 Sep
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <b0gbihpag2cqtfr217a3qe6r5r9ssbkvdc@4ax.com>, at 13:51:12 on
>>>>>>>> Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Less frequent trains saves platforms in Euston and perhaps OOC and the
>>>>>>>>> Birmingham Interchange, and would make it possible to have a parkway
>>>>>>>>> station in the Chilterns. It would still be possible to have 2tph to
>>>>>>>>> each of Birmingham, Manchester, Scotland and Derby (and beyond), and
>>>>>>>>> 1tph to Liverpool, Preston and Nottingham.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what will shorter less frequent trains do to the fares basket?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Leeds seems to get the short straw in your plan, and 2tph to East
>>>>>>>> Midlands hub
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stop living in your fantasy world. There won't be a Toton hub.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not claiming there will be, just pointing out that the lack of one
>>>>>> is a disaster for the overall transport plan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we know your opinion.
>>>>
>>>> I'm just repeating what the transport planners in the region are saying.
>>>>
>>>>>> Your fantasy is that East Midlands Parkway will be anything but a white
>>>>>> elephant as a substitute.
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep think it's meant to be a substitute. It's not. There may
>>>>>not even be HS2 platforms there.
>>>>
>>>> That's a new one!
>>>
>>> Only if you can't read.
>>
>> What is it that you expect me to have read? Specifics please, not just
>> arm-waving.
>
>I've said it often enough here.

Do you have a document you would like to propose (again, if you've
offered it before) we read?

>>>> Pub quiz: how many places currently on the UK rail network where trains
>>>> split and couple, are not at platforms?
>>>
>>> Why would they need to split and couple there?
>>
>> To send half the train via Derby and the other half via Nottingham.
>
>No, send a single train from London to Nottingham,

And another from Birmingham to Nottingham?

Terminating a Nottingham, or going further to Newark and places north?

>and split a double at Derby.

Is that a train from London, or ones from both London and Birmingham.

After the split, are proposing one half returns from whence it came
(perhaps coupled to one that's just arrived via Chesterfield), and the
other half goes forward to Sheffield(/Leeds)?

These are all questions a spider map would answer most efficiently.

>But I think it would be better if all the trains were single ~260m
>trains.

That won't give enough ticket revenue to make it worthwhile.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tgno67$3283a$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:09:43 on Sat, 24 Sep
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tgn3ce$30883$3@dont-email.me>, at 14:14:38 on Sat, 24 Sep
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tgkoqe$2jacj$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:02:06 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tg9au5$11lfb$2@dont-email.me>, at 08:57:41 on Mon, 19 Sep
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <b0gbihpag2cqtfr217a3qe6r5r9ssbkvdc@4ax.com>, at 13:51:12 on
>>>>>>>>> Sat, 17 Sep 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Less frequent trains saves platforms in Euston and perhaps OOC and the
>>>>>>>>>> Birmingham Interchange, and would make it possible to have a parkway
>>>>>>>>>> station in the Chilterns. It would still be possible to have 2tph to
>>>>>>>>>> each of Birmingham, Manchester, Scotland and Derby (and beyond), and
>>>>>>>>>> 1tph to Liverpool, Preston and Nottingham.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And what will shorter less frequent trains do to the fares basket?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Leeds seems to get the short straw in your plan, and 2tph to East
>>>>>>>>> Midlands hub
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stop living in your fantasy world. There won't be a Toton hub.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not claiming there will be, just pointing out that the lack of one
>>>>>>> is a disaster for the overall transport plan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, we know your opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just repeating what the transport planners in the region are saying.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your fantasy is that East Midlands Parkway will be anything but a white
>>>>>>> elephant as a substitute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You keep think it's meant to be a substitute. It's not. There may
>>>>>> not even be HS2 platforms there.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a new one!
>>>>
>>>> Only if you can't read.
>>>
>>> What is it that you expect me to have read? Specifics please, not just
>>> arm-waving.
>>
>> I've said it often enough here.
>
> Do you have a document you would like to propose (again, if you've
> offered it before) we read?
>
>>>>> Pub quiz: how many places currently on the UK rail network where trains
>>>>> split and couple, are not at platforms?
>>>>
>>>> Why would they need to split and couple there?
>>>
>>> To send half the train via Derby and the other half via Nottingham.
>>
>> No, send a single train from London to Nottingham,
>
> And another from Birmingham to Nottingham?

Yes

>
> Terminating a Nottingham, or going further to Newark and places north?

Terminating at Nottingham.

>
>> and split a double at Derby.
>
> Is that a train from London, or ones from both London and Birmingham.

From London. As I said, trains from Brum would be on top.

>
> After the split, are proposing one half returns from whence it came
> (perhaps coupled to one that's just arrived via Chesterfield), and the
> other half goes forward to Sheffield(/Leeds)?

Yes

>
> These are all questions a spider map would answer most efficiently.
>
>> But I think it would be better if all the trains were single ~260m
>> trains.
>
> That won't give enough ticket revenue to make it worthwhile.

It'll save a lot of costs, increase ticket revenue on some routes, and lose
little on others.