Massive train timetabling amendments

[V8 Fettler]

rs1952 said:

V8 Fettler said:

rs1952 said:

You won't listen, will you?

If you can be bothered, try reading this article about a proposal to convert Marylebone station to a coach station back in the 80s, together with a rail to road conversion scheme to feed it. There are also details of other rail/road conversions in the London area that never even got off the ground (it has been posted on PH before, but perhaps you never saw it)

Don't forget to read right to the end to see why it wouldn't have worked for all manner of practical reasons.

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/near-term...

I've spent too many years listening to feeble excuses from the railway sector, remove all subsidies and let the free market prevail.

The use of automatic electric vehicles adds further weight to the argument to rip up the tracks.

Interesting...

The link to the London Connections website gives details of a government-inspired idea to carry out rail/road conversions in the London area back in the 80s. Flogging off Marylebone and not having to pay out mega-bucks modernising the Chiltern lines was just the icing on the cake, and the bit that BR particularly liked. They were also reasonably keen on the concept of being paid tolls for the use of their real estate (ie the track formations) rather than have the bother of running trains on them. When you read the detail of the Marylebone closure debacle you will see that they were actually looking for feeble excuses to execute the plan rather than feeble excuses to scupper it.

It was a scheme backed by such well-known railway lovers as Margaret Thatcher, Norman Tebbit, Nigel Lawson and Cecil Parkinson who were in cabinet at the time. Yet, apparently, they all fell for the "feeble excuses from the railway sector" (that weren't there...) and the idea went nowhere. Well well well, who'd a thunk it?

The London Connections piece also gives specific details of "pinch points" on the proposed conversion routes (eg viaduct curved and too narrow, insufficient clearance under bridges and in tunnels etc). Yet, apparently, this was all hogwash and they must have been lying because V8F has found a Transport Watch web page that tells us all how easy and straightforward it really would have been. Well well well who'd a thunk that either?

Hare Krishna...

London Reconnections said:

A piece of land wide enough for a double-track railway can only accommodate a single-carriageway road, and a four-track railway formation is not wide enough to take a dual carriageway.

London Reconnections offers no data to support this claim. On the other hand, Transport Watch offers data to support the conversion of rail to road:

Transport Watch said:

The width between the rails is 4 feet 8.5 inches. It is derived from the carts being dragged by pit ponies 150 years ago. However, bridge abutments, tunnels and viaducts on double track railways offer a clear width seldom less than 7.3m (24 feet) - the same as the carriageway width required for a two-way trunk road. Elsewhere double-track railways offer a level width of 8.5 m (28 feet) on tangents and more on bends. Single-track railways offer 13 feet between bridge abutments but many were built on double track formations. Hence the widths of most railways would accommodate carriageways the same width as those for new (single carriageway) trunk roads but not the 3m verges that form part of the design standard for green field construction. However, effective verges are generally absent on most ordinary roads and would serve little or no purpose on railway alignments.

The European carriageway width for a two-way road is 7m. At one time the standard for Scottish Trunk Roads was 5.5m (18 feet). Across the UK there are many “A” roads 6 metres wide where lorries and coaches operate without difficulty.

[V8 Fettler]

tight5 said:

V8 Fettler said:

Freight avoidable costs and freight only line charges are set at a level that allows the FOCs to continue operating, if these costs were set at the true cost to Network Rail then the FOCs would almost certainly go bankrupt.

Freight avoidable costs and freight only line charges, but no mention of variable usage charge !

Network Rail said:

Rail freight is vital to Britain’s economic success.
It contributes £870m to the economy and plays a big part in reducing congestion and carbon emissions

Network Rail said:

Britain relies on the railway
Rail freight is a success story. Whether it is taking lorries off the roads and drastically reducing congestion or transporting goods that we consume every day, Britain relies on rail freight to provide a faster, greener, safer and more efficient way of transporting goods than roads.

The rail freight industry directly contributes £870m to the nation’s economy every year, but supports an economic output of £5.9bn – six times its direct turnover.

It is an indispensable part of the British economy, and an essential component in supporting economic recovery and long-term sustainable growth.

Network Rail said:

Key facts
The UK rail freight sector contributes £299m in profits and wages to the UK economy.
On average a gallon of fuel moves a tonne of goods 246 miles by rail but 88 miles by road.
Each freight train takes about 60 HGVs off the roads.

V8 Fettler said:

Automatic electric vehicles are already here.

Show me one moving 100,000 litres of petrol/diesel/aviation fuel.
Show me one moving a 40 foot shipping container.
Show me one moving 70 tons of coal.
Show me one moving Hydrocyanic acid.

If rail freight is so effective, then why does it rely on the ORR to set the charges paid to Network Rail to ensure that rail freight doesn't go bankrupt?

[tight5]

V8 Fettler said:

If rail freight is so effective, then why does it rely on the ORR to set the charges paid to Network Rail to ensure that rail freight doesn't go bankrupt?

It doesn't.
You are taking a small section of the total costing and shouting from the rooftops.
There are several layers to the billing and you are only looking at 1 &2.


No pics of these automatic electric vehicles transporting the freight I mentioned, then ?

[legzr1]

tight5 said:

No pics of these automatic electric vehicles transporting the freight I mentioned, then ?

Use your imagination - it’s what a certain member has built his whole opinion on and the argument seems to be going his way doesn’t it?


Transport watch: the font of all knowledge and unbiased truth...

https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php...
This, from 13 years ago, is quite interesting and it seems nothing much has changed”

“There was a discussion about this website in another thread fairly recently. Whilst the site appears to be about public transport, it is extremely anti-rail !!!

It starts off with the premise that railways are currently too expensive (reasonably true), but then suggests that the best way to fix this would be close them all down and divert the money into roads (which wouldn't happen). It makes basic mistakes like assuming existing railways could easily be converted to roads (they can't) and that doing so would fix transport problems (it wouldn't).

I had a number of email exchanges with the guy who runs the site and he seems to delight in making contentious statements to wind people up.

The biggest danger in this sort of site is that the claims made are 75% true and are phrased in a way that makes them seem obvious. It is not until you delve into it that you find that much of it is just spin.”

Remind you of anyone on this thread?

Edited by legzr1 on Monday 18th June 11:12

[mcdjl]

V8 Fettler said:

London Reconnections said:

A piece of land wide enough for a double-track railway can only accommodate a single-carriageway road, and a four-track railway formation is not wide enough to take a dual carriageway.

London Reconnections offers no data to support this claim. On the other hand, Transport Watch offers data to support the conversion of rail to road:

Transport Watch said:

The width between the rails is 4 feet 8.5 inches. It is derived from the carts being dragged by pit ponies 150 years ago. However, bridge abutments, tunnels and viaducts on double track railways offer a clear width seldom less than 7.3m (24 feet) - the same as the carriageway width required for a two-way trunk road. Elsewhere double-track railways offer a level width of 8.5 m (28 feet) on tangents and more on bends. Single-track railways offer 13 feet between bridge abutments but many were built on double track formations. Hence the widths of most railways would accommodate carriageways the same width as those for new (single carriageway) trunk roads but not the 3m verges that form part of the design standard for green field construction. However, effective verges are generally absent on most ordinary roads and would serve little or no purpose on railway alignments.

The European carriageway width for a two-way road is 7m. At one time the standard for Scottish Trunk Roads was 5.5m (18 feet). Across the UK there are many “A” roads 6 metres wide where lorries and coaches operate without difficulty.

FYI those two pieces agree on what they're saying. A single carriage way allows traffic to pass in both directions on a single piece of tarmac. A dul carriage way has two pieces of tarmac, one for travel in each direction. In other words on a lot of these super roads the best you can hope is to be stuck behind a lorry trundling along trying to squeeze past another lorry.
Incidentally Newcastle (https://www.newcastle.gov.uk/sites/default/files/wwwfileroot/legacy/regen/plantrans/DesignAndConstructionOfRoadsAndAccessesToAdoptableStandardsMarch2011.pdf) won't take on adopting any roads less than 7.3m wide.

[saaby93]

mcdjl said:

FYI those two pieces agree on what they're saying. A single carriage way allows traffic to pass in both directions on a single piece of tarmac. A dul carriage way has two pieces of tarmac, one for travel in each direction. In other words on a lot of these super roads the best you can hope is to be stuck behind a lorry trundling along trying to squeeze past another lorry.
Incidentally Newcastle (https://www.newcastle.gov.uk/sites/default/files/wwwfileroot/legacy/regen/plantrans/DesignAndConstructionOfRoadsAndAccessesToAdoptableStandardsMarch2011.pdf) won't take on adopting any roads less than 7.3m wide.

carriageways less than 7.3m excluding say home zones

[Greshamst]

Anyway, back to the subject at hand, rather than shouting at the wind...

From what I've read it takes 1 year to train up the drivers on the new requirements, does that mean thameslink are going to be stuck on this revised [i]revised[\i] timetable for another 12 months? (Bedford - London route)

Does anyone have thoughts on when it's supposed to improve?

And as much as I love spending 5 mins to get the info for my £1.26 delay repay, it's rather frustrating that there's no compensation for the reduced service. I can't claim delay repay for trains they've simply stripped out completely.

[legzr1]

Greshamst said:

Anyway, back to the subject at hand, rather than shouting at the wind...

From what I've read it takes 1 year to train up the drivers on the new requirements, does that mean thameslink are going to be stuck on this revised [i]revised[\i] timetable for another 12 months? (Bedford - London route)

Does anyone have thoughts on when it's supposed to improve?

And as much as I love spending 5 mins to get the info for my £1.26 delay repay, it's rather frustrating that there's no compensation for the reduced service. I can't claim delay repay for trains they've simply stripped out completely.

You’ve misread (or the author has it wrong).

1 year is the approx time to train a non-driver to a qualified and productive driver.

We’re talking days of training for this particular issue.

If there aren’t enough drivers then the TOC / DfT need to explain why.

If the only answer is to recruit and train more drivers then it will be closer to 18 months before this is all sorted out.

[tight5]

Greshamst said:

From what I've read it takes 1 year to train up the drivers on the new requirements, does that mean thameslink are going to be stuck on this revised [i]revised[\i] timetable for another 12 months? (Bedford - London route)

I learned Doncaster to Kings Cross, Hertford branch, Copenhagen tunnel to Wembley via Primrose hill and Copenhagen tunnel to Wembley via Gospel Oak in 8 weeks.
I dunno how much route learning is required for the new passenger routes mentioned, but the issue is they don't have enough drivers to do the work they have AND let drivers learn new routes.

[Europa1]

legzr1 said:

You’ve misread (or the author has it wrong).

1 year is the approx time to train a non-driver to a qualified and productive driver.

We’re talking days of training for this particular issue.

If there aren’t enough drivers then the TOC / DfT need to explain why.

If the only answer is to recruit and train more drivers then it will be closer to 18 months before this is all sorted out.

They strung the wires and installed the signalling on the St Pancras - Kings Cross link back in 2016 (I think), and one of the reasons given for why it would take until 2018 to come into service was driver training. With all that time, how can they be short?

[tight5]

Europa1 said:

legzr1 said:

You’ve misread (or the author has it wrong).

1 year is the approx time to train a non-driver to a qualified and productive driver.

We’re talking days of training for this particular issue.

If there aren’t enough drivers then the TOC / DfT need to explain why.

If the only answer is to recruit and train more drivers then it will be closer to 18 months before this is all sorted out.

They strung the wires and installed the signalling on the St Pancras - Kings Cross link back in 2016 (I think), and one of the reasons given for why it would take until 2018 to come into service was driver training. With all that time, how can they be short?

They are short of drivers.
You would have to cancel a service to release a driver to go road learning.

[rs1952]

Robertj21a said:

If this thread is still about timetable amendments (???), I gather that the Windermere branch is about to restart, with a couple of locos !

West Coast Railways running a service topped and tailed with a 37 and 47. BBC news story with film clip here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-4451...

[V8 Fettler]

tight5 said:

V8 Fettler said:

If rail freight is so effective, then why does it rely on the ORR to set the charges paid to Network Rail to ensure that rail freight doesn't go bankrupt?

It doesn't.
You are taking a small section of the total costing and shouting from the rooftops.
There are several layers to the billing and you are only looking at 1 &2.


No pics of these automatic electric vehicles transporting the freight I mentioned, then ?

It's there in black and white

Network Rail said:

The level of these charges was ultimately set based on ORR's view of how much these market segements could afford to contribute to our fixed costs

Self-driving HGVs already permitted on US Highways http://www.freightlinerinspiration.com/newsroom/pr...

Elon Musk claims battery HGVs with 500 mile range by 2019 https://www.smartrailworld.com/sustainability/tesl...

[V8 Fettler]

legzr1 said:

tight5 said:

No pics of these automatic electric vehicles transporting the freight I mentioned, then ?

Use your imagination - it’s what a certain member has built his whole opinion on and the argument seems to be going his way doesn’t it?


Transport watch: the font of all knowledge and unbiased truth...

https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php...
This, from 13 years ago, is quite interesting and it seems nothing much has changed”

“There was a discussion about this website in another thread fairly recently. Whilst the site appears to be about public transport, it is extremely anti-rail !!!

It starts off with the premise that railways are currently too expensive (reasonably true), but then suggests that the best way to fix this would be close them all down and divert the money into roads (which wouldn't happen). It makes basic mistakes like assuming existing railways could easily be converted to roads (they can't) and that doing so would fix transport problems (it wouldn't).

I had a number of email exchanges with the guy who runs the site and he seems to delight in making contentious statements to wind people up.

The biggest danger in this sort of site is that the claims made are 75% true and are phrased in a way that makes them seem obvious. It is not until you delve into it that you find that much of it is just spin.”

Remind you of anyone on this thread?

Edited by legzr1 on Monday 18th June 11:12

Any dimensions, data and calculations on the sabre-roads' thread?

In reality, the carriage of freight is a sideshow compared to passenger traffic into London. However, given the demonstrable incompetence of the rail sector and the workforce's demonstrable disdain for passengers, it's probably best to rip up all the tracks.

[V8 Fettler]

mcdjl said:

V8 Fettler said:

London Reconnections said:

A piece of land wide enough for a double-track railway can only accommodate a single-carriageway road, and a four-track railway formation is not wide enough to take a dual carriageway.

London Reconnections offers no data to support this claim. On the other hand, Transport Watch offers data to support the conversion of rail to road:

Transport Watch said:

The width between the rails is 4 feet 8.5 inches. It is derived from the carts being dragged by pit ponies 150 years ago. However, bridge abutments, tunnels and viaducts on double track railways offer a clear width seldom less than 7.3m (24 feet) - the same as the carriageway width required for a two-way trunk road. Elsewhere double-track railways offer a level width of 8.5 m (28 feet) on tangents and more on bends. Single-track railways offer 13 feet between bridge abutments but many were built on double track formations. Hence the widths of most railways would accommodate carriageways the same width as those for new (single carriageway) trunk roads but not the 3m verges that form part of the design standard for green field construction. However, effective verges are generally absent on most ordinary roads and would serve little or no purpose on railway alignments.

The European carriageway width for a two-way road is 7m. At one time the standard for Scottish Trunk Roads was 5.5m (18 feet). Across the UK there are many “A” roads 6 metres wide where lorries and coaches operate without difficulty.

FYI those two pieces agree on what they're saying. A single carriage way allows traffic to pass in both directions on a single piece of tarmac. A dul carriage way has two pieces of tarmac, one for travel in each direction. In other words on a lot of these super roads the best you can hope is to be stuck behind a lorry trundling along trying to squeeze past another lorry.
Incidentally Newcastle (https://www.newcastle.gov.uk/sites/default/files/wwwfileroot/legacy/regen/plantrans/DesignAndConstructionOfRoadsAndAccessesToAdoptableStandardsMarch2011.pdf) won't take on adopting any roads less than 7.3m wide.

The relative capacity and flow calculations are on the Transport Watch website. I doubt if local authorities would be responsible for the new roads running on the track beds.

[mcdjl]

V8 Fettler said:

The relative capacity and flow calculations are on the Transport Watch website. I doubt if local authorities would be responsible for the new roads running on the track beds.

No, but if local authorities won't take on roads which are 'rarely less than 7m wide ' then the high ways agencies definitely won't!
It's strange that your autonomous lorry doesn't seem to get a mention after 2015, still needs a driver and that the electric lorry doesn't exist yet and relies on Elon 'ambitious timing' Musk.

[Pwig]

And hope there will be no red signals on the way

[Shakermaker]

Are there any other sources than Transport Watch?

[P5BNij]

Shakermaker said:

Are there any other sources than Transport Watch?

Not in 'fettler's world, apparently. He's verging on trolling now anyway.

[rs1952]

Getting right back on topic, if anyone has an hour or so to spare they might like to read the whole of this weighty tome, which is the best account I've seen so far that appears to comprehensively analyse what went on.

I particularly liked one sentence towards the end:

London Connections said:

With only the Secretary of State having the power to overrule the industry board and cancel or postpone the new timetable it was really only a matter of waiting to find out how many hours the timetable could operate before it would fall over.

I'll be offline now for about 36 hours so I'll have to wait to see any responses

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/holy-grai...