Maidenhead passengers still transported in worse conditions than cattle

[whole diary]

[onthecushions]

"Electric trains have zero emissions at the point of use"

I agree with you - this may be correct engineers' speak but it is misleading to the average (UK^▸ (United Kingdom) educated) person.

It is probably true that ALL rail travel has "zero emission" of CO2, at least, as the emission avoided (by suffering the train) is on average greater than that of even a smoky diesel. Every train (that is well used) is therefore "green" - they even look better in that colour as your marvellous photo of Tornado showed - thanks.

Electric trains are good for more than InterCity users. The West Coast system has spun off Strathclyde, Birmingham CrossCity and now the Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Blackpool links, in the flinty face of Government neglect. The East Coast system generated  North Leeds wiring (to Bradford FS, Keighley, Ilkley and Skipton - which now captures c75% of travel) and neither will end there.  Our GW^▸ (Great Western) scheme has taken in Oxford and Newbury to many's surprise.

Our 125's however still have more to give. Their balancing (level) speed with one power car out is 115mph but climbing is then a problem. Their present timings could probably be beaten by a 110 mph Class 87/90 as acceleration is often more important than top speed. Where they could be improved is by using the full output of the new MTU^▸ (Motor Traction Unit) engines, alternator, control gear and TM^‡(resolve)'s permitting. As the old Paxman-powered units could unofficially approach 140mph in service in the 1970's,  the present beasts could reach possibly 150mph, needing an extra signal aspect. Substitute a pantograph, transformer and PTL and you save a lot of public money....

OTC

[gpn01]

Ok, so diesel is an 'obvious' polluter, electricity incurs major delivery inefficiencies (due to power loss en-route).  Simple answer - let's have little nuclear powered engines - no emissions, no polution, no inefficiencies of power wasteage.

Now, back to the original thread...

I've recently rejoined the morning cattle trucks from Maidenhead to Paddington and am already finding that I'm having to stand for the journey as there aren't sufficient seats.  Did ponder briefly about paying the first class premium in order to guarantee a seat but noticed that the first class seats are filling up too (with the overflow from the other carriages).  Does anyone think the extra ^100 per month to legitimately sit on a purple seat is worth it?

[JayMac]

How about resurecting gas-turbine motive power? 

[eightf48544]

Electrification is in fact "gas turbine" as we generate a lot of power through gas fired power stations. Whether that's right is another debate.

Gas turbines have been used for rail taction. The UP used large numbers in the late 50s and 60s but reverted to diesel power. This was mainly because their main attribute of very efficient running at constant revs makes them unsuitable for traction power with its varying demands on power.

Thus they are excellent for generating power, ships engines particulary as boosters in warships and jet engines where a constant power output is required for long periods but not for the constantly changing demands for power required by rail traction. 

[Electric train]

Network Rail's contract with its electricity supplier (NR^» (Network Rail - home page) being one of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)'s largest electricity consumer) is for its energy to come from renewable and nuclear.  Electric traction has a far lower consumption of energy, they are lighter; require less maintenance than diesel powered.  Electrification is not the right answer for all routes but the Great Western Mainline, the route through Oxford and the onto the west midlands, Newbury and many of the South Wales lines electrification will allow the intensity of service to increase (because the lower maintenance cost means more units are viable)