Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tgn3ce$30883$2@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 <tgm8kc$2tvva$2@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:04 on Sat, 24 Sep
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tgl3fd$2l3pe$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:03:57 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tgkos6$2jaig$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:02 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 92. East West Rail
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I though this was going to be privately funded. Which phase is it
>>>>>>>>> anyway, they can't agree a route from Bedford to Cambridge at the
>>>>>>>>> moment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FWIW, Shapps was musing that the case for that section was too poor to
>>>>>>>> proceed. The only question currently is whether the existing line from
>>>>>>>> Bletchley to Beford gets upgraded to EWR standards. Shapps was dubious
>>>>>>>> about that, too, so it's possible the new government will confirm
>>>>>>>> it. But I
>>>>>>>> doubt that work can start in 2023.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was someone on the local TV news earlier who appeared to be saying
>>>>>>> that the major attraction of E/W rail was so businesses in Bedfordshire
>>>>>>> could poach staff from Cambridge. But why would someone paying Cambridge
>>>>>>> house prices commute to jobs paying Bedfordshire wages, even if there
>>>>>>> was a railway line?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think there's any danger of it getting anywhere near Cambridge in
>>>>>> our life times.
>>>>>
>>>>> The main kerfuffle at the moment is whether you miss Bedford (and
>>>>> incidentally Cambourne) altogether, and skirt around the south, with new
>>>>> build to join the Kings Cross line at Shepreth; or go into Bedford then
>>>>> demolish a route through its northern suburbs and via at least a couple
>>>>> of proposed new towns on the Beds/Cambs borders, once again swinging
>>>>> south to join the Kings Cross line somewhere near Foxton.
>>>>>
>>>>> Either of them would of course also involve running through the proposed
>>>>> Cambridge South station, and have a potential interchange station with
>>>>> the ECML vaguely in the St Neots or Sandy area respectively.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 96. Northern Powerhouse Rail
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are we still awaiting details on how this somehow substitutes for HS2
>>>>>>>>> north of Birmingham?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It doesn't. The plan is to connect HS2 and NPR north of Crewe, so they
>>>>>>>> share the line from Manchester airport into Manchester.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Isn't the plan for NPR to have at least some vestige of high-speed route
>>>>>>> across the Pennines so people might get from London to Leeds quicker
>>>>>>> (via Crewe) than using the ECML. All completely bonkers, but it would
>>>>>>> help to know exactly what was being proposed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not that I'm aware of. NPR won't be a high speed line.
>>>>>
>>>>> This was the proposal in 2017 (and of course we aren't now expecting the
>>>>> pictured HS2 lines):
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/HS3-2017-map
>>>>> .png/1280px-HS3-2017-map.png>
>>>>>
>>>>> In both projects, more detail of what they actually want us to believe
>>>>> they might start building before the next election, would be welcome.
>>>>
>>>> 'HS3' was never going to be a high speed line. It would be too short, with
>>>> too many stops. At best, it'll be a 125mph line all the way from Liverpool
>>>> to Leeds and on to the ECML, but that's very unlikely.
>>>
>>> You've often given the impression you favour the opinions of specialist
>>> press, so what about this:
>>>
>>> A project to connect major cities in the north of England with a
>>> dedicated high-speed railway, vastly increasing capacity for freight
>>> and passenger traffic, could be back on the agenda, but only if
>>> members of the Conservative Party vote for the right leader.
>>> ...
>>> Liz Truss, one of two candidates for the leadership of the ruling
>>> Conservative Party, told a meeting of party members in Leeds that
>>> she would revive the Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) high-speed
>>> project, which was spectacularly dumped by her own party just a
>>> matter of months ago.
>>>
>>> <https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2022/08/04/uk-mega-project-
>>> northern-powerhouse-rail-back-on-track/?gdpr=accept>
>>>
>>> Or are you quibbling about what "High Speed" means, which in the context
>>> of a classic class 43 HST, I agree is only 125mph.
>>
>> I'm not quibbling about anything (one of your many patronising put-downs).
>> I'm just using the standard terminology, which it appears you don't know.
>
> HS1 - 125mph (I don't think so)

It's a 300 km/h high speed line. 200 km/h is a 1970s classic line speed.

> HS2 - 125mph (I don't think so)

It will be a 360 km/h high speed line. Where did you get the idea it would
be a 200 km/h line?

> HS3 - let's see what they are actually planning; some input (rather than
> heckling) from yourself would be helpful.

There is no HS3.

HS1 and HS2 are (or will be) high speed lines. Any new build NPR will be a
classic line, but much of it will probably just be electrification of some
of the current Trans-Pennine line.

In message <tgnnt6$327bd$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:04:55 on Sat, 24 Sep
2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:

>>> As for connecting the biocampus to Stansted airport, Birmingham and
>>>Europe, exactly how many of the people making such trips wouldn't
>>>just take a taxi/limo to or from the airport, rather than relying on
>>>1tph trains?

>>> I live in North London, and, if I am travelling North, it seems
>>>wrong to travel South into the centre of London to catch a train.

>> While your feeling may be well-founded, what does it have to do with
>>Cambridge South station?
>
>About the same as this:
>
>"I went to their "Open Day" which was just about the last thing before
>lockdown, and it was entirely clear that their plans were all to do
>with a new outer-suburban commuter station for London. "

I don't think you can mean that you'd rather go to say Birmingham from
North London via Cambridge, changing to the Stansted-Birmingham train at
Cambridge South, rather than head down to Euston and then up the WCML
(or Chiltern).

People from the Biocampus who want to head to Birmingham, do have a
choice of going via Ely, Peterborough and Leicester versus Kings Cross
and Euston. But if it's Birmingham *airport* they need, the Leicester
route requires an extra change at New Street, and isn't to be
recommended. In any event I think I'd recommend took one of the many
airport-transfer taxis because it's about five minutes to the north end
of the M11, which then morphs into the new improved A14, and on to the
M6.

An hour and 34 minutes. Now, while I know that Sunday mornings are not,
shall we say, the railway system's most glorious time to travel, I'm
getting 11:33 as the earliest arrival time, setting out from here at a
little after 7am. That's various permutations of via-Euston. I'm getting
just before 3pm via Leicester, four changes, partly because of seemingly
interminable bustitutions on that corridor.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tgno68$3283a$3@dont-email.me>, at 20:09:44 on Sat, 24 Sep
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tgn3ce$30883$2@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 <tgm8kc$2tvva$2@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:04 on Sat, 24 Sep
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tgl3fd$2l3pe$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:03:57 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <tgkos6$2jaig$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:02 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 92. East West Rail
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I though this was going to be privately funded. Which phase is it
>>>>>>>>>> anyway, they can't agree a route from Bedford to Cambridge at the
>>>>>>>>>> moment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FWIW, Shapps was musing that the case for that section was too
>>>>>>>>>poor to proceed. The only question currently is whether the
>>>>>>>>>existing line from Bletchley to Beford gets upgraded to EWR
>>>>>>>>>standards. Shapps was dubious about that, too, so it's
>>>>>>>>>possible the new government will confirm it. But I doubt that work can start in 2023.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was someone on the local TV news earlier who appeared to
>>>>>>>>be saying that the major attraction of E/W rail was so
>>>>>>>>businesses in Bedfordshire could poach staff from Cambridge.
>>>>>>>>But why would someone paying Cambridge house prices commute to
>>>>>>>>jobs paying Bedfordshire wages, even if there was a railway line?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think there's any danger of it getting anywhere near
>>>>>>>Cambridge in our life times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The main kerfuffle at the moment is whether you miss Bedford (and
>>>>>> incidentally Cambourne) altogether, and skirt around the south, with new
>>>>>> build to join the Kings Cross line at Shepreth; or go into Bedford then
>>>>>> demolish a route through its northern suburbs and via at least a couple
>>>>>> of proposed new towns on the Beds/Cambs borders, once again swinging
>>>>>> south to join the Kings Cross line somewhere near Foxton.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either of them would of course also involve running through the proposed
>>>>>> Cambridge South station, and have a potential interchange station with
>>>>>> the ECML vaguely in the St Neots or Sandy area respectively.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 96. Northern Powerhouse Rail
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are we still awaiting details on how this somehow substitutes for HS2
>>>>>>>>>> north of Birmingham?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't. The plan is to connect HS2 and NPR north of Crewe, so they
>>>>>>>>> share the line from Manchester airport into Manchester.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Isn't the plan for NPR to have at least some vestige of
>>>>>>>>high-speed route across the Pennines so people might get from
>>>>>>>>London to Leeds quicker (via Crewe) than using the ECML. All
>>>>>>>>completely bonkers, but it would help to know exactly what was being proposed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not that I'm aware of. NPR won't be a high speed line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was the proposal in 2017 (and of course we aren't now expecting the
>>>>>> pictured HS2 lines):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/HS3-2017-map
>>>>>> .png/1280px-HS3-2017-map.png>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In both projects, more detail of what they actually want us to believe
>>>>>> they might start building before the next election, would be welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'HS3' was never going to be a high speed line. It would be too short, with
>>>>> too many stops. At best, it'll be a 125mph line all the way from Liverpool
>>>>> to Leeds and on to the ECML, but that's very unlikely.
>>>>
>>>> You've often given the impression you favour the opinions of specialist
>>>> press, so what about this:
>>>>
>>>> A project to connect major cities in the north of England with a
>>>> dedicated high-speed railway, vastly increasing capacity for freight
>>>> and passenger traffic, could be back on the agenda, but only if
>>>> members of the Conservative Party vote for the right leader.
>>>> ...
>>>> Liz Truss, one of two candidates for the leadership of the ruling
>>>> Conservative Party, told a meeting of party members in Leeds that

>>>> she would revive the Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) high-speed
**************************************************************

>>>> project, which was spectacularly dumped by her own party just a
>>>> matter of months ago.
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2022/08/04/uk-mega-project-
>>>> northern-powerhouse-rail-back-on-track/?gdpr=accept>
>>>>
>>>> Or are you quibbling about what "High Speed" means, which in the context
>>>> of a classic class 43 HST, I agree is only 125mph.
>>>
>>> I'm not quibbling about anything (one of your many patronising put-downs).
>>> I'm just using the standard terminology, which it appears you don't know.
>>
>> HS1 - 125mph (I don't think so)
>
>It's a 300 km/h high speed line. 200 km/h is a 1970s classic line speed.
>
>> HS2 - 125mph (I don't think so)
>
>It will be a 360 km/h high speed line. Where did you get the idea it would
>be a 200 km/h line?

In both cases I'm exploring what you mean by "High Speed", and so far
you agree with me that it's more than 125mph, despite the eponymous
class 43.

>> HS3 - let's see what they are actually planning; some input (rather than
>> heckling) from yourself would be helpful.
>
>There is no HS3.

Apart from the expression "High Speed", and "HS3" turning up (see
earlier cites not just from myself) in the context of NPR.

>HS1 and HS2 are (or will be) high speed lines. Any new build NPR will be a
>classic line, but much of it will probably just be electrification of some
>of the current Trans-Pennine line.

But you don't have any more detail than that??
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tgnnt6$327bd$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:04:55 on Sat, 24 Sep
> 2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>
>>>> As for connecting the biocampus to Stansted airport, Birmingham and
>>>> Europe, exactly how many of the people making such trips wouldn't
>>>> just take a taxi/limo to or from the airport, rather than relying on
>>>> 1tph trains?
>
>>>> I live in North London, and, if I am travelling North, it seems
>>>> wrong to travel South into the centre of London to catch a train.
>
>>> While your feeling may be well-founded, what does it have to do with
>>> Cambridge South station?
>>
>> About the same as this:
>>
>> "I went to their "Open Day" which was just about the last thing before
>> lockdown, and it was entirely clear that their plans were all to do
>> with a new outer-suburban commuter station for London. "
>
> I don't think you can mean that you'd rather go to say Birmingham from
> North London via Cambridge, changing to the Stansted-Birmingham train at
> Cambridge South, rather than head down to Euston and then up the WCML
> (or Chiltern).
>
> People from the Biocampus who want to head to Birmingham, do have a
> choice of going via Ely, Peterborough and Leicester versus Kings Cross
> and Euston. But if it's Birmingham *airport* they need, the Leicester
> route requires an extra change at New Street, and isn't to be
> recommended. In any event I think I'd recommend took one of the many
> airport-transfer taxis because it's about five minutes to the north end
> of the M11, which then morphs into the new improved A14, and on to the
> M6.
>
> An hour and 34 minutes. Now, while I know that Sunday mornings are not,
> shall we say, the railway system's most glorious time to travel, I'm
> getting 11:33 as the earliest arrival time, setting out from here at a
> little after 7am. That's various permutations of via-Euston. I'm getting
> just before 3pm via Leicester, four changes, partly because of seemingly
> interminable bustitutions on that corridor.

Why would anyone in Cambridge want to go to Birmingham airport? There can’t
be many flights there that aren’t available from more convenient airports.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tXj*md8Yy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:16:35 on Sat,
> 24 Sep 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
> >No, that was the last kerfuffle. The preferred route has been selected via
> >Cambourne, the main question is whether the route and hence station would be
> >north or south. The preferred route also swings round through a lot of
> >south Cambs (the Eversdens, Harlton) to join the Shepreth Branch near
> >Foxton. This is quite environmentally sensitive (SSSI etc).
>
> I suspected there might have been a public enquiry in the pipeline, but
> hadn't see any news of the conclusion.

EWR had a consultation on routes last year, and then everything went a bit
quiet. Rumour was BCR was weak, the DfT was lukewarm and it was due to be
cancelled.

The inspector's enquiry for the A428 project recently concluded and that
took about 6 months through the various rounds of evidence gathering,
letters written to various bodies and their replies, tweaks to the proposals
etc etc culminating in the SoS decision. I've heard of no such process with
EWR.

> And as has been discussed here many times in the past- a very steep
> slope down from Cambourne towards the Fen line. I suppose it would have
> to go north of Histon, and south of Waterbeach (because the land north
> of the letter is currently being built on as a new
> monster-housing-estate). Reportedly the developer has reneged on their
> commitment to pay for relocation Waterbeach Station from the current
> site in the historic village.
>
> I don't think I've seen anything about where Oxford/Bedford/Cambridge
> passenger services would end up - terminating at Cambridge or running
> through to Ipswich via Newmarket.
>
> Cambourne Station being to the north or south of the town is down in the
> noise level as far as I'm concerned.

The southerly station (between Cambourne and Caxton) only makes sense if
you're going south to Foxton. The northerly station can swing south via
Bourn or continue eastwards along the A428 before swinging north.

I think the northerly option is preferred, not least because Cambourne West
is already fairly built up now. It also opens up the prospect of further
housing north of the A428 (an idea that is Not Popular locally).

> >In other news, the A428 upgrade is going ahead - there appears to be little
> >joined-up planning so that means *two* new routes being built between south
> >St Neots and Cambourne.
>
> I do my very best not to have any journeys by either rail or road from
> the Cambridge area towards Milton Keynes and Oxford beyond.

That is not an option for people in the area, obviously.

Theo
(PS: monsters need homes too!)

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why would anyone in Cambridge want to go to Birmingham airport? There can’t
> be many flights there that aren’t available from more convenient airports.

I have sometimes included it on my flight searches, in case there are seats
available on routes which aren't available at similar prices on others. For
example, BHX-AMS-... commonly comes up, and sometimes 'bucket and spade'
charter flights have availability where they don't from London airports
(especially when times are considered, eg lunchtime from BHX compared with
06.00 from Gatwick).

But I'd never got the stars to align to make an attractive option to try it.

If you are located somewhere good for road access, and driving anyway, it's
not a bad option. eg right now Girton College to:

BHX: 1h23
LHR T3: 1h37
LHR T5: 1h29
LTN: 59m
LGW: 1h36
LCY: 1h4
STN: 33m

Theo

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why would anyone in Cambridge want to go to Birmingham airport? There can’t
>> be many flights there that aren’t available from more convenient airports.
>
> I have sometimes included it on my flight searches, in case there are seats
> available on routes which aren't available at similar prices on others. For
> example, BHX-AMS-... commonly comes up, and sometimes 'bucket and spade'
> charter flights have availability where they don't from London airports
> (especially when times are considered, eg lunchtime from BHX compared with
> 06.00 from Gatwick).
>
> But I'd never got the stars to align to make an attractive option to try it.
>
> If you are located somewhere good for road access, and driving anyway, it's
> not a bad option. eg right now Girton College to:
>
> BHX: 1h23
> LHR T3: 1h37
> LHR T5: 1h29
> LTN: 59m
> LGW: 1h36
> LCY: 1h4
> STN: 33m
>
> Theo
>

On the off chance you do drive to Birmingham, book car parking at the
railway station. It’s considerably cheaper than at the airport, and with
the shuttle train it’s as quick to get to the terminal as even from the
closer car parks. I have double checked with the car park operator and they
are happy for airport users to park there.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> On the off chance you do drive to Birmingham, book car parking at the
> railway station. It’s considerably cheaper than at the airport, and with
> the shuttle train it’s as quick to get to the terminal as even from the
> closer car parks. I have double checked with the car park operator and they
> are happy for airport users to park there.

Thanks, that's a good tip. Normally I'd aim to take the train rather than
drive, for the reason that airport parking is such a hassle. But then if
you can't walk/cycle/bus/taxi to the station you need to park there anyway.

Looks like, for a week in October, parking at the station is £90. Which is
neither awful nor great as airport parking goes, although I suppose beats
'coloured animal' parking typically located in a field near Wolverhampton.

On that note, are there any stations which might suffice as a cheaper P&R
for BHX if you have time? Avanti helpfully sorts all their stations by
price for me (perhaps I could go to Penrith instead of Birmingham? It's £6
cheaper to park!) but perhaps somewhere not operated by Avanti?

Theo

In message <tgp3n2$38r8c$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:32:34 on Sun, 25 Sep
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tgnnt6$327bd$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:04:55 on Sat, 24 Sep
>> 2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>
>>>>> As for connecting the biocampus to Stansted airport, Birmingham and
>>>>> Europe, exactly how many of the people making such trips wouldn't
>>>>> just take a taxi/limo to or from the airport, rather than relying on
>>>>> 1tph trains?
>>
>>>>> I live in North London, and, if I am travelling North, it seems
>>>>> wrong to travel South into the centre of London to catch a train.
>>
>>>> While your feeling may be well-founded, what does it have to do with
>>>> Cambridge South station?
>>>
>>> About the same as this:
>>>
>>> "I went to their "Open Day" which was just about the last thing before
>>> lockdown, and it was entirely clear that their plans were all to do
>>> with a new outer-suburban commuter station for London. "
>>
>> I don't think you can mean that you'd rather go to say Birmingham from
>> North London via Cambridge, changing to the Stansted-Birmingham train at
>> Cambridge South, rather than head down to Euston and then up the WCML
>> (or Chiltern).
>>
>> People from the Biocampus who want to head to Birmingham, do have a
>> choice of going via Ely, Peterborough and Leicester versus Kings Cross
>> and Euston. But if it's Birmingham *airport* they need, the Leicester
>> route requires an extra change at New Street, and isn't to be
>> recommended. In any event I think I'd recommend took one of the many
>> airport-transfer taxis because it's about five minutes to the north end
>> of the M11, which then morphs into the new improved A14, and on to the
>> M6.
>>
>> An hour and 34 minutes. Now, while I know that Sunday mornings are not,
>> shall we say, the railway system's most glorious time to travel, I'm
>> getting 11:33 as the earliest arrival time, setting out from here at a
>> little after 7am. That's various permutations of via-Euston. I'm getting
>> just before 3pm via Leicester, four changes, partly because of seemingly
>> interminable bustitutions on that corridor.
>
>Why would anyone in Cambridge want to go to Birmingham airport?

Ask Network Rail, they are the ones who apparently said:

The new station would connect the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with
potential destinations such as central London, London Stansted
Airport, Ely, Birmingham and Europe.

OK, so it doesn't say "Birmingham Airport", but why would a new station
station be attractive for people heading to downtown Birmingham, when
there's already a station they can use for that, a mile to the north of
the Biocampus, with a regular guided bus connection.

>There can’t be many flights there that aren’t available from more
>convenient airports.

Stansted is heavily biassed towards medium-haul low-cost flights. I've
used Birmingham in the past for Emirates to/via Dubai, and Continental
to the USA. Charter flights: probably best local airport is Luton but
it's a tricky train journey from Cambridge. Now Thameslink is open (with
direct trains to Brighton), Gatwick is more attractive than it once was,
but again the marginal benefit of a new station is quite small.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tXj*FtaZy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 09:38:23 on Sun,
25 Sep 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tXj*md8Yy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:16:35 on Sat,
>> 24 Sep 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> >No, that was the last kerfuffle. The preferred route has been selected via
>> >Cambourne, the main question is whether the route and hence station would be
>> >north or south. The preferred route also swings round through a lot of
>> >south Cambs (the Eversdens, Harlton) to join the Shepreth Branch near
>> >Foxton. This is quite environmentally sensitive (SSSI etc).
>>
>> I suspected there might have been a public enquiry in the pipeline, but
>> hadn't see any news of the conclusion.
>
>EWR had a consultation on routes last year, and then everything went a bit
>quiet. Rumour was BCR was weak, the DfT was lukewarm and it was due to be
>cancelled.
>
>The inspector's enquiry for the A428 project recently concluded and that
>took about 6 months through the various rounds of evidence gathering,
>letters written to various bodies and their replies, tweaks to the proposals
>etc etc culminating in the SoS decision. I've heard of no such process with
>EWR.

Me neither, and yet we have EWR on this recently announced list of
projects.

>> And as has been discussed here many times in the past- a very steep
>> slope down from Cambourne towards the Fen line. I suppose it would have
>> to go north of Histon, and south of Waterbeach (because the land north
>> of the letter is currently being built on as a new
>> monster-housing-estate). Reportedly the developer has reneged on their
>> commitment to pay for relocation Waterbeach Station from the current
>> site in the historic village.
>>
>> I don't think I've seen anything about where Oxford/Bedford/Cambridge
>> passenger services would end up - terminating at Cambridge or running
>> through to Ipswich via Newmarket.
>>
>> Cambourne Station being to the north or south of the town is down in the
>> noise level as far as I'm concerned.
>
>The southerly station (between Cambourne and Caxton) only makes sense if
>you're going south to Foxton. The northerly station can swing south via
>Bourn or continue eastwards along the A428 before swinging north.

This "going and swinging" is that by car? In which case I don't think it
matters much either way. Stagecoach have just announced swinging cuts to
buses in the locality, although I suppose if there's a railhead to serve
the may rethink.

>I think the northerly option is preferred, not least because Cambourne West
>is already fairly built up now. It also opens up the prospect of further
>housing north of the A428 (an idea that is Not Popular locally).
>
>> >In other news, the A428 upgrade is going ahead - there appears to be little
>> >joined-up planning so that means *two* new routes being built between south
>> >St Neots and Cambourne.
>>
>> I do my very best not to have any journeys by either rail or road from
>> the Cambridge area towards Milton Keynes and Oxford beyond.
>
>That is not an option for people in the area, obviously.

Don't know why there's such an implied attraction towards MK and Oxford.
There are three other points of the compass available.

>Theo
>(PS: monsters need homes too!)

--
Roland Perry

In message <sXj*dHaZy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 10:36:14 on Sun,
25 Sep 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why would anyone in Cambridge want to go to Birmingham airport? There can’t
>> be many flights there that aren’t available from more convenient airports.
>
>I have sometimes included it on my flight searches, in case there are seats
>available on routes which aren't available at similar prices on others. For
>example, BHX-AMS-... commonly comes up, and sometimes 'bucket and spade'
>charter flights have availability where they don't from London airports
>(especially when times are considered, eg lunchtime from BHX compared with
>06.00 from Gatwick).
>
>But I'd never got the stars to align to make an attractive option to try it.

When I lived in the East Midlands, I often used Birmingham for Amsterdam
(especially after BMIBaby stopped flying from East Midlands airport).
But EM has lots of your 'bucket and spade' charter trips.

>If you are located somewhere good for road access, and driving anyway, it's
>not a bad option. eg right now Girton College to:
>
>BHX: 1h23
>LHR T3: 1h37
>LHR T5: 1h29
>LTN: 59m
>LGW: 1h36
>LCY: 1h4
>STN: 33m
>
>Theo

--
Roland Perry

In message <tgp8ob$39rl9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:58:35 on Sun, 25 Sep
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Why would anyone in Cambridge want to go to Birmingham airport?
>>>There can’t
>>> be many flights there that aren’t available from more convenient
>>>airports.
>>
>> I have sometimes included it on my flight searches, in case there are seats
>> available on routes which aren't available at similar prices on others. For
>> example, BHX-AMS-... commonly comes up, and sometimes 'bucket and spade'
>> charter flights have availability where they don't from London airports
>> (especially when times are considered, eg lunchtime from BHX compared with
>> 06.00 from Gatwick).
>>
>> But I'd never got the stars to align to make an attractive option to try it.
>>
>> If you are located somewhere good for road access, and driving anyway, it's
>> not a bad option. eg right now Girton College to:
>>
>> BHX: 1h23
>> LHR T3: 1h37
>> LHR T5: 1h29
>> LTN: 59m
>> LGW: 1h36
>> LCY: 1h4
>> STN: 33m
>
>On the off chance you do drive to Birmingham, book car parking at the
>railway station. It’s considerably cheaper than at the airport, and with
>the shuttle train it’s as quick to get to the terminal as even from the
>closer car parks.

I've used the shuttle train, but in fact several of the car parks are
right next to the terminal. The one I used most is in effect in the same
building (and adjacent to the airport end of the train).

>I have double checked with the car park operator and they
>are happy for airport users to park there.
>

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tgp8ob$39rl9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:58:35 on Sun, 25 Sep
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Why would anyone in Cambridge want to go to Birmingham airport?
>>>> There can’t
>>>> be many flights there that aren’t available from more convenient
>>>> airports.
>>>
>>> I have sometimes included it on my flight searches, in case there are seats
>>> available on routes which aren't available at similar prices on others. For
>>> example, BHX-AMS-... commonly comes up, and sometimes 'bucket and spade'
>>> charter flights have availability where they don't from London airports
>>> (especially when times are considered, eg lunchtime from BHX compared with
>>> 06.00 from Gatwick).
>>>
>>> But I'd never got the stars to align to make an attractive option to try it.
>>>
>>> If you are located somewhere good for road access, and driving anyway, it's
>>> not a bad option. eg right now Girton College to:
>>>
>>> BHX: 1h23
>>> LHR T3: 1h37
>>> LHR T5: 1h29
>>> LTN: 59m
>>> LGW: 1h36
>>> LCY: 1h4
>>> STN: 33m
>>
>> On the off chance you do drive to Birmingham, book car parking at the
>> railway station. It’s considerably cheaper than at the airport, and with
>> the shuttle train it’s as quick to get to the terminal as even from the
>> closer car parks.
>
> I've used the shuttle train, but in fact several of the car parks are
> right next to the terminal. The one I used most is in effect in the same
> building (and adjacent to the airport end of the train).
>
>
They are still a longer, or at least comparable, walk from the vehicle to
departures. The railway station car park is considerably easier to use.
I’ve never had to enter the multi storey bit, just parking on the flat just
near to the escalator to the shuttle. I also find the local road access to
the station car park simpler.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tXj*FtaZy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 09:38:23 on Sun,
> 25 Sep 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
> >
> >The southerly station (between Cambourne and Caxton) only makes sense if
> >you're going south to Foxton. The northerly station can swing south via
> >Bourn or continue eastwards along the A428 before swinging north.
>
> This "going and swinging" is that by car? In which case I don't think it
> matters much either way. Stagecoach have just announced swinging cuts to
> buses in the locality, although I suppose if there's a railhead to serve
> the may rethink.

No, the EWR route:
https://eastwestrail.co.uk/the-project/bedford-to-cambridge/overview-and-status

The official routes north or south of Cambourne join in Little Eversden and
then meet the Shepreth branch near Foxton. The lobbying[1] is for a northern
Cambourne station and instead continue around the north side of Cambridge.

[1] not just, but for example:
http://www.cambedrailroad.org/

> >> I do my very best not to have any journeys by either rail or road from
> >> the Cambridge area towards Milton Keynes and Oxford beyond.
> >
> >That is not an option for people in the area, obviously.
>
> Don't know why there's such an implied attraction towards MK and Oxford.
> There are three other points of the compass available.

There's a lot of industry (high tech and otherwise) on the 'Oxford Cambridge
Arc', which there isn't in Newmarket (unless horses) or Ely (although that
has been growing, mostly a satellite of Cambridge as that's got so
expensive).

Theo

In message <tgpdvl$3ahop$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:49 on Sun, 25 Sep
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tgp8ob$39rl9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:58:35 on Sun, 25 Sep
>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Why would anyone in Cambridge want to go to Birmingham airport?
>>>>> There can’t
>>>>> be many flights there that aren’t available from more convenient
>>>>> airports.
>>>>
>>>> I have sometimes included it on my flight searches, in case there are seats
>>>> available on routes which aren't available at similar prices on
>>>>others. For
>>>> example, BHX-AMS-... commonly comes up, and sometimes 'bucket and spade'
>>>> charter flights have availability where they don't from London airports
>>>> (especially when times are considered, eg lunchtime from BHX compared with
>>>> 06.00 from Gatwick).
>>>>
>>>> But I'd never got the stars to align to make an attractive option
>>>>to try it.
>>>>
>>>> If you are located somewhere good for road access, and driving anyway, it's
>>>> not a bad option. eg right now Girton College to:
>>>>
>>>> BHX: 1h23
>>>> LHR T3: 1h37
>>>> LHR T5: 1h29
>>>> LTN: 59m
>>>> LGW: 1h36
>>>> LCY: 1h4
>>>> STN: 33m
>>>
>>> On the off chance you do drive to Birmingham, book car parking at the
>>> railway station. It’s considerably cheaper than at the airport, and with
>>> the shuttle train it’s as quick to get to the terminal as even from the
>>> closer car parks.
>>
>> I've used the shuttle train, but in fact several of the car parks are
>> right next to the terminal. The one I used most is in effect in the same
>> building (and adjacent to the airport end of the train).
>>
>They are still a longer, or at least comparable, walk from the vehicle to
>departures.

No they aren't. The car parks I used were abut 100yds from the check-in
desks.

>The railway station car park is considerably easier to use.
>I’ve never had to enter the multi storey bit, just parking on the flat just
>near to the escalator to the shuttle. I also find the local road access to
>the station car park simpler.

Maybe it is, but I'd normally have been arriving via one of the adjacent
motorways, rather than local roads.
--
Roland Perry

In message <sXj*u+aZy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 12:41:06 on Sun,
25 Sep 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tXj*FtaZy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 09:38:23 on Sun,
>> 25 Sep 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> >
>> >The southerly station (between Cambourne and Caxton) only makes sense if
>> >you're going south to Foxton. The northerly station can swing south via
>> >Bourn or continue eastwards along the A428 before swinging north.
>>
>> This "going and swinging" is that by car? In which case I don't think it
>> matters much either way. Stagecoach have just announced swinging cuts to
>> buses in the locality, although I suppose if there's a railhead to serve
>> the may rethink.
>
>No, the EWR route:
>https://eastwestrail.co.uk/the-project/bedford-to-cambridge/overview-and-status

Who cares (apart from a handful the Nimbies who might suddenly have a
railway line at the bottom of their garden.

>The official routes north or south of Cambourne join in Little Eversden and
>then meet the Shepreth branch near Foxton. The lobbying[1] is for a northern
>Cambourne station and instead continue around the north side of Cambridge.
>
>[1] not just, but for example:
>http://www.cambedrailroad.org/

Crickey, Nimby on steroids.

>> >> I do my very best not to have any journeys by either rail or road from
>> >> the Cambridge area towards Milton Keynes and Oxford beyond.
>> >
>> >That is not an option for people in the area, obviously.
>>
>> Don't know why there's such an implied attraction towards MK and Oxford.
>> There are three other points of the compass available.
>
>There's a lot of industry (high tech and otherwise) on the 'Oxford Cambridge
>Arc', which there isn't in Newmarket (unless horses) or Ely (although that
>has been growing, mostly a satellite of Cambridge as that's got so
>expensive).

I know Bedford likes to think that's the case, but it's a pretty feeble
proposition; especially if they expect those industries to be propped up
by people commuting from Cambridge, who could get more wages and lower
costs, by working in Cambridge.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tgpdvl$3ahop$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:49 on Sun, 25 Sep
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tgp8ob$39rl9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:58:35 on Sun, 25 Sep
>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Why would anyone in Cambridge want to go to Birmingham airport?
>>>>>> There can’t
>>>>>> be many flights there that aren’t available from more convenient
>>>>>> airports.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have sometimes included it on my flight searches, in case there are seats
>>>>> available on routes which aren't available at similar prices on
>>>>> others. For
>>>>> example, BHX-AMS-... commonly comes up, and sometimes 'bucket and spade'
>>>>> charter flights have availability where they don't from London airports
>>>>> (especially when times are considered, eg lunchtime from BHX compared with
>>>>> 06.00 from Gatwick).
>>>>>
>>>>> But I'd never got the stars to align to make an attractive option
>>>>> to try it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are located somewhere good for road access, and driving anyway, it's
>>>>> not a bad option. eg right now Girton College to:
>>>>>
>>>>> BHX: 1h23
>>>>> LHR T3: 1h37
>>>>> LHR T5: 1h29
>>>>> LTN: 59m
>>>>> LGW: 1h36
>>>>> LCY: 1h4
>>>>> STN: 33m
>>>>
>>>> On the off chance you do drive to Birmingham, book car parking at the
>>>> railway station. It’s considerably cheaper than at the airport, and with
>>>> the shuttle train it’s as quick to get to the terminal as even from the
>>>> closer car parks.
>>>
>>> I've used the shuttle train, but in fact several of the car parks are
>>> right next to the terminal. The one I used most is in effect in the same
>>> building (and adjacent to the airport end of the train).
>>>
>> They are still a longer, or at least comparable, walk from the vehicle to
>> departures.
>
> No they aren't. The car parks I used were abut 100yds from the check-in
> desks.
>
>> The railway station car park is considerably easier to use.
>> I’ve never had to enter the multi storey bit, just parking on the flat just
>> near to the escalator to the shuttle. I also find the local road access to
>> the station car park simpler.
>
> Maybe it is, but I'd normally have been arriving via one of the adjacent
> motorways, rather than local roads.

I’ve used the car park you refer to. The total walking distance from your
car, threading yourself along the car park deck, down the stairs and then
along the pavement to the entrance of departures is longer than the walk at
the station car park to the shuttle. That car park is also old and rather
unpleasant, with automatic lights that are reluctant to come on and an ANPR
system for the exit barrier that barely works. Mostly I’ve had to use the
exit intercom to be let out. The newer multi-storey opposite the terminal
is nicer but charges even more. You can even drop people off at the station
without being charged, unlike the airport. The station car park is also
excellent for NEC exhibitions, and is closer than the most of the
exhibition car parks, and usually cheaper.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tgno68$3283a$3@dont-email.me>, at 20:09:44 on Sat, 24 Sep
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tgn3ce$30883$2@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 <tgm8kc$2tvva$2@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:04 on Sat, 24 Sep
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <tgl3fd$2l3pe$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:03:57 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <tgkos6$2jaig$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:02 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 92. East West Rail
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I though this was going to be privately funded. Which phase is it
>>>>>>>>>>> anyway, they can't agree a route from Bedford to Cambridge at the
>>>>>>>>>>> moment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, Shapps was musing that the case for that section was too
>>>>>>>>>> poor to proceed. The only question currently is whether the
>>>>>>>>>> existing line from Bletchley to Beford gets upgraded to EWR
>>>>>>>>>> standards. Shapps was dubious about that, too, so it's
>>>>>>>>>> possible the new government will confirm it. But I doubt that
>>>>>>>>>> work can start in 2023.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There was someone on the local TV news earlier who appeared to
>>>>>>>>> be saying that the major attraction of E/W rail was so
>>>>>>>>> businesses in Bedfordshire could poach staff from Cambridge.
>>>>>>>>> But why would someone paying Cambridge house prices commute to
>>>>>>>>> jobs paying Bedfordshire wages, even if there was a railway line?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think there's any danger of it getting anywhere near
>>>>>>>> Cambridge in our life times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The main kerfuffle at the moment is whether you miss Bedford (and
>>>>>>> incidentally Cambourne) altogether, and skirt around the south, with new
>>>>>>> build to join the Kings Cross line at Shepreth; or go into Bedford then
>>>>>>> demolish a route through its northern suburbs and via at least a couple
>>>>>>> of proposed new towns on the Beds/Cambs borders, once again swinging
>>>>>>> south to join the Kings Cross line somewhere near Foxton.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either of them would of course also involve running through the proposed
>>>>>>> Cambridge South station, and have a potential interchange station with
>>>>>>> the ECML vaguely in the St Neots or Sandy area respectively.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 96. Northern Powerhouse Rail
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are we still awaiting details on how this somehow substitutes for HS2
>>>>>>>>>>> north of Birmingham?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't. The plan is to connect HS2 and NPR north of Crewe, so they
>>>>>>>>>> share the line from Manchester airport into Manchester.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Isn't the plan for NPR to have at least some vestige of
>>>>>>>>> high-speed route across the Pennines so people might get from
>>>>>>>>> London to Leeds quicker (via Crewe) than using the ECML. All
>>>>>>>>> completely bonkers, but it would help to know exactly what was being proposed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not that I'm aware of. NPR won't be a high speed line.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This was the proposal in 2017 (and of course we aren't now expecting the
>>>>>>> pictured HS2 lines):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/HS3-2017-map
>>>>>>> .png/1280px-HS3-2017-map.png>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In both projects, more detail of what they actually want us to believe
>>>>>>> they might start building before the next election, would be welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'HS3' was never going to be a high speed line. It would be too short, with
>>>>>> too many stops. At best, it'll be a 125mph line all the way from Liverpool
>>>>>> to Leeds and on to the ECML, but that's very unlikely.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've often given the impression you favour the opinions of specialist
>>>>> press, so what about this:
>>>>>
>>>>> A project to connect major cities in the north of England with a
>>>>> dedicated high-speed railway, vastly increasing capacity for freight
>>>>> and passenger traffic, could be back on the agenda, but only if
>>>>> members of the Conservative Party vote for the right leader.
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Liz Truss, one of two candidates for the leadership of the ruling
>>>>> Conservative Party, told a meeting of party members in Leeds that
>
>>>>> she would revive the Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) high-speed
> **************************************************************
>
>>>>> project, which was spectacularly dumped by her own party just a
>>>>> matter of months ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2022/08/04/uk-mega-project-
>>>>> northern-powerhouse-rail-back-on-track/?gdpr=accept>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or are you quibbling about what "High Speed" means, which in the context
>>>>> of a classic class 43 HST, I agree is only 125mph.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not quibbling about anything (one of your many patronising put-downs).
>>>> I'm just using the standard terminology, which it appears you don't know.
>>>
>>> HS1 - 125mph (I don't think so)
>>
>> It's a 300 km/h high speed line. 200 km/h is a 1970s classic line speed.
>>
>>> HS2 - 125mph (I don't think so)
>>
>> It will be a 360 km/h high speed line. Where did you get the idea it would
>> be a 200 km/h line?
>
> In both cases I'm exploring what you mean by "High Speed", and so far
> you agree with me that it's more than 125mph, despite the eponymous
> class 43.

I'm using the normal definition of high speed rail, as used for the last
few decades: 250 km/h or more.

Surely even you knew that?

>
>>> HS3 - let's see what they are actually planning; some input (rather than
>>> heckling) from yourself would be helpful.
>>
>> There is no HS3.
>
> Apart from the expression "High Speed", and "HS3" turning up (see
> earlier cites not just from myself) in the context of NPR.

Many years ago.

In message <tgqa95$3ehso$2@dont-email.me>, at 19:30:45 on Sun, 25 Sep
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tgno68$3283a$3@dont-email.me>, at 20:09:44 on Sat, 24 Sep
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tgn3ce$30883$2@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 <tgm8kc$2tvva$2@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:04 on Sat, 24 Sep
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <tgl3fd$2l3pe$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:03:57 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <tgkos6$2jaig$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:02 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 92. East West Rail
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I though this was going to be privately funded. Which phase is it
>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway, they can't agree a route from Bedford to Cambridge at the
>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, Shapps was musing that the case for that section was too
>>>>>>>>>>> poor to proceed. The only question currently is whether the
>>>>>>>>>>> existing line from Bletchley to Beford gets upgraded to EWR
>>>>>>>>>>> standards. Shapps was dubious about that, too, so it's
>>>>>>>>>>> possible the new government will confirm it. But I doubt that
>>>>>>>>>>> work can start in 2023.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There was someone on the local TV news earlier who appeared to
>>>>>>>>>> be saying that the major attraction of E/W rail was so
>>>>>>>>>> businesses in Bedfordshire could poach staff from Cambridge.
>>>>>>>>>> But why would someone paying Cambridge house prices commute to
>>>>>>>>>> jobs paying Bedfordshire wages, even if there was a railway line?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think there's any danger of it getting anywhere near
>>>>>>>>> Cambridge in our life times.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The main kerfuffle at the moment is whether you miss Bedford
>>>>>>>> incidentally Cambourne) altogether, and skirt around the
>>>>>>>>south, with new build to join the Kings Cross line at Shepreth;
>>>>>>>>or go into Bedford then demolish a route through its northern
>>>>>>>>suburbs and via at least a couple of proposed new towns on the
>>>>>>>>Beds/Cambs borders, once again swinging south to join the Kings
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Either of them would of course also involve running through the
>>>>>>>>proposed Cambridge South station, and have a potential
>>>>>>>>interchange station with the ECML vaguely in the St Neots or
>>>>>>>>Sandy area respectively.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 96. Northern Powerhouse Rail
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are we still awaiting details on how this somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>substitutes for HS2 north of Birmingham?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't. The plan is to connect HS2 and NPR north of
>>>>>>>>>>>Crewe, so they share the line from Manchester airport into Manchester.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Isn't the plan for NPR to have at least some vestige of
>>>>>>>>>> high-speed route across the Pennines so people might get from
>>>>>>>>>> London to Leeds quicker (via Crewe) than using the ECML. All
>>>>>>>>>> completely bonkers, but it would help to know exactly what
>>>>>>>>>>was being proposed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not that I'm aware of. NPR won't be a high speed line.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This was the proposal in 2017 (and of course we aren't now
>>>>>>>>expecting the pictured HS2 lines):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/HS3-2017-map
>>>>>>>> .png/1280px-HS3-2017-map.png>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In both projects, more detail of what they actually want us to believe
>>>>>>>> they might start building before the next election, would be welcome.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'HS3' was never going to be a high speed line. It would be too
>>>>>>>short, with too many stops. At best, it'll be a 125mph line all
>>>>>>>the way from Liverpool to Leeds and on to the ECML, but that's very unlikely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've often given the impression you favour the opinions of specialist
>>>>>> press, so what about this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A project to connect major cities in the north of England with a
>>>>>> dedicated high-speed railway, vastly increasing capacity for freight
>>>>>> and passenger traffic, could be back on the agenda, but only if
>>>>>> members of the Conservative Party vote for the right leader.
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Liz Truss, one of two candidates for the leadership of the ruling
>>>>>> Conservative Party, told a meeting of party members in Leeds that
>>
>>>>>> she would revive the Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) high-speed
>> **************************************************************

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Last Week ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>>>>> project, which was spectacularly dumped by her own party just a
>>>>>> matter of months ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2022/08/04/uk-mega-project-
>>>>>> northern-powerhouse-rail-back-on-track/?gdpr=accept>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or are you quibbling about what "High Speed" means, which in the context
>>>>>> of a classic class 43 HST, I agree is only 125mph.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not quibbling about anything (one of your many patronising put-downs).
>>>>> I'm just using the standard terminology, which it appears you don't know.
>>>>
>>>> HS1 - 125mph (I don't think so)
>>>
>>> It's a 300 km/h high speed line. 200 km/h is a 1970s classic line speed.
>>>
>>>> HS2 - 125mph (I don't think so)
>>>
>>> It will be a 360 km/h high speed line. Where did you get the idea it would
>>> be a 200 km/h line?
>>
>> In both cases I'm exploring what you mean by "High Speed", and so far
>> you agree with me that it's more than 125mph, despite the eponymous
*****************
*****************
Maybe I did know
it, after all
>> class 43.
>
>I'm using the normal definition of high speed rail, as used for the last
>few decades: 250 km/h or more.
>
>Surely even you knew that?

Ad hom noted. (But see above)

>>>> HS3 - let's see what they are actually planning; some input (rather than
>>>> heckling) from yourself would be helpful.
>>>
>>> There is no HS3.
>>
>> Apart from the expression "High Speed", and "HS3" turning up (see
>> earlier cites not just from myself) in the context of NPR.
>
>Many years ago.

In message <tgptb9$3br3o$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:50:01 on Sun, 25 Sep
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tgpdvl$3ahop$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:49 on Sun, 25 Sep
>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tgp8ob$39rl9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:58:35 on Sun, 25 Sep
>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Why would anyone in Cambridge want to go to Birmingham airport?
>>>>>>> There can’t
>>>>>>> be many flights there that aren’t available from more convenient
>>>>>>> airports.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have sometimes included it on my flight searches, in case there
>>>>>>are seats
>>>>>> available on routes which aren't available at similar prices on
>>>>>> others. For
>>>>>> example, BHX-AMS-... commonly comes up, and sometimes 'bucket and spade'
>>>>>> charter flights have availability where they don't from London airports
>>>>>> (especially when times are considered, eg lunchtime from BHX
>>>>>>compared with
>>>>>> 06.00 from Gatwick).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I'd never got the stars to align to make an attractive option
>>>>>> to try it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are located somewhere good for road access, and driving
>>>>>>anyway, it's
>>>>>> not a bad option. eg right now Girton College to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BHX: 1h23
>>>>>> LHR T3: 1h37
>>>>>> LHR T5: 1h29
>>>>>> LTN: 59m
>>>>>> LGW: 1h36
>>>>>> LCY: 1h4
>>>>>> STN: 33m
>>>>>
>>>>> On the off chance you do drive to Birmingham, book car parking at the
>>>>> railway station. It’s considerably cheaper than at the airport, and with
>>>>> the shuttle train it’s as quick to get to the terminal as even from the
>>>>> closer car parks.
>>>>
>>>> I've used the shuttle train, but in fact several of the car parks are
>>>> right next to the terminal. The one I used most is in effect in the same
>>>> building (and adjacent to the airport end of the train).
>>>>
>>> They are still a longer, or at least comparable, walk from the vehicle to
>>> departures.
>>
>> No they aren't. The car parks I used were abut 100yds from the check-in
>> desks.
>>
>>> The railway station car park is considerably easier to use.
>>> I’ve never had to enter the multi storey bit, just parking on the
>>>flat just
>>> near to the escalator to the shuttle. I also find the local road access to
>>> the station car park simpler.
>>
>> Maybe it is, but I'd normally have been arriving via one of the adjacent
>> motorways, rather than local roads.
>
>I’ve used the car park you refer to. The total walking distance from your
>car, threading yourself along the car park deck, down the stairs and then
>along the pavement to the entrance of departures is longer than the walk at
>the station car park to the shuttle.

There go the goalposts! I'm comparing it to Station car park to terminal
(as were you, previously). In any event, it's nothing like as bad as you
claim.

>You can even drop people off at the station without being charged,
>unlike the airport.

That's true. I hate airport drop-off charges.

>The station car park is also excellent for NEC exhibitions, and is
>closer than the most of the exhibition car parks, and usually cheaper.

The NEC exhibition car parks qualify as bad-as-airport-long-stay. But
it's a while since I've been to any exhibition there.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tgptb9$3br3o$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:50:01 on Sun, 25 Sep
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tgpdvl$3ahop$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:49 on Sun, 25 Sep
>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tgp8ob$39rl9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:58:35 on Sun, 25 Sep
>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Why would anyone in Cambridge want to go to Birmingham airport?
>>>>>>>> There can’t
>>>>>>>> be many flights there that aren’t available from more convenient
>>>>>>>> airports.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have sometimes included it on my flight searches, in case there
>>>>>>> are seats
>>>>>>> available on routes which aren't available at similar prices on
>>>>>>> others. For
>>>>>>> example, BHX-AMS-... commonly comes up, and sometimes 'bucket and spade'
>>>>>>> charter flights have availability where they don't from London airports
>>>>>>> (especially when times are considered, eg lunchtime from BHX
>>>>>>> compared with
>>>>>>> 06.00 from Gatwick).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I'd never got the stars to align to make an attractive option
>>>>>>> to try it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are located somewhere good for road access, and driving
>>>>>>> anyway, it's
>>>>>>> not a bad option. eg right now Girton College to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BHX: 1h23
>>>>>>> LHR T3: 1h37
>>>>>>> LHR T5: 1h29
>>>>>>> LTN: 59m
>>>>>>> LGW: 1h36
>>>>>>> LCY: 1h4
>>>>>>> STN: 33m
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the off chance you do drive to Birmingham, book car parking at the
>>>>>> railway station. It’s considerably cheaper than at the airport, and with
>>>>>> the shuttle train it’s as quick to get to the terminal as even from the
>>>>>> closer car parks.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've used the shuttle train, but in fact several of the car parks are
>>>>> right next to the terminal. The one I used most is in effect in the same
>>>>> building (and adjacent to the airport end of the train).
>>>>>
>>>> They are still a longer, or at least comparable, walk from the vehicle to
>>>> departures.
>>>
>>> No they aren't. The car parks I used were abut 100yds from the check-in
>>> desks.
>>>
>>>> The railway station car park is considerably easier to use.
>>>> I’ve never had to enter the multi storey bit, just parking on the
>>>> flat just
>>>> near to the escalator to the shuttle. I also find the local road access to
>>>> the station car park simpler.
>>>
>>> Maybe it is, but I'd normally have been arriving via one of the adjacent
>>> motorways, rather than local roads.
>>
>> I’ve used the car park you refer to. The total walking distance from your
>> car, threading yourself along the car park deck, down the stairs and then
>> along the pavement to the entrance of departures is longer than the walk at
>> the station car park to the shuttle.
>
> There go the goalposts! I'm comparing it to Station car park to terminal
> (as were you, previously). In any event, it's nothing like as bad as you
> claim.
>
>> You can even drop people off at the station without being charged,
>> unlike the airport.
>
> That's true. I hate airport drop-off charges.
>
>> The station car park is also excellent for NEC exhibitions, and is
>> closer than the most of the exhibition car parks, and usually cheaper.
>
> The NEC exhibition car parks qualify as bad-as-airport-long-stay. But
> it's a while since I've been to any exhibition there.

Nope no goal posts were harmed. If you read what I wrote:
“walk from the vehicle to departures.”

In message <tgs933$3oauu$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:22:43 on Mon, 26 Sep
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tgptb9$3br3o$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:50:01 on Sun, 25 Sep
>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tgpdvl$3ahop$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:27:49 on Sun, 25 Sep
>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tgp8ob$39rl9$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:58:35 on Sun, 25 Sep
>>>>>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Why would anyone in Cambridge want to go to Birmingham airport?
>>>>>>>>> There can’t
>>>>>>>>> be many flights there that aren’t available from more convenient
>>>>>>>>> airports.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have sometimes included it on my flight searches, in case there
>>>>>>>> are seats
>>>>>>>> available on routes which aren't available at similar prices on
>>>>>>>> others. For
>>>>>>>> example, BHX-AMS-... commonly comes up, and sometimes 'bucket
>>>>>>>>and spade'
>>>>>>>> charter flights have availability where they don't from London airports
>>>>>>>> (especially when times are considered, eg lunchtime from BHX
>>>>>>>> compared with
>>>>>>>> 06.00 from Gatwick).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I'd never got the stars to align to make an attractive option
>>>>>>>> to try it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you are located somewhere good for road access, and driving
>>>>>>>> anyway, it's
>>>>>>>> not a bad option. eg right now Girton College to:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BHX: 1h23
>>>>>>>> LHR T3: 1h37
>>>>>>>> LHR T5: 1h29
>>>>>>>> LTN: 59m
>>>>>>>> LGW: 1h36
>>>>>>>> LCY: 1h4
>>>>>>>> STN: 33m
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the off chance you do drive to Birmingham, book car parking
>>>>>>> railway station. It’s considerably cheaper than at the
>>>>>>>airport, and with the shuttle train it’s as quick to get to
>>>>>>>the terminal as even from the closer car parks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've used the shuttle train, but in fact several of the car parks are
>>>>>> right next to the terminal. The one I used most is in effect in the same
>>>>>> building (and adjacent to the airport end of the train).
>>>>>>
>>>>> They are still a longer, or at least comparable, walk from the vehicle to
>>>>> departures.
>>>>
>>>> No they aren't. The car parks I used were abut 100yds from the check-in
>>>> desks.
>>>>
>>>>> The railway station car park is considerably easier to use.
>>>>>I’ve never had to enter the multi storey bit, just parking on the
>>>>> near to the escalator to the shuttle. I also find the local road
>>>>>access to the station car park simpler.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it is, but I'd normally have been arriving via one of the adjacent
>>>> motorways, rather than local roads.
>>>
>>> I’ve used the car park you refer to. The total walking distance from your
>>> car, threading yourself along the car park deck, down the stairs and then
>>> along the pavement to the entrance of departures is longer than the walk at
>>> the station car park to the shuttle.
>>
>> There go the goalposts! I'm comparing it to Station car park to terminal
>> (as were you, previously). In any event, it's nothing like as bad as you
>> claim.
>>
>>> You can even drop people off at the station without being charged,
>>> unlike the airport.
>>
>> That's true. I hate airport drop-off charges.
>>
>>> The station car park is also excellent for NEC exhibitions, and is
>>> closer than the most of the exhibition car parks, and usually cheaper.
>>
>> The NEC exhibition car parks qualify as bad-as-airport-long-stay. But
>> it's a while since I've been to any exhibition there.
>
>Nope no goal posts were harmed. If you read what I wrote:
>“walk from the vehicle to departures.”

Or was it: "it's as quick to get to the terminal as even from the closer
car parks".

Need also to factor in the wait for the shuttle, and the time on board.
And the walk from the shuttle to departures (not very far, but neither
is it zero). And for both carparks, the walk (if you mean number of
yards) is going to depend heavily on which floor and where about, you
park.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tgqa95$3ehso$2@dont-email.me>, at 19:30:45 on Sun, 25 Sep
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tgno68$3283a$3@dont-email.me>, at 20:09:44 on Sat, 24 Sep
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tgn3ce$30883$2@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 <tgm8kc$2tvva$2@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:04 on Sat, 24 Sep
>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <tgl3fd$2l3pe$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:03:57 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <tgkos6$2jaig$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:02 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 96. Northern Powerhouse Rail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are we still awaiting details on how this somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>> substitutes for HS2 north of Birmingham?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't. The plan is to connect HS2 and NPR north of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Crewe, so they share the line from Manchester airport into Manchester.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Isn't the plan for NPR to have at least some vestige of
>>>>>>>>>>> high-speed route across the Pennines so people might get from
>>>>>>>>>>> London to Leeds quicker (via Crewe) than using the ECML. All
>>>>>>>>>>> completely bonkers, but it would help to know exactly what
>>>>>>>>>>> was being proposed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not that I'm aware of. NPR won't be a high speed line.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This was the proposal in 2017 (and of course we aren't now
>>>>>>>>> expecting the pictured HS2 lines):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/HS3-2017-map
>>>>>>>>> .png/1280px-HS3-2017-map.png>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In both projects, more detail of what they actually want us to believe
>>>>>>>>> they might start building before the next election, would be welcome.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'HS3' was never going to be a high speed line. It would be too
>>>>>>>> short, with too many stops. At best, it'll be a 125mph line all
>>>>>>>> the way from Liverpool to Leeds and on to the ECML, but that's very unlikely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've often given the impression you favour the opinions of specialist
>>>>>>> press, so what about this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A project to connect major cities in the north of England with a
>>>>>>> dedicated high-speed railway, vastly increasing capacity for freight
>>>>>>> and passenger traffic, could be back on the agenda, but only if
>>>>>>> members of the Conservative Party vote for the right leader.
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Liz Truss, one of two candidates for the leadership of the ruling
>>>>>>> Conservative Party, told a meeting of party members in Leeds that
>>>
>>>>>>> she would revive the Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) high-speed
>>> **************************************************************
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Last Week ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>>>>>> project, which was spectacularly dumped by her own party just a
>>>>>>> matter of months ago.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2022/08/04/uk-mega-project-
>>>>>>> northern-powerhouse-rail-back-on-track/?gdpr=accept>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or are you quibbling about what "High Speed" means, which in the context
>>>>>>> of a classic class 43 HST, I agree is only 125mph.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not quibbling about anything (one of your many patronising put-downs).
>>>>>> I'm just using the standard terminology, which it appears you don't know.
>>>>>
>>>>> HS1 - 125mph (I don't think so)
>>>>
>>>> It's a 300 km/h high speed line. 200 km/h is a 1970s classic line speed.
>>>>
>>>>> HS2 - 125mph (I don't think so)
>>>>
>>>> It will be a 360 km/h high speed line. Where did you get the idea it would
>>>> be a 200 km/h line?
>>>
>>> In both cases I'm exploring what you mean by "High Speed", and so far
>>> you agree with me that it's more than 125mph, despite the eponymous
> *****************
> *****************
> Maybe I did know
> it, after all

You obviously didn't.

>
>>>>> HS3 - let's see what they are actually planning; some input (rather than
>>>>> heckling) from yourself would be helpful.
>>>>
>>>> There is no HS3.
>>>
>>> Apart from the expression "High Speed", and "HS3" turning up (see
>>> earlier cites not just from myself) in the context of NPR.
>>
>> Many years ago.
>
> Last week was many years ago ??!!!??
>
> Even 2017 isn't "many years" in the planning of projects like this, and
> obviously while not definitive, Wikipedia's entry hasn't changed much
> since then.
>

The (always misleading) HS3 term was dropped a number of years ago. It was
never going to be anything but a classic line. The only questions are to do
with how much is new-build, and how much just the current lines,
electrified.

In message <tgsldc$3pi4h$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:53:01 on Mon, 26 Sep
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tgqa95$3ehso$2@dont-email.me>, at 19:30:45 on Sun, 25 Sep
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tgno68$3283a$3@dont-email.me>, at 20:09:44 on Sat, 24 Sep
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tgn3ce$30883$2@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 <tgm8kc$2tvva$2@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:04 on Sat, 24 Sep
>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <tgl3fd$2l3pe$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:03:57 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <tgkos6$2jaig$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:02 on
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 96. Northern Powerhouse Rail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are we still awaiting details on how this somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substitutes for HS2 north of Birmingham?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't. The plan is to connect HS2 and NPR north of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crewe, so they share the line from Manchester airport
>>>>>>>>>>>>>into Manchester.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Isn't the plan for NPR to have at least some vestige of
>>>>>>>>>>>> high-speed route across the Pennines so people might get from
>>>>>>>>>>>> London to Leeds quicker (via Crewe) than using the ECML. All
>>>>>>>>>>>> completely bonkers, but it would help to know exactly what
>>>>>>>>>>>> was being proposed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not that I'm aware of. NPR won't be a high speed line.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This was the proposal in 2017 (and of course we aren't now
>>>>>>>>>> expecting the pictured HS2 lines):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>><https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/HS3-2017-map
>>>>>>>>>> .png/1280px-HS3-2017-map.png>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In both projects, more detail of what they actually want us
>>>>>>>>>>to believe
>>>>>>>>>> they might start building before the next election, would be welcome.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 'HS3' was never going to be a high speed line. It would be too
>>>>>>>>> short, with too many stops. At best, it'll be a 125mph line all
>>>>>>>>> the way from Liverpool to Leeds and on to the ECML, but
>>>>>>>>>that's very unlikely.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You've often given the impression you favour the opinions of specialist
>>>>>>>> press, so what about this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A project to connect major cities in the north of England with a
>>>>>>>> dedicated high-speed railway, vastly increasing capacity for freight
>>>>>>>> and passenger traffic, could be back on the agenda, but only if
>>>>>>>> members of the Conservative Party vote for the right leader.
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Liz Truss, one of two candidates for the leadership of the ruling
>>>>>>>> Conservative Party, told a meeting of party members in Leeds that
>>>>
>>>>>>>> she would revive the Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) high-speed
>>>> **************************************************************
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Last Week ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>>>>>>> project, which was spectacularly dumped by her own party just a
>>>>>>>> matter of months ago.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2022/08/04/uk-mega-project-
>>>>>>>> northern-powerhouse-rail-back-on-track/?gdpr=accept>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or are you quibbling about what "High Speed" means, which in
>>>>>>>>the context
>>>>>>>> of a classic class 43 HST, I agree is only 125mph.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not quibbling about anything (one of your many patronising
>>>>>>>put-downs).
>>>>>>> I'm just using the standard terminology, which it appears you
>>>>>>>don't know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HS1 - 125mph (I don't think so)
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a 300 km/h high speed line. 200 km/h is a 1970s classic line speed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> HS2 - 125mph (I don't think so)
>>>>>
>>>>> It will be a 360 km/h high speed line. Where did you get the idea it would
>>>>> be a 200 km/h line?
>>>>
>>>> In both cases I'm exploring what you mean by "High Speed", and so far
>>>> you agree with me that it's more than 125mph, despite the eponymous
>> *****************
>> *****************
>> Maybe I did know
>> it, after all
>
>You obviously didn't.

<sigh> Why would I say I agree with you, if I didn't?

>>>>>> HS3 - let's see what they are actually planning; some input (rather than
>>>>>> heckling) from yourself would be helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no HS3.
>>>>
>>>> Apart from the expression "High Speed", and "HS3" turning up (see
>>>> earlier cites not just from myself) in the context of NPR.
>>>
>>> Many years ago.
>>
>> Last week was many years ago ??!!!??
>>
>> Even 2017 isn't "many years" in the planning of projects like this, and
>> obviously while not definitive, Wikipedia's entry hasn't changed much
>> since then.
>
>The (always misleading) HS3 term was dropped a number of years ago.

Care to quote that number? Given its recent re-appearance.

>It was never going to be anything but a classic line.

Tell that to the NPR people whose 2017 plans are still in circulation.

>The only questions are to do with how much is new-build, and how much
>just the current lines, electrified.

And do you have any answers?
--
Roland Perry