Edwin_m

The Metro Sunderland route has a lot of similarities with tram-train. However a true tram-train also has the ability to run on street, including 750V power supply, shielding to reduce the risk to pedestrians, ability to cope with curves down to 25m or so and driver visibility, running lights etc compatible with street operation.

It's not clear the whole way - for example the several bridges where the M60 and its various slip roads cross the railway are built for only double track. Tram-train on the Atherton line would probably convert the section between Windsor Bridge North (Salford Crescent) and Crow Nest to tramway operation, as through Southport trains could go via Bolton and there is no real reason for other trains to use this even on diversion. The tram-trains would switch to 25kV and share the double track between Crow Nest and Wigan, where two of the original tracks formed the Wigan avoiding line so the last section into Wigan including a couple of major bridges would be very difficult to quadruple. While the announcement of Wigan-Bolton electrification means the tram-train would not have to pay for wires between Crow Nest and Wigan, it does cause problems at the Wigan end because it appears Wallgate will not be electrified and the electric trains will run to North Western. This probably doesn't leave enough capacity to terminate tram-trains, unless the wires are extended through the very difficult overbridge of Wallgate (the street) and its flanking buildings to enter Wallgate (the station) - and to provide operational flexibility it might also be necessary to wire beyond the WCML at the other end, clearances here also looking quite difficult. Having said all that, Atherton line tram-train would still need an significant section of new route from Windsor Bridge North to connect with Metrolink in central Manchester, as there is not enough capacity to share tracks here, and other routes such as Marple have a much better case than Atherton. So if tram-train happens at all in Greater Manchester it is likely to be elsewhere rather than Atherton.

If the 319s are re-engineered as well as refurbished then it is quite likely they will lose their third rail capability. Even if they keep it, I'm not sure they would be welcome in the Merseyrail tunnel sections (possible clearance issues as well as much lower proportion of motored axles than 507/508) and terminating short of Liverpool probably doesn't make sense. I think it is much more likely that Merseyrail will get dual-voltage units for through running onto existing and future AC electrified sections.

I'm not familiar with the 70 but some other recent designs of Farish diesel the body can lift until the worm gear is jumping on the gear at the top of the bogie tower. This can cause clicking and pushing it down will re-engage and allow it to move. However the cure involves adjusting the tabs which form the pickups, and as the pickups are different I'm not sure how this would work on the 70.

Possibly so - there is something of a double standard in safety between the railway and the road. On the other hand the average person has a lot less exposure to train-platform interfaces than to the other areas you mention, so even though the overall number of fatalities is less it may be that they are proportionately more dangerous, and/or easier to do something about.

Agreed. And looking at RAIB reports I reckon platform-train interface will be the next big issue.

I would indeed imagine that work will be concentrated west of Manchester. The Modern Railways article notes that Chat Moss electrification is running late and this may delay the rest of the Lancashire Triangle. These schemes are important to release suburban DMUs to address the dire shortage of such units in the North and elsewhere. On the other hand the need for long-distance DMUs is less severe and it might not be too much of an issue if the Transpennine electrification slipped a bit and the 185s had to remain there for another year or so. I believe the work at Victoria over Christmas includes lowering the track to get clearance under bridges, but I don't think any wires will appear until later.

Wonder what will happen to that £47 billion figure if a Boris Island airport progresses further.

I'm personally not too bothered by continuity "errors" in the likes of Portillo. They obviously have to work around the operating railway and time available for filming will be limited, so if they have to do several takes on different trains I wouldn't expect them to have to wait until the same class turns up to ensure absolute consistency (and even then people would complain if the unit number changed en route). Similarly to minimise hire costs and take advantage of weather conditions the helicopter shots will not be taken at the same time as the rest of the programme, and as long as they show a representative train on the correct route I don't see a problem. This is especially so when travelling on Northern, where the out-of-a-hat diagramming policy means that the wait for the next unit of the same class may be a long one! Similarly I'm not too bothered if the train type is broadly representative of the era and area depicted. Even Mk1s in a WW2 setting don't concern me too much as long as the livery is roughly appropriate for the region being depicted, although with little effort a BR Standard could look a bit more like one of the big 4 types it was based on. What I think is both avoidable and ridiculous is when the train type is either obviously grossly wrong (eg steam train for the modern era) or changes en route.

Seems to be an unofficial requirement for any Hollywood-type film where a train plays a significant part. The latest James Bond being the most recent of many.

I wouldn't be surprised if a similar 90% figure was also the case for many of the English regions, but there is still enough demand to justify inter-regional services.

Not quite that far. HS2 roughly follows the GC from near Amersham to near Brackley.

Not to mention the tramway also using the entire section between just south of the Trent and the southern edge of the built-up area. The rest of the route in Nottingham (from Arkwright Street to the Trent and from Carrington northwards) has been built over and apart from the tunnels virtually nothing remains.

Crossrail is about £15 billion.

But surely a substantial number of the lineside housholders in, say, Watford, don't need to use the railway and wouldn't benefit? Many of these people would however lose amenity, a slice of garden or even their entire properties - numbering in the hundreds or thousands for a WCML upgrade and more if other lines are upgraded too. By avoiding or tunneling under populated areas HS2 minimises this issue.

Sorry to hear of your break-in and I hope it is confirmed that loss/damage is minimal. Will the police need the footprint as evidence?

I'd disagree. Most of the local authorities in the North are firmly in favour and opposition from locals seems somewhat more muted (though that may be simply because the project is at an earlier stage). The opposition south of Birmingham is to some extent understandable as they don't get any direct benefit, and the indirect benefits of increased capacity on parallel routes don't apply to everyone and are not understood by some of those they would apply to. However I think there would have been just as much opposition whatever route was taken northwards from London, and probably more on most of the others as the route chosen has one of the lowest population densities in the southeast.

Almost certainly she has the scaremongering being put about by the anti-HS2 faction to blame for this. Construction traffic depends very much on where she lives on the road network - it is likely that much of it would go along haul roads built along the actual alignment and linking to major roads rather than using minor country lanes. Unfortunately in the absence of firm information about (in this case) how the construction would be managed, this sort of rumour and innuendo expands to fill the vacuum. Someone should really do a study of how HS1 was constructed and whether residents near HS1 now feel their environment has been adversely affected.

Noting that you are thinking capacity not speed, but this would constrain the new tracks to almost exactly the same alignment as the old one and therefore speed profile would be the same. To avoid overbridges etc you'd probably have to run "two levels" above the existing line for most of the way, and I can't see the people who currently back onto a cutting being very happy with trains running past at ground level. Or indeed those backing onto an embankment having it doubling in height... I agree a lower speed would reduce some operating costs, though it might mean more trains to provide the same frequency and therefore more crews and a larger depot too. However in the new focus on capacity we mustn't lose sight of the fact that if this ever extends to Scotland, speed will become much more important. Also a lower speed route would only save maybe 10-20% in cost and environmental impact. A route designed for high speed can be used more slowly if that turns out to be the best choice at the time, but the opposite isn't true!

It is stated in the report that the barrier was invisible from a distance, due to it being against a dark background but with bright light immediately above from the sun and below from the reflection on the wet road. In that case I would have thought a stationary road vehicle or other obstruction near the crossing would also potentially have been invisible. In which case failure to stop at the barrier is an indication of driving too fast for the conditions even had the level crossing been open to road traffic. Sorry to say this is an all too common example of poor driving with tragic results.

Presumably the common factor here is that these tanks are pressurised, including substances that are gases at normal pressure but liquid under the pressure of the tank. I guess firefighters need to know that there is a risk of sudden depressurisation if the tank is punctured and also that heat may result in boiloff and pressure increasing beyond the limits of the vessel.

That is true and the station at Toton is equally accessible from Derby and Nottingham, so it is a logical place to put it given that a station in central Nottingham was never really on the cards. The tram line will almost certainly also be extended to provide better access to those western suburbs as well as key destinations such as the University. However the tram line is too far for access to central Nottingham (about 16 stops) and the risk is that the Toton station will be much more accessible by car than by public transport. As well as potentially increasing road traffic and weakening the public transport network, a parkway with no city centre station runs the risk of sucking prosperity out of the area (affluent people can drive to Toton and go to London) rather than bringing it in (tourists and business visitors arriving in the outer suburbs and facing a difficult journey into the centre). Hence I believe there need to be both excellent heavy rail connections into Derby and Nottingham, and a similar level of speed and frequency maintained to London on the classic network.

The MML north from Leicester and even onwards to Stoke and Crewe via Uttoxeter has indeed been talked about for freight, but I'm not sure where that idea stands at present. There wouldn't be much of a capacity problem from Syston northwards. However I don't see much reduction in passenger trains on the critical section south of Leicester. Leicester itself does not benefit from HS2, except for the possibility of connections towards Leeds which are not relevant here. Hence there will be pressure to maintain a fast and frequent service between London and Leicester at least as good as today's. The recent Network Rail document on capacity release also suggests more trains for the stations between Leicester and Bedford. Furthermore the journey between London and either Derby or Nottingham will only be some 15-20min quicker via HS2* and connecting train from Toton if the connection is really slick, and I think many passengers will continue to use the classic route rather than suffer the inconvenience of a change after about 12min. So I think the best that can be expected is the removal of a fast Sheffield service and replacement with a semi-fast (which might continue to serve Sheffield). *Aspiration for journey time on existing route: 90min HS2 journey time: 53min Connection allowance: 10min Travel time into Derby/Nottingham: 12-15min

It loses one line of defence but it's not directly going to lead to an accident unless other things go wrong. The stopping of the rear portion removes any risk of it colliding with anything else, at least until the brakes leak off and you expect that one of the below things has happened before that (even without a neighbour phoning in!). In an Absolute Block section the lack of tail light would be noticed when the train passed the next box, "stop and examine" would be sent to the box after that and hopefully the lack of a wagon would be noticed. In the meantime no other trains would be admitted to the section concerned. This should eventually lead to re-discovery of the missing wagon, and whoever first found it would apply the handbrake to remove any chance of it rolling away. In Track Circuit Block areas (including axle counter sections) the relevant section would remain occupied, holding protecting signals at danger and again hopefully leading to location of the missing wagon. There is of course the risk of things going wrong, and as often happens on the railways a long chain of mistakes is needed to cause an accident. There was an accident a few years back at the St Pancras cement terminal where an arriving train broke a coupling leaving two wagons in the tunnel. The driver became convinced that vandals had stolen the tail lamp and opened the brake pipe cocks, didn't notice he was two wagons short, and could quite easily have been killed as the wagons rolled into the back of the train, had they not been stopped by an adverse gradient. The wagons were also badly maintained so the brakes leaked off after 50min.

The Midland south of Bedford, and certainly south of Luton, is pretty much full. Further north the alignment isn't really suitable for high speeds, and even with tilting trains the WCML and ECML are always going to be quicker to Manchester and Leeds respectively. So even if the fastest possible trains were provided on the MML few people would use them. Instead the emerging strategy seems to be to use the MML as a principal route for north-south freight, most leaving at Bedford and running via the Bletchley Flyover. Haven't we heard that one before somewhere?