62613

On this side of the Pennines, that's more or less what Andy Burnham said in his response to Mr. Shapps' announcement West Yorkshire PTE was always more supportive of rail wasn't it? Wasn't the Leeds/ Bradford to Skipton electrification one of their schemes?

Thanks for that, iands. I wouldn't have thought that there was much, if any external bridge works, and so on, to be done on that stretch. That almost looks like a quote to ensure that the scheme is shelved. My actual feeling is that, if they want a a fully electrified route between Manchester and Leeds, the various northern transport bodies are going to have to find some way of raising the money themselves, and doing it incrementally.

I must admit that £0.6 billion surely wouldn't cover the costs of upgrading the entire route; is the bit announced just the Huddersfield - Dewsbury upgrade proposed last year? A couple of other points; firstly, all the off-railway civils work (raising bridges, etc.) for electrifying to Stalybridge was completed in 2017, and all the electrical feed work. How much would it cost to complete the job? The other thing was that, in the interview I saw, Mr. Shapps mentioned electrifying York-Newcastle. Really?

The M &GN never went to March. The closest it got was Murrow, where it crossed the joint. The GN & GE joint was really only the link between March and Spalding, wasn't it; although the line from March to St. Ives was vested in the joint committee as well, IIRC

About the only thing still extant on that Victoria photo is the bridge!

If a tidal power scheme destroyed a natural habitat, I can quite see why. For what it's worth, here's one who is fairly environmentally aware. We aren't the only creatures on the planet, after all. I would say that, if you could at the very least mitigate its environmental effects, I wouldn't have built a bridge across the Severn Estuary, I would have built a tidal barrage

Without a doubt

I have read somewhere that both the Kent Coast and Bournemouth electrification schemes were SR schemes pre-1939, but , as you say, WW2 put a stop to any investment for years.

As you say, and has already been mentioned, the conductors remained the same; only the insulators were changed. I could imagine the power draw has fallen well, with only one class 323 going up the hill every half-hour, rather than heavily-laden EM1s and EM2s.

Again, electrification of suburban commuter services, from their very beginning around London, Liverpool and Tyneside, were due to efforts by the railway companies to offset losses due to competition from electric tramways and, later, motor buses, no?

I thought the Woodhead electrification was partly a tunnel scheme, i.e., to eliminate the horrific working conditions in working steam through the summit tunnels. Weren't they on a gradient, which meant you had to keep steam on in one direction at least.

"The government" has, almost from their beginnings, interfered with the railways; in 1844, the then President of the Board of Trade, one W.E. Gladstone, had Railways Act passed through Parliament, which had clauses in it which allowed for nationalisation of railway companies under certain conditions. There was the 1889 act which made interlocking of signals, block working and continuous brakes on passenger trains compulsory. I believe there was an act in the 1890s which fixed minimum freight rates. The grouping of the railways was due to an act of Parliament; nationalisation was talked about then.

So, just as there are lies, damn lies and statistics, there are liars, damn liars and accountants?

Re-routed via Standedge, using class 56s. There are stories of the westbound MGR trains struggling up the gradient past Huddersfield.

This was a 9-98VT2BF in a 65000 ton BP tanker (18000bhp). Only did one Sulzer (but two H & W VTBFs)

Cylinder head nuts on a B & W 98VT2BF engine. Very similar to NHNs experience, but a lot more of them at once. There was a gauge so that you could only tighten each nut so far in each flog, and of course the spanner had to be manoevered to get even tightening of the head. It took a while!

Err....I don't think so. After the failed referendum vote, didn't the Coalition parliament enact a law which meant that only English MPs could vote on English laws, if the government so wished. It has been used a couple of times; I just can't remember what the votes were for.

clear case of crystal ball-itis. Why would there be a premium fare?

Oh, no it isn't!

In my local Co-op there are some truly marvellous beers, including some made by one of our local breweries specifically for the Co-op

Is that even a catering vehicle? Lovely film; one of those where you're listening to the music and watching the trains going by.

Hurrah! Wouldn't the apprentice have a college course to attend next?

I hope no-one had their washing out!.

But read Gibbo75's post. Taxes don't fund anything; The government pays for things by issuing bonds, which are redeemable at later date ("Shorts", "Mediums" and "Longs"), the interest on which is paid out of tax. UK bond rates are at historic lows, and have been since the crash in 2008, and the various quantitative easing splurges in 2010-2013

The only entertainer as far as I know to a visit to the troops in Burma. She did one of her shows only 1500 yards behind the front line