woody
|
|
« on: July 14, 2009, 08:47:32 » |
|
With proposed electrification of the Great Western main lines to Bristol/Swansea and Oxford followed by crosscountry route to Plymouth on the agenda this raises the prospect of crosscountry electric trains reaching Plymouth before FGWs▸ direct Berks and Hants is wired up(if ever!).So could FGW Plymouth/Paddingtons switch to electric traction and run via Bristol in the interim or even permenantly given the improved performance of electric traction.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tim
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2009, 08:58:12 » |
|
With proposed electrification of the Great Western main lines to Bristol/Swansea and Oxford followed by crosscountry route to Plymouth on the agenda this raises the prospect of crosscountry electric trains reaching Plymouth before FGWs▸ direct Berks and Hants is wired up(if ever!).So could FGW Plymouth/Paddingtons switch to electric traction and run via Bristol in the interim or even permenantly given the improved performance of electric traction.
A few trains already do that route
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
woody
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2009, 09:50:54 » |
|
With proposed electrification of the Great Western main lines to Bristol/Swansea and Oxford followed by crosscountry route to Plymouth on the agenda this raises the prospect of crosscountry electric trains reaching Plymouth before FGWs▸ direct Berks and Hants is wired up(if ever!).So could FGW Plymouth/Paddingtons switch to electric traction and run via Bristol in the interim or even permenantly given the improved performance of electric traction.
A few trains already do that route Yes but journey times at present are extended by about 20 minutes compared to the direct Berks and Hants route as Plymouth/Paddington is 20 miles longer via Bristol.The improved performance of Electric traction as well as operating efficiencies could make re-routing of all Devon/Cornwall/Paddington services via Bristol feasable at least until the the Berks and Hants is wired up.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2009, 17:00:41 » |
|
Closing the B&H▸ and the re-routing of services via Bristol is what Beeching planned.
EDIT: I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE NO PLANS TO CLOSE THE ROUTE. I AM MEARLY GIVING SOME HISTORICAL INFORMATION TO AUGMENT THE DISCUSSION!
|
|
« Last Edit: July 14, 2009, 18:31:38 by Btline »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
willc
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2009, 17:37:11 » |
|
So what? They have no intention of doing this and reports on the Network Rail electrification strategy made clear that if Bristol-Plymouth is wired, it makes wiring the Berks & Hants route a more than viable propostion
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2009, 17:51:23 » |
|
I was only giving information!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
woody
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2009, 17:55:58 » |
|
Closing the B&H▸ and the re-routing of services via Bristol is what Beeching planned.
Certainly not suggesting closing the Berks and Hants merely trying to second guess what the Dfts bean counters might be tempted to make of any electrification proposals as public sector spending cuts become reality in the future.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
The Grecian
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2009, 18:29:32 » |
|
Beeching's great plan in his 2nd report was to close both the Berks and Hants and the Southern route via Salisbury, leaving just the route via Bristol to London. Seems perfectly fair. Mind you, the Serpell report of 1982 was even better, as Option A involved closing everything south of Bristol or west of Southampton. Option B was kind enough to leave the Bristol to Exeter route as well. Fortunately BR▸ played a good hand with the press and leaked the most extreme plans. The result being that it quickly got bad publicity so was shelved and there haven't been any major passenger lines closed since. Although Melksham passengers probably wouldn't notice much difference
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2009, 18:36:35 » |
|
The country would have ground to a halt if Beeching's plans had come about!
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
matt473
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2009, 19:01:01 » |
|
The country would have ground to a halt if Beeching's plans had come about!
Beeching was somewhat of a scapegoat as the main problem was Marples. Anyway, Why is it people only remember Beechings for the cuts and not the investment in the reamins of the railways he recomended. Beeching wanted the government to invest a lot of money in the remains of the railway, possibly even electrifying the whole network but the government at the time only paid attention to the "cost saving" aspects of the report leading to the closures. Not all Beechings ideas were bad either since he did after all encourage the use of the freightliner concept. DOn't always blame Beeching as there were many others who are to blame who have gotten away with ruining the railway
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2009, 21:08:57 » |
|
But Beeching II is a different matter.
Yes, we would have an electrified line from London to Plymouth via Bristol. But that would be it for the South West!
These awful plans caused Beeching to resign.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2009, 22:23:14 » |
|
Network Rail are more into opening railways than closing them, they are very keen on keeping and even enhancing diversionary routes, the problems of the WCML▸ are only to fresh in the mind. But then who can second guess what will happen after the next general election it is after all the loonies on large expenses in Westminster who cockup the railways
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2009, 23:35:43 » |
|
There were many different versions of the Serpell report, at then end of the day he was a consultant doing what he'd been asked to do BY GOVERNMENT, which is why I can never understand these people that want a re-nationalised railway that would be run by GOVERNMENT!!! Under a nationalised railway we saw cuts, cuts and more cuts, Beeching, Serpell.......
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JayMac
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 16, 2009, 21:57:12 » |
|
There were many different versions of the Serpell report, at then end of the day he was a consultant doing what he'd been asked to do BY GOVERNMENT, which is why I can never understand these people that want a re-nationalised railway that would be run by GOVERNMENT!!! Under a nationalised railway we saw cuts, cuts and more cuts, Beeching, Serpell.......
Ah...but hang on. Isn't our current rail network run by GOVERNMENT? They specify the franchises in minute detail, the timetables, the rolling stock......
|
|
|
Logged
|
"A clear conscience laughs at a false accusation." "Treat everyone the same until you find out they're an idiot." "Moral indignation is a technique used to endow the idiot with dignity."
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 17, 2009, 10:29:31 » |
|
An interesting point that if the wires ever to get to Bristol would Bristol Exeter be wired before the B&H▸ ? If it were BR▸ I would say yes firstly because Birmingham Bristol would follow before B&H and secondly with loco hauled trains BR would have no hesisitation in changing locos first at Bristol and then Exeter and hopefully Plymouth. Now I know DaFT» has specified the hybrid IEP▸ but nobody thinks it will work well, so we are left with the all electric and diesel versions so I can see electric IEPs to Bristol and diesel ones to the South West via the B&H. Scotland to the South West trians would be diesel IEPs even if Bristol Exeter was wired as the hybrid IEP would have problems with Dainton.
Therefore maximum route miles electrified and loco hauled trains to those branches not worth electrifying to give through services.
Don't forget if WW2 hadn't happened the GWR▸ was planning electrification West I think Taunton but definitely Plymouth.
With their increased services both Falmouth and St ives lines justify electrification. After all the Sothern electrified many lines with just a basic 1/2 hourly service.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|