Mike Storey

Yes, and don't I know it. We had to plan for the new, pedestrian overbridge across Stratford Station, in time for the 2012 Games, amidst all of the shiny new station bits, shiny new stadia and office/shopping blocks. When we first saw it, we all wondered why they had not, at least, primed it before erection..... I think it is still "in vogue", merely because it is cheaper than painting, and re-painting.

I would check the length of the piece of string you are holding..... Seriously, what is the capacity of your storage sidings. That is more likely to tell you how many locos you could realistically use in an operating session. It then depends on how many spares you want, for a change of scene.

Another bit of the jigsaw now in place: https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/laing-orourke-wins-hs2-interchange-station-contract/62069.article?ID=z9xqh~9nhhjz~ttxt~W4ik~Ky0gk&utm_campaign=RG-RBUK-FILLER -140722-JM&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=RG-RBUK-FILLER -140722-JM

It is superb - captures that "damp" feel which was so everyday in a former life. I do hope I can achieve something even half as good, eventually. The stock does not look particularly wet, even though it looks right for this layout, so I am not sure that is a problem. By the way, I see later in the thread, that it won some sort of prize from ModelU - more brollies then, please!!

It would appear the advent of the Hunt Elite or GLR MagNEM Omni close couplers now solve the outer end coupling of units? Cheaper and easier to get hold of than Roco, although, having said that, I have just noticed all of GLR's close couplers are "out of stock" at the moment! (Other magnetic couplers are available of course).

I think rusting metal is quite the thing for those leafy corners.

It was a direct reference to discussions being had, about the shameful way Mr Packham has been wasting time and money, on the HS2 thread, which you have either missed or not remembered. Its relevance to GBR is whether any honest evaluation of railway re-openings or enhancements will arise from that quarter. As for the Daily Mail, I despise it as much as Mr Packham, and they both hate HS2.

Just thought I would post the results of the extensive consultation that GBR has conducted (on behalf of ??) which came out last month, although this is the first time I have seen it on line. Andrew Haines has signed it, rather than (or with) any faceless official from the DfT or indeed, Mr Shapps (who I guess is more into other stuff at the mo). So that gives it some credibility. I have not read the whole thing, which could take days, in between falling asleep and going to find a real drink, but feel free to be the first to comment!! https://gbrtt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/WISP-Call-for-Evidence-analysis-report-JUNE-2022-Final.pdf But just in case you are not champing at the bit, I have read the first dozen or so absorbing pages, in between long naps and valium, and the purpose seems to be to create a 30 year Strategy based around what the government wants. But it is so "high level", which is not what the majority of respondents clearly wanted (and the report admits that), that I feel sure a final "Strategy" will emerge, fit for anything and anybody that wants it to be what they want it to be. Not quite what Mr Haines or any of us really expected, but he is not far off his pension now, and looks forward to commenting on here, along with the rest of us "has-beens"..... What it appears not to be, is a concise forward plan giving certainty to an industry that so badly needs it, and an environmental lobby that so wants it to be (bar a certain Eco Warrior, Mr Packham, flying around in jets to get to his latest book launch). Hey ho!

They did : https://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Rail-Expertise-EWR-wider-economic-case-refresh-18-11-15.pdf But what has happened since is that DafT have insisted on separate business cases for each phase, a la: https://eastwestrail.co.uk/latest-news/project-updates/report-the-case-for-east-west-rail-western-section-phase-2 All that has done is to allow both local resistance based on next to nothing at all, and the ability of twats our esteemed elected representatives to defecate all over it reflect on further continuation, a propos sweet FA.

He doesn't really "get it", but there is (I recall) an allowance for one freight path an hour in each direction, during the day, throughout the route (if it is built and used that way). But I am not sure what the flows would be, other than the existing bin liners and so on. Felixstowe is the only major source of freight in Anglia now (unless you count Thamesport and maybe Harwich), but most of that traffic heads north by north west. Perhaps there could be a use for the E-W line's connections to the WCML, once paths are relieved by HS2, and maybe there are flows to be had to the new East and West Midlands logistics centres via that route. But then, that would rather obviate the works already committed (or at least planned) for the ECML, Trans-Pennine and the Peterborough - Birmingham routes. However, it can only be a good thing for the future to have such capacity available for any new flows, which may well come, if a load of other things do or don't pan out.

Whilst I agree with the gist of your post, the 2021 census numbers are now available, and you would also normally use the catchment of a town or city, rather than just the borough limits, for the purposes of assessing transport demand. That would effectively double most of the numbers you have posted, except perhaps for MK. Mr H is making a case, for what purpose we are not entirely clear. But, as indeed exists in much of these sorts of protests/reactions over the last several years, he ignores/omits some key facts, to favour his own selection. Perhaps he has learnt from our finest?

Ok, OK. Enough already. Back to HS2, or at least with some tangential connection to it! Please.

No, it's not possible to re-set the system. If the route is locked and set for the move the train would have made, it would require a whole team to go out, re-wind the points, lock and block any facing ones and post someone to flag each signal affected, before anything could move. Such a team is just not waiting to go into action, so it would take an hour or two (probably) to assemble them, make clear what has to be done and who will do which part, and then get to site. (You may well do all that for a derailment or similar.) Probably quicker to fix the loco (a travelling fitter used to be based at Pboro, not sure now, and not sure whether he/she would be competent on freight locos), or tow the train clear. Not sure whether a Thunderbird-style rescue loco is still based at Pboro. One used to be, many years ago. But even if a crew-less loco was stabled in New England at the time, it could take a while to get a spare driver to it. PS - I see from the above post (which beat me to it) that the train was cleared of the route after 90 mins, which suggests either they fixed it or they got a tow.

Very interesting lesson in how this man's mind operates. Everything's cr8p and awful, unless he thought of it first. I would not like to live in there....

Meanwhile, has anyone seen this? https://www.houseandgarden.co.uk/article/orient-express-train-refurbishment?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&fbclid=IwAR0B8Zjtlhh3_ln-pvhnxT_xPmkXA5To2UB3GaLDJgD9dkEtw24xlDXywM0

What point? I was just making the point that a primary aim of the ERTMS "Digital Railway" programme is to save money (amongst other objectives), which is uncontestable. But I stated a fact, for both Heathrow and the Wherry Lines, which suggests this is not necessarily going to plan (apart from Crossrail itself), so far. I think you are trying to provoke argument where there is, in fact, broad agreement.

The cost saving potential is a clear target for ERTMS, and for ETCS where installed independently of the rest of the programme. But the Padd-Heathrow installation was an overlay for Crossrail trains, to save them all having to have a further signalling system installed - whether that has proven correct I don't know. But ETCS north of Grantham will not happen until at least the early 2030's, by which time the strategy will have changed several times. We simply don't know what will be implemented then. The next scheme planned (apart from HS2) is the MML. What we do know, is that the Wherry Lines scheme, which was to have been another Cambrian type of trial, has just had modern but conventional signalling installed, with future compatibility with ETCS.

Hi Simon I think we are fundamentally agreeing, except perhaps on one point. If you try to accelerate trains to 140 mph on fixed block, you hit the same headway problems as for fixed signals. That is why it is sensible to regard higher speed running (assuming a busy railway) as only routinely feasible with moving block, and even then, constraints appear in between other, slower moving trains.

So, there's yer man, calling for the removal of a major, capital scheme, with a decent CBR and major support throughout politicians, business and most residents (bar those who might be directly disturbed), and that would normally be funded, quite correctly, by long term loans, as contributing to UK plc's economy. So, on an annual basis, not a great saving, either to the Exchequer, or to the country. But that didn't worry him when he cancelled or severely curtailed investment elsewhere. Where do they get these people?

Difficult not to get into politics here, but, just what does he think Great British Railways and management contracts is about? This was the SoS that brought us the IRP, the "greatest investment in our railways for 100 years", which, of course, adjusted for inflation, it isn't, not even close, once you take out HS2, a scheme planned and partially funded some years earlier.

A bit of a silly piece of lazy journalism, or incisive? It implies, rather than proves, that there will be problems, his main points being that trains do not run at uniform speeds on the ECML and that the scheme is not extending north of Grantham, yet. And so? We never find out, because he also says that "no-one is suggesting that the belated adoption of the (ERTMS) in-cab signalling is not welcome". The point of this scheme is to prove, or otherwise, the viability of ERTMS on a mixed traffic railway, but rather expensively.

At last, we seem to have found our way back to the topic. Indeed, it struck me as very similar to the original BRB remit, without calling it that. Can we please avoid a general rant about current adjustments to traffic levels - there are plenty of other threads for that, or start your own. This thread is about the potential for the longer term management of the railways. Thank you.

Very true. But they must announce a number of broad-brush decisions this year, in order for more detail and the necessary teams (for new and revised functions) to be established next year, so that they can be fully functional by 2024 (their stated target). I just hope it remains the strategy if Cabinet posts change, given the current hubris.

Not entirely, but that would appear to be being worked out. In the attached, see section under "Rufus Boyd". I worked for a while with Rufus, on and off between 1996 and 2005. If anyone can figure this out, he should be able to. https://gbrtt.co.uk/ Also, generally, I attach the latest version of what GBR is supposed to be for, and about, from the usual Wiki source. One thing that stands out is the expectation that many of the functions currently undertaken by the DfT will be transferred to GBR. Unless they plan to micro-manage even that, this can only be a "good" thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_British_Railways

Totally agree, and that is why two, not one, MLV's were added to boat trains in the late '60's and early '70's. However, by my time, '75-77, we were down to one or none, because so little use was being made of it. It is true there was a kind of baggage office between Platform 2 and Hudson Place, but it seemed to be almost permanently shut, and was also used for many other things (like storing the cleaners' trollies) by my time. That is why I cannot remember an "Inwards Baggage Office" by then, but I was aware of Registered Baggage. Again, in three years, nobody ever asked me about it, although I am aware it was sometimes used for party bookings, school trips and suchlike. But the boat train ferry loadings figures from Snargate Radio would have been next to no use at all in determining unaccompanied baggage expectations at Victoria! That would have needed something else, although quite what that was eludes me. All we had AFAIR were foot passengers train, foot passengers local and bicycles train.