Discussion:
Scotland on Sunday: Secret talks on London bullet train
(too old to reply)
The Voice of EDI
2008-06-01 20:42:19 UTC
Permalink
A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between the
UK and Scottish Governments.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Secret-talks-on-
London.4139887.jp

or

http://tinyurl.com/5d2x88

I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page ad
from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic air
travel.
B
2008-06-01 20:58:03 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 1, 9:42 pm, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
> A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
> Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between the
> UK and Scottish Governments.
>
> http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Secret-talks-on-
> London.4139887.jp
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5d2x88
>
> I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page ad
> from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic air
> travel.

Well saying that, the Scotland-London airports pax totals are dipping,
moreso at EDI,
The Voice of EDI
2008-06-02 05:45:19 UTC
Permalink
In article <d0f177f8-1102-4925-8bd5-251ace9700a5@
2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, ***@btopenworld.com says...
> On Jun 1, 9:42 pm, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> > A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
> > Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between the
> > UK and Scottish Governments.
> >
> > http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Secret-talks-on-
> > London.4139887.jp
> >
> > or
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/5d2x88
> >
> > I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page ad
> > from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic air
> > travel.
>
> Well saying that, the Scotland-London airports pax totals are dipping,
> moreso at EDI,
>

That's not a surprise. It's impractical to do day trips by rail between
Glasgow and London; less so between Edinburgh and London.
t***@aol.com
2008-06-02 13:25:37 UTC
Permalink
On 2 Jun, 06:45, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
> That's not a surprise. It's impractical to do day trips by rail between
> Glasgow and London

Seem to recall when WCML services were electrified to/from Glasgow
Central over 30 years ago there was a promotional £5 Day Return on the
first southbound/last northbound "Electric Scots" for a brief period.
The then new headline journey time was 5 hours.

--
gordon
Graeme Wall
2008-06-02 14:52:03 UTC
Permalink
In message <8314a5fb-e393-4c7c-959e-***@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
"***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:

> On 2 Jun, 06:45, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> > That's not a surprise. It's impractical to do day trips by rail between
> > Glasgow and London
>
> Seem to recall when WCML services were electrified to/from Glasgow
> Central over 30 years ago there was a promotional £5 Day Return on the
> first southbound/last northbound "Electric Scots" for a brief period.
> The then new headline journey time was 5 hours.
>

1968, it's the only time I've done London-Glasgow by train. At that time I
was earning £12/10/0 a week. IIRC the return journey was 5 and a half hours.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Peter Masson
2008-06-02 15:38:00 UTC
Permalink
"Graeme Wall" <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> 1968, it's the only time I've done London-Glasgow by train. At that time
I
> was earning £12/10/0 a week. IIRC the return journey was 5 and a half
hours.
>
1968 the wires only went as far as Crewe (actually Weaver Junction). Euston
to Glasgow took 6.5 hours, or a bit more.
1970 trains were booked for a pair of 50s between Crewe and Glasgow, and
journey time from Euston was reduced to 6 hours, or a few minutes less.
1974 the wires were up through to Glasgow, and the Royal Scot was booked in
5 hours, with only one intermediate stop at Preston. On one occasion when I
travelled on it during the 1970s it got to Glasgow 22 hours late, having
been dragged from Crewe to Preston via Denton, because of a freight
collision at Weaver Junction.

Peter
Graeme Wall
2008-06-02 16:48:51 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@bt.com>
"Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:

>
> "Graeme Wall" <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > 1968, it's the only time I've done London-Glasgow by train. At that time
> > I was earning £12/10/0 a week. IIRC the return journey was 5 and a half
> > hours.
> >
> 1968 the wires only went as far as Crewe (actually Weaver Junction). Euston
> to Glasgow took 6.5 hours, or a bit more.

Memory going, I remember seeing the 5 hour claims on my first trip to Euston,
which was in '68, and conflated that with actually doing the trip then.

> 1970 trains were booked for a pair of 50s between Crewe and Glasgow, and
> journey time from Euston was reduced to 6 hours, or a few minutes less.
> 1974 the wires were up through to Glasgow, and the Royal Scot was booked in
> 5 hours, with only one intermediate stop at Preston. On one occasion when I
> travelled on it during the 1970s it got to Glasgow 22 hours late, having
> been dragged from Crewe to Preston via Denton, because of a freight
> collision at Weaver Junction.
>

Luckily I avoided that one. If it was '74 I was earning a bit more than
12/10/0

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Peter Masson
2008-06-02 17:03:19 UTC
Permalink
"Graeme Wall" <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fa737a94f%***@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> In message <***@bt.com>
> "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > 1974 the wires were up through to Glasgow, and the Royal Scot was booked
in
> > 5 hours, with only one intermediate stop at Preston. On one occasion
when I
> > travelled on it during the 1970s it got to Glasgow 22 hours late, having
> > been dragged from Crewe to Preston via Denton, because of a freight
> > collision at Weaver Junction.
> >
>
> Luckily I avoided that one. If it was '74 I was earning a bit more than
> 12/10/0
>
though see my correction (sticky keyboard) - it was actually 2 hours late,
not 22.

Peter
Graeme Wall
2008-06-02 18:09:28 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@bt.com>
"Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:

>
> "Graeme Wall" <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fa737a94f%***@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> > In message <***@bt.com>
> > "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> > > 1974 the wires were up through to Glasgow, and the Royal Scot was booked
> in
> > > 5 hours, with only one intermediate stop at Preston. On one occasion
> when I
> > > travelled on it during the 1970s it got to Glasgow 22 hours late, having
> > > been dragged from Crewe to Preston via Denton, because of a freight
> > > collision at Weaver Junction.
> > >
> >
> > Luckily I avoided that one. If it was '74 I was earning a bit more than
> > 12/10/0
> >
> though see my correction (sticky keyboard) - it was actually 2 hours late,
> not 22.
>

Ah, not quite so bad.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
B
2008-06-02 19:29:32 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 2, 5:55 pm, "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:***@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:38:00 +0100, "Peter Masson"
> > <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > >1968 the wires only went as far as Crewe (actually Weaver Junction).
> Euston
> > >to Glasgow took 6.5 hours, or a bit more.
> > >1970 trains were booked for a pair of 50s between Crewe and Glasgow, and
> > >journey time from Euston was reduced to 6 hours, or a few minutes less.
> > >1974 the wires were up through to Glasgow, and the Royal Scot was booked
> in
> > >5 hours, with only one intermediate stop at Preston. On one occasion when
> I
> > >travelled on it during the 1970s it got to Glasgow 22 hours late, having
> > >been dragged from Crewe to Preston via Denton, because of a freight
> > >collision at Weaver Junction.
>
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the ECML quicker pre-electrification?
>
> It was only between 1974 and the introduction of HSTs that was quicker to go
> from Euston to Glasgow via the WCML than from Kings Cross to Edinburgh via
> the ECML. However, London to Glasgow has almost always been quicker via the
> WCML than via the ECML and Edinburgh.
>
> Sorry - correction to my previous post (sticky keyboard) - the time I
> travelled on the Royal Scot via Denton it was 2 hours late, not 22.

FU's restored, please be aware guys that the troll is asking inane
questions in a pathetic attempt at stopping replies to aaug.
Jim Mason
2008-06-03 10:59:25 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@bt.com>, peter.masson1
@privacy.net says...
>
> "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:55:15 +0100, "Peter Masson"
> > <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the ECML quicker pre-electrification?
> >
> > >It was only between 1974 and the introduction of HSTs that was quicker to
> go
> > >from Euston to Glasgow via the WCML than from Kings Cross to Edinburgh
> via
> > >the ECML. However, London to Glasgow has almost always been quicker via
> the
> > >WCML than via the ECML and Edinburgh.
> >
> > Thanks for that..what are the current Kings X - Edinburgh and Euston -
> > Glasgow?
>
> Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
> Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
> Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m

I never realised that the timings were so close these days. Are there still
`improvements` to show on the WCML?
i***@aol.com
2008-06-03 11:10:49 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 11:59 am, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <***@bt.com>, peter.masson1
> @privacy.net says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:***@4ax.com...
> > > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:55:15 +0100, "Peter Masson"
> > > <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the ECML quicker pre-electrification?
>
> > > >It was only between 1974 and the introduction of HSTs that was quicker to
> > go
> > > >from Euston to Glasgow via the WCML than from Kings Cross to Edinburgh
> > via
> > > >the ECML. However, London to Glasgow has almost always been quicker via
> > the
> > > >WCML than via the ECML and Edinburgh.
>
> > > Thanks for that..what are the current Kings X - Edinburgh and Euston -
> > > Glasgow?
>
> > Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
> > Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
> > Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m
>
> I never realised that the timings were so close these days. Are there still
> `improvements` to show on the WCML?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
Jim Mason
2008-06-03 11:19:13 UTC
Permalink
In article <87ee3dcd-b505-4938-b0e4-8875b17bc8a4@
8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...
> On Jun 3, 11:59 am, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > In article <***@bt.com>, peter.masson1
> > @privacy.net says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:***@4ax.com...
> > > > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:55:15 +0100, "Peter Masson"
> > > > <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the ECML quicker pre-electrification?
> >
> > > > >It was only between 1974 and the introduction of HSTs that was quicker to
> > > go
> > > > >from Euston to Glasgow via the WCML than from Kings Cross to Edinburgh
> > > via
> > > > >the ECML. However, London to Glasgow has almost always been quicker via
> > > the
> > > > >WCML than via the ECML and Edinburgh.
> >
> > > > Thanks for that..what are the current Kings X - Edinburgh and Euston -
> > > > Glasgow?
> >
> > > Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
> > > Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
> > > Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m
> >
> > I never realised that the timings were so close these days. Are there still
> > `improvements` to show on the WCML?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>

I assume that will be timed to arrive at Euston to allow a large part of
the day in London?
GKirk
2008-06-03 11:48:31 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Jun, 12:19, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <87ee3dcd-b505-4938-b0e4-8875b17bc8a4@
> 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 11:59 am, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > In article <***@bt.com>, peter.masson1
> > > @privacy.net says...
>
> > > > "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > >news:***@4ax.com...
> > > > > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:55:15 +0100, "Peter Masson"
> > > > > <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the ECML quicker pre-electrification?
>
> > > > > >It was only between 1974 and the introduction of HSTs that was quicker to
> > > > go
> > > > > >from Euston to Glasgow via the WCML than from Kings Cross to Edinburgh
> > > > via
> > > > > >the ECML. However, London to Glasgow has almost always been quicker via
> > > > the
> > > > > >WCML than via the ECML and Edinburgh.
>
> > > > > Thanks for that..what are the current Kings X - Edinburgh and Euston -
> > > > > Glasgow?
>
> > > > Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
> > > > Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
> > > > Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m
>
> > > I never realised that the timings were so close these days. Are there still
> > > `improvements` to show on the WCML?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
> > hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>
> I assume that will be timed to arrive at Euston to allow a large part of
> the day in London?

No, leaves London around 4pm
Jim Mason
2008-06-03 12:00:33 UTC
Permalink
In article <2475393e-5994-4880-adab-acd918cd0574
@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...
> On 3 Jun, 12:19, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <87ee3dcd-b505-4938-b0e4-8875b17bc8a4@
> > 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 3, 11:59 am, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > In article <***@bt.com>, peter.masson1
> > > > @privacy.net says...
> >
> > > > > "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > >news:***@4ax.com...
> > > > > > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:55:15 +0100, "Peter Masson"
> > > > > > <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the ECML quicker pre-electrification?
> >
> > > > > > >It was only between 1974 and the introduction of HSTs that was quicker to
> > > > > go
> > > > > > >from Euston to Glasgow via the WCML than from Kings Cross to Edinburgh
> > > > > via
> > > > > > >the ECML. However, London to Glasgow has almost always been quicker via
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >WCML than via the ECML and Edinburgh.
> >
> > > > > > Thanks for that..what are the current Kings X - Edinburgh and Euston -
> > > > > > Glasgow?
> >
> > > > > Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
> > > > > Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
> > > > > Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m
> >
> > > > I never realised that the timings were so close these days. Are there still
> > > > `improvements` to show on the WCML?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
> > > hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
> >
> > I assume that will be timed to arrive at Euston to allow a large part of
> > the day in London?
>
> No, leaves London around 4pm

In my favour - I had just wakened up after night shift ;-)
B
2008-06-03 20:30:13 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 9:25 pm, Mister Niceguy <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote innews:***@4ax.com:
>
> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:19:13 +0100, Jim Mason
> > <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
> >>> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>
> >>I assume that will be timed to arrive at Euston to allow a large part of
> >>the day in London?
>
> > Still trying to figure why Preston? Crew change perhaps?
>
> Probably.  That's usually where Scotts accents are replaced by Brummie
> accents when I go down on that line.  Also allows for connections to the
> big NW cities.

Scotts. Is that porridge oats or what?
®i©ardo
2008-06-03 20:33:30 UTC
Permalink
B wrote:
> On Jun 3, 9:25 pm, Mister Niceguy <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote innews:***@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:19:13 +0100, Jim Mason
>>> <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
>>>>> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>>>> I assume that will be timed to arrive at Euston to allow a large part of
>>>> the day in London?
>>> Still trying to figure why Preston? Crew change perhaps?
>> Probably. That's usually where Scotts accents are replaced by Brummie
>> accents when I go down on that line. Also allows for connections to the
>> big NW cities.
>
> Scotts. Is that porridge oats or what?

Porage, please!

--
Moving things in still pictures!
Jim Mason
2008-06-04 09:29:43 UTC
Permalink
In article <32715aa4f%***@greywall.demon.co.uk>, ***@greywall.demon.co.uk
says...
> In message <***@4ax.com>
> Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:33:30 +0100, ®i©ardo <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> Scotts. Is that porridge oats or what?
> >
> > >Porage, please!
> >
> > With salt.. :-)
> >
>
> And a wee dram, Island not Highland, single malt.

One thing is for certain - rail travel still allows you to take your own!
Graeme Wall
2008-06-04 09:42:42 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@news.individual.net>
Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <32715aa4f%***@greywall.demon.co.uk>, ***@greywall.demon.co.uk=
> =20
> says...
> > In message <***@4ax.com>
> > Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >=20
> > > On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:33:30 +0100, =C2=AEi=C2=A9ardo <***@nowhere.com=
> > wrote:
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > >> Scotts. Is that porridge oats or what?
> > >=20
> > > >Porage, please!
> > >=20
> > > With salt.. :-)
> > >=20
> >=20
> > And a wee dram, Island not Highland, single malt.
>
> One thing is for certain - rail travel still allows you to take your own!

Not in London thanks to Boris. Mind you I've never seen the attraction of
eating porage on the UndergrounD.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Mister Niceguy
2008-06-03 20:36:22 UTC
Permalink
B <***@btopenworld.com> wrote in
news:85233d0f-872c-4423-8cff-***@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 3, 9:25 pm, Mister Niceguy <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>> innews:aoqa44tkqrj73na2mqvecpta9ls
> ***@4ax.com:
>>
>> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:19:13 +0100, Jim Mason
>> > <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >>> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in
>> >>> 4 hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>>
>> >>I assume that will be timed to arrive at Euston to allow a large
>> >>part of
>
>> >>the day in London?
>>
>> > Still trying to figure why Preston? Crew change perhaps?
>>
>> Probably.  That's usually where Scotts accents are replaced by
>> Brummie accents when I go down on that line.  Also allows for
>> connections to the
>
>> big NW cities.
>
> Scotts. Is that porridge oats or what?

I thought that was Scots?
Charles Ellson
2008-06-03 21:32:46 UTC
Permalink
On 03 Jun 2008 20:36:22 GMT, Mister Niceguy <***@privacy.net> wrote:

>B <***@btopenworld.com> wrote in
>news:85233d0f-872c-4423-8cff-***@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Jun 3, 9:25 pm, Mister Niceguy <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>>> innews:aoqa44tkqrj73na2mqvecpta9ls
>> ***@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:19:13 +0100, Jim Mason
>>> > <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in
>>> >>> 4 hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>>>
>>> >>I assume that will be timed to arrive at Euston to allow a large
>>> >>part of
>>
>>> >>the day in London?
>>>
>>> > Still trying to figure why Preston? Crew change perhaps?
>>>
>>> Probably.  That's usually where Scotts accents are replaced by
>>> Brummie accents when I go down on that line.  Also allows for
>>> connections to the
>>
>>> big NW cities.
>>
>> Scotts. Is that porridge oats or what?
>
>I thought that was Scots?
>
Porage Oats are "Scott's".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott's_Porage_Oats

What is "Scotland the".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_the_What%3F

HTH ;-)
Jim Mason
2008-06-04 14:06:18 UTC
Permalink
In article <Sam.Wilson-***@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>,
***@ed.ac.uk says...
> In article <***@4ax.com>,
> Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 03 Jun 2008 20:36:22 GMT, Mister Niceguy <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> Scotts. Is that porridge oats or what?
> >
> > >I thought that was Scots?
> >
> > Do they (Scotts) still have that massive Mill in Edinburgh's Colinton
> > Dell?
>
> Don't think so. The three industrial sites I remember on the Water of
> Leith cycleway are all gone. The one at Colinton itself became
> Globespan offices,

Maybe not for much longer :-(
Sam Wilson
2008-06-04 14:47:50 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@news.individual.net>,
Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <Sam.Wilson-***@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>,
> ***@ed.ac.uk says...
> > ... The [mill] at Colinton itself became
> > Globespan offices,
>
> Maybe not for much longer :-(

No comment - it certainly *became* that...

Sam
Jim Mason
2008-06-04 14:50:29 UTC
Permalink
In article <Sam.Wilson-***@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>,
***@ed.ac.uk says...
> In article <***@news.individual.net>,
> Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <Sam.Wilson-***@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>,
> > ***@ed.ac.uk says...
> > > ... The [mill] at Colinton itself became
> > > Globespan offices,
> >
> > Maybe not for much longer :-(
>
> No comment - it certainly *became* that...

Indeed :-)
Cats
2008-06-03 13:53:00 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 12:10 pm, ***@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.

Why on earth did they pick Preston?
Roland Perry
2008-06-03 13:55:11 UTC
Permalink
In message
<1f53701e-f600-4026-8381-***@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, at
06:53:00 on Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Cats <***@uk2.net> remarked:
>> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
>> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>
>Why on earth did they pick Preston?

Because it's half way (crew change I expect).
--
Roland Perry
GKirk
2008-06-03 14:21:43 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Jun, 14:55, Roland Perry <***@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <1f53701e-f600-4026-8381-***@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, at
> 06:53:00 on Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Cats <***@uk2.net> remarked:
>
> >> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
> >> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>
> >Why on earth did they pick Preston?
>
> Because it's half way (crew change I expect).
> --
> Roland Perry

Combination of that, connections to Manchester and the vast number of
people who travel from Preston to London. There must be around 25
trains a day to Euston
Cats
2008-06-03 17:06:09 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 3:21 pm, GKirk <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Jun, 14:55, Roland Perry <***@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In message
> > <1f53701e-f600-4026-8381-***@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, at
> > 06:53:00 on Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Cats <***@uk2.net> remarked:
>
> > >> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
> > >> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>
> > >Why on earth did they pick Preston?
>
> > Because it's half way (crew change I expect).

>
> Combination of that, connections to Manchester and the vast number of
> people who travel from Preston to London. There must be around 25
> trains a day to Euston

I can understand people wanting to get out of Preston...
GKirk
2008-06-03 17:27:42 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Jun, 18:06, Cats <***@uk2.net> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 3:21 pm, GKirk <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3 Jun, 14:55, Roland Perry <***@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > In message
> > > <1f53701e-f600-4026-8381-***@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, at
> > > 06:53:00 on Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Cats <***@uk2.net> remarked:
>
> > > >> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
> > > >> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>
> > > >Why on earth did they pick Preston?
>
> > > Because it's half way (crew change I expect).
>
> > Combination of that, connections to Manchester and the vast number of
> > people who travel from Preston to London. There must be around 25
> > trains a day to Euston
>
> I can understand people wanting to get out of Preston...

Dunno, very nice lapdancing bar down there :-)
B
2008-06-03 17:24:37 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 6:03 pm, GKirk <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Jun, 17:11, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 07:21:43 -0700 (PDT), GKirk
>
> > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Because it's half way (crew change I expect).
> > >> Roland Perry
> > >Combination of that, connections to Manchester and the vast number of
> > >people who travel from Preston to London. There must be around 25
> > >trains a day to Euston
>
> > Is Preston really that busy or is it an interchange?
>
> Bit of both. Connections are available from stations from Barrow,
> Blackpool, Ormskirk, Colne, stations to Manchester, stations from
> Liverpool.  Oh dear, I think I'm on the train to Preston far too
> often. Oh well, down that way again on friday.
>
> Preston is where the Scottish crews get off, and either Preston/London
> crews get on.

And drive another train back to their origin,
Mister Niceguy
2008-06-03 20:29:11 UTC
Permalink
B <***@btopenworld.com> wrote in news:0aa8e73e-5d1d-46a4-a5da-
***@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 3, 6:03 pm, GKirk <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3 Jun, 17:11, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 07:21:43 -0700 (PDT), GKirk
>>
>> > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> Because it's half way (crew change I expect).
>> > >> Roland Perry
>> > >Combination of that, connections to Manchester and the vast number of
>> > >people who travel from Preston to London. There must be around 25
>> > >trains a day to Euston
>>
>> > Is Preston really that busy or is it an interchange?
>>
>> Bit of both. Connections are available from stations from Barrow,
>> Blackpool, Ormskirk, Colne, stations to Manchester, stations from
>> Liverpool.  Oh dear, I think I'm on the train to Preston far too
>> often. Oh well, down that way again on friday.
>>
>> Preston is where the Scottish crews get off, and either Preston/London
>> crews get on.
>
> And drive another train back to their origin,

Yes. Last time I was on that line the train was late (plodded through
Lockerbie area) and we were given some unbelievable reason as to why the
train wasn't going any further than Preston. We transfered onto a train
which had similarly terminated its northbound service. Absolutely nothing
to do with crew logistics, of course.
B
2008-06-03 19:43:40 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 8:36 pm, "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>
> > I wonder what timings could be achieved without that 'tech' stop?
>
> Permitted speed through Preston is low, so a 3 minute stop probably only
> costs 4 minutes in end-to-end time. Allowing for booking-on time, personal
> needs break, etc, the driver probably could not do a Euston - Glasgow return
> trip in one shift. Omitting the Preston stop would also depend on whether
> the train could be filled with Euston - Glasgow passengers, whereas with the
> stop seats can be used either for end-to-end passengers, or for Euston to
> Preston plus Preston to Glasgow passengers.

"Personal needs break" - I like it ;-)
Jim Mason
2008-06-04 09:33:05 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@bt.com>, peter.masson1
@privacy.net says...
>
> "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:13:47 -0700 (PDT), B <***@btopenworld.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> Before 1966 the Royal Scot made one intermediate stop,
> >
> > >100% correct.
> >
> > And the ECML Flying Scot?
>
> The Flying Scotsman used, in steam days, run non-stop from Kings Cross to
> Edinburgh Waverley. This took 2 drivers and 2 firemen, each on lodging
> turns, and tender corridors so that the two crews could change over near
> Thirsk. When the Deltics arrived, the train made one intermediate stop, at
> Newcastle, and this continued into the HST era. Since the line was
> electrified trains have made at least 2 stops, York and Newcastle, and in
> the current timetable all trains make at least three stops, the third being
> either Peterborough or Berwick. For a time two stop trains were timed in
> 3h59m, but punctuality was unsatisfactory.

I wonder how well punctuality compares today. You would think domestic air
travel would wipe the floor with rail in the punctuality stakes but in
reality it is quite appalling.
Cats
2008-06-03 18:10:17 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 5:00 pm, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:54:14 +0100, "Peter Masson"
>
> <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> >Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
> >Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
> >Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m
>
> Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve times
> on Kings X - Edinburgh?

And it will never happen. It's far too expensive - if they are going
to spend mega-bucks on the ECML there are plenty of more worthy
candidates, such as the Welwyn viaduct.
Jim Mason
2008-06-03 18:26:42 UTC
Permalink
In article <4a723f6e-f553-4925-91d0-
***@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, ***@uk2.net says...
> On Jun 3, 5:00 pm, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:54:14 +0100, "Peter Masson"
> >
> > <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> > >Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
> > >Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
> > >Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m
> >
> > Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve times
> > on Kings X - Edinburgh?
>
> And it will never happen. It's far too expensive - if they are going
> to spend mega-bucks on the ECML there are plenty of more worthy
> candidates, such as the Welwyn viaduct.

The ECML is as fast as it is likely to get IMO. The speed gains are more
likely to happen on the WCML.
Cats
2008-06-03 20:21:07 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 7:26 pm, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <4a723f6e-f553-4925-91d0-
> ***@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, ***@uk2.net says...
>
> > On Jun 3, 5:00 pm, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:54:14 +0100, "Peter Masson"
>
> > > <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> > > >Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
> > > >Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
> > > >Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m
>
> > > Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve times
> > > on Kings X - Edinburgh?
>
> > And it will never happen.  It's far too expensive - if they are going
> > to spend mega-bucks on the ECML there are plenty of more worthy
> > candidates, such as the Welwyn viaduct.
>
> The ECML is as fast as it is likely to get IMO. The speed gains are more
> likely to happen on the WCML.

AFAIK doubling the Welwyn viaduct is about increasing capacity &
resiliance, not faster timings.
Jim Mason
2008-06-04 09:28:13 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@perry.co.uk>, ***@perry.co.uk says...
> In message <***@4ax.com>, at 08:09:21 on
> Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> remarked:
> >>AFAIK doubling the Welwyn viaduct is about increasing capacity &
> >>resiliance, not faster timings.
> >
> >'Doubling' as in rebuilding?
>
> Putting another one alongside.

Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?
Graeme Wall
2008-06-04 09:41:20 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@news.individual.net>
Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <***@perry.co.uk>, ***@perry.co.uk says...
> > In message <***@4ax.com>, at 08:09:21 on
> > Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> remarked:
> > >>AFAIK doubling the Welwyn viaduct is about increasing capacity &
> > >>resiliance, not faster timings.
> > >
> > >'Doubling' as in rebuilding?
> >
> > Putting another one alongside.
>
> Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?

I gather it needs it yesterday.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Jim Mason
2008-06-04 10:03:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <392f18aa4f%***@greywall.demon.co.uk>,
***@greywall.demon.co.uk says...

> > Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?
>
> I gather it needs it yesterday.

The ECML trains are running 100% of capacity the majority of the time I
assume then?
Roland Perry
2008-06-04 10:18:46 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@news.individual.net>, at 11:03:00
on Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
remarked:
>> > Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?
>>
>> I gather it needs it yesterday.
>
>The ECML trains are running 100% of capacity the majority of the time I
>assume then?

During busy periods, yes. Of course they aren't at 5am, but I assume you
aren't trying to use that as the basis for an argument.
--
Roland Perry
Jim Mason
2008-06-04 10:37:14 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@perry.co.uk>, ***@perry.co.uk says...
> In message <***@news.individual.net>, at 11:03:00
> on Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
> remarked:
> >> > Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?
> >>
> >> I gather it needs it yesterday.
> >
> >The ECML trains are running 100% of capacity the majority of the time I
> >assume then?
>
> During busy periods, yes. Of course they aren't at 5am, but I assume you
> aren't trying to use that as the basis for an argument.

What is the overall load factors on the ECML? Surely that is the only way
to gauge whether or not expansion is needed? The M8 in central Scotland at
peak times is running well over 100% of capacity but that can hardly be
used as an argument for expanding the motorway as for the majority of the
time it is being used well under capacity - as I suspect the ECML is.
Roland Perry
2008-06-04 10:46:29 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@news.individual.net>, at 11:37:14
on Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
remarked:

>> >> > Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?
>> >>
>> >> I gather it needs it yesterday.
>> >
>> >The ECML trains are running 100% of capacity the majority of the time I
>> >assume then?
>>
>> During busy periods, yes. Of course they aren't at 5am, but I assume you
>> aren't trying to use that as the basis for an argument.
>
>What is the overall load factors on the ECML? Surely that is the only way
>to gauge whether or not expansion is needed? The M8 in central Scotland at
>peak times is running well over 100% of capacity but that can hardly be
>used as an argument for expanding the motorway as for the majority of the
>time it is being used well under capacity - as I suspect the ECML is.

Oh you are using that as a basis for the argument. Oh dear.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2008-06-04 11:37:14 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@news.individual.net>
Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <***@perry.co.uk>, ***@perry.co.uk says...
> > In message <***@news.individual.net>, at 11:03:00
> > on Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
> > remarked:
> > >> > Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?
> > >>
> > >> I gather it needs it yesterday.
> > >
> > >The ECML trains are running 100% of capacity the majority of the time I
> > >assume then?
> >
> > During busy periods, yes. Of course they aren't at 5am, but I assume you
> > aren't trying to use that as the basis for an argument.
>
> What is the overall load factors on the ECML? Surely that is the only way
> to gauge whether or not expansion is needed? The M8 in central Scotland at
> peak times is running well over 100% of capacity but that can hardly be
> used as an argument for expanding the motorway as for the majority of the
> time it is being used well under capacity - as I suspect the ECML is.

Exactly that arguement is used for widening various motorways which are
severely under-utilised at 0300.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Jim Mason
2008-06-04 19:37:33 UTC
Permalink
In article <9d9f4daa4f%***@greywall.demon.co.uk>,
***@greywall.demon.co.uk says...
> In message <***@4ax.com>
> Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:37:14 +0100, Graeme Wall
> > <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > What is the overall load factors on the ECML? Surely that is the only
> > > > way to gauge whether or not expansion is needed? The M8 in central
> > > > Scotland at peak times is running well over 100% of capacity but that
> > > > can hardly be used as an argument for expanding the motorway as for
> > > > the majority of the time it is being used well under capacity - as I
> > > > suspect the ECML is.
> >
> > >Exactly that arguement is used for widening various motorways which are
> > >severely under-utilised at 0300.
> >
> > Especially Jim's benchmark M8?
> >
>
> Not having used the M8 at any time of day I couldn't comment.

FU's restored.

Your corrrespondent claims not to use it either. he also claims not to post
to AAUG but has been proven to be a liar on that count.
Chris Tolley
2008-06-04 20:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Graeme Wall wrote:

> In message <***@news.individual.net>
> Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>> What is the overall load factors on the ECML? Surely that is the only way
>> to gauge whether or not expansion is needed? The M8 in central Scotland at
>> peak times is running well over 100% of capacity but that can hardly be
>> used as an argument for expanding the motorway as for the majority of the
>> time it is being used well under capacity - as I suspect the ECML is.
>
> Exactly that arguement is used for widening various motorways which are
> severely under-utilised at 0300.

Ah, if only that was the hour they chose to do the work...

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683635.html
(101 691 at Manchester Piccadilly, 7 Sep 2001)
Graeme Wall
2008-06-04 10:24:36 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@news.individual.net>
Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <392f18aa4f%***@greywall.demon.co.uk>,
> ***@greywall.demon.co.uk says...
>
> > > Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?
> >
> > I gather it needs it yesterday.
>
> The ECML trains are running 100% of capacity the majority of the time I
> assume then?

On that section at critical times, they are close to 100% I believe,

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Roland Perry
2008-06-04 12:11:06 UTC
Permalink
In message <28251caa4f%***@greywall.demon.co.uk>, at 11:24:36 on Wed, 4
Jun 2008, Graeme Wall <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> The ECML trains are running 100% of capacity the majority of the time I
>> assume then?
>
>On that section at critical times, they are close to 100% I believe,

More than 100%, as the Cambridge trains are some of the most overcrowded
on the whole network. I expect the NXEC trains have plenty of standing
passengers too.
--
Roland Perry
Graeme Wall
2008-06-04 13:15:17 UTC
Permalink
In message <+I1+***@perry.co.uk>
Roland Perry <***@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <28251caa4f%***@greywall.demon.co.uk>, at 11:24:36 on Wed, 4
> Jun 2008, Graeme Wall <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
> >> The ECML trains are running 100% of capacity the majority of the time I
> >> assume then?
> >
> >On that section at critical times, they are close to 100% I believe,
>
> More than 100%, as the Cambridge trains are some of the most overcrowded
> on the whole network. I expect the NXEC trains have plenty of standing
> passengers too.

I was thinking more of track capacity rather than train occupancy. It is
difficult to excede 100% of the former.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Roland Perry
2008-06-04 14:18:45 UTC
Permalink
In message <c6c52baa4f%***@greywall.demon.co.uk>, at 14:15:17 on Wed, 4
Jun 2008, Graeme Wall <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> >> The ECML trains are running 100% of capacity the majority of the time I
>> >> assume then?
>> >
>> >On that section at critical times, they are close to 100% I believe,
>>
>> More than 100%, as the Cambridge trains are some of the most overcrowded
>> on the whole network. I expect the NXEC trains have plenty of standing
>> passengers too.
>
>I was thinking more of track capacity rather than train occupancy. It is
>difficult to excede 100% of the former.

Yes, the track has been at capacity for many years. (Or so were told
until paths for Grand Central appeared from nowhere).
--
Roland Perry
Jim Mason
2008-06-04 19:36:03 UTC
Permalink
In article <83834daa4f%***@greywall.demon.co.uk>,
***@greywall.demon.co.uk says...
> In message <***@4ax.com>
> Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:41:20 +0100, Graeme Wall
> > <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >> Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?
> >
> > >I gather it needs it yesterday.
> >
> > More the day before?
> >
>
> Go back a week and you've got serious problems :-)

FU's restored.

Things are fine this side of the border ;-)
Roland Perry
2008-06-04 10:17:17 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@news.individual.net>, at 10:28:13
on Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
remarked:
>> >>AFAIK doubling the Welwyn viaduct is about increasing capacity &
>> >>resiliance, not faster timings.
>> >
>> >'Doubling' as in rebuilding?
>>
>> Putting another one alongside.
>
>Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?

Demand already exceeds the capacity. Some of that is being fixed by
Thameslink 2020, and hence longer trains on the suburban lines, but that
won't increase capacity on the longer intercity runs.
--
Roland Perry
Jim Mason
2008-06-04 10:32:20 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@perry.co.uk>, ***@perry.co.uk says...
> In message <***@news.individual.net>, at 10:28:13
> on Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
> remarked:
> >> >>AFAIK doubling the Welwyn viaduct is about increasing capacity &
> >> >>resiliance, not faster timings.
> >> >
> >> >'Doubling' as in rebuilding?
> >>
> >> Putting another one alongside.
> >
> >Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?
>
> Demand already exceeds the capacity.

On the ECML?
Roland Perry
2008-06-04 10:47:24 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@news.individual.net>, at 11:32:20
on Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
remarked:
>> Demand already exceeds the capacity.
>
>On the ECML?

Yes. Remembering that the portion of the ECML in question is shared with
a considerable number of suburban services, and all on a single pair of
tracks.
--
Roland Perry
Jim Mason
2008-06-04 12:31:21 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@perry.co.uk>, ***@perry.co.uk says...
> In message <***@news.individual.net>, at 11:32:20
> on Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
> remarked:
> >> Demand already exceeds the capacity.
> >
> >On the ECML?
>
> Yes. Remembering that the portion of the ECML in question is shared with
> a considerable number of suburban services, and all on a single pair of
> tracks.

I must apologise - I was referring to the ECML - Scottish section where I
find it hard believe loads are anywhere near capacity.
Roland Perry
2008-06-04 12:39:55 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@news.individual.net>, at 13:31:21
on Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
remarked:
>> >> Demand already exceeds the capacity.
>> >
>> >On the ECML?
>>
>> Yes. Remembering that the portion of the ECML in question is shared with
>> a considerable number of suburban services, and all on a single pair of
>> tracks.
>
>I must apologise - I was referring to the ECML - Scottish section where I
>find it hard believe loads are anywhere near capacity.

The main discussion seemed to be about Welwyn, which I think we all
agree is a significant pinch point.
--
Roland Perry
Jim Mason
2008-06-04 12:50:58 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@perry.co.uk>, ***@perry.co.uk says...
> In message <***@news.individual.net>, at 13:31:21
> on Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
> remarked:
> >> >> Demand already exceeds the capacity.
> >> >
> >> >On the ECML?
> >>
> >> Yes. Remembering that the portion of the ECML in question is shared with
> >> a considerable number of suburban services, and all on a single pair of
> >> tracks.
> >
> >I must apologise - I was referring to the ECML - Scottish section where I
> >find it hard believe loads are anywhere near capacity.
>
> The main discussion seemed to be about Welwyn, which I think we all
> agree is a significant pinch point.

Indeed.

Sometimes we Scots forget there is life south of Berwick ;-)
Graeme Wall
2008-06-04 13:16:13 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@news.individual.net>
Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <***@perry.co.uk>, ***@perry.co.uk says...
> > In message <***@news.individual.net>, at 13:31:21
> > on Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
> > remarked:
> > >> >> Demand already exceeds the capacity.
> > >> >
> > >> >On the ECML?
> > >>
> > >> Yes. Remembering that the portion of the ECML in question is shared with
> > >> a considerable number of suburban services, and all on a single pair of
> > >> tracks.
> > >
> > >I must apologise - I was referring to the ECML - Scottish section where I
> > >find it hard believe loads are anywhere near capacity.
> >
> > The main discussion seemed to be about Welwyn, which I think we all
> > agree is a significant pinch point.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Sometimes we Scots forget there is life south of Berwick ;-)

It's just a rumour, ignore it.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Mister Niceguy
2008-06-04 15:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Graeme Wall <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:89db2baa4f%***@greywall.demon.co.uk:

> In message <***@news.individual.net>
> Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <***@perry.co.uk>, ***@perry.co.uk says...
>> > In message <***@news.individual.net>, at
>> > 13:31:21 on Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Jim Mason
>> > <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> remarked:
>> > >> >> Demand already exceeds the capacity.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >On the ECML?
>> > >>
>> > >> Yes. Remembering that the portion of the ECML in question is
>> > >> shared with a considerable number of suburban services, and all
>> > >> on a single pair of tracks.
>> > >
>> > >I must apologise - I was referring to the ECML - Scottish section
>> > >where I find it hard believe loads are anywhere near capacity.
>> >
>> > The main discussion seemed to be about Welwyn, which I think we all
>> > agree is a significant pinch point.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> Sometimes we Scots forget there is life south of Berwick ;-)
>
> It's just a rumour, ignore it.
>

LOL
Chris Tolley
2008-06-04 10:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Jim Mason wrote:

> In article <***@perry.co.uk>, ***@perry.co.uk says...
>> In message <***@4ax.com>, at 08:09:21 on
>> Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>AFAIK doubling the Welwyn viaduct is about increasing capacity &
>>>>resiliance, not faster timings.
>>>
>>>'Doubling' as in rebuilding?
>>
>> Putting another one alongside.
>
> Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?

If our roads were built on that basis, we wouldn't have any.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683632.html
(101 661 at Manchester Piccadilly, 18 Sep 1999)
Jim Mason
2008-06-04 12:33:41 UTC
Permalink
In article <7k0gkederwn4$***@40tude.net>, ***@supanet.com
says...
> Jim Mason wrote:
>
> > In article <***@perry.co.uk>, ***@perry.co.uk says...
> >> In message <***@4ax.com>, at 08:09:21 on
> >> Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> remarked:
> >>>>AFAIK doubling the Welwyn viaduct is about increasing capacity &
> >>>>resiliance, not faster timings.
> >>>
> >>>'Doubling' as in rebuilding?
> >>
> >> Putting another one alongside.
> >
> > Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?
>
> If our roads were built on that basis, we wouldn't have any.

Surely you expand as is needed? The ECML in Scotland is working nowhere
near capacity I would have thought.
Chris Tolley
2008-06-04 15:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Jim Mason wrote:

> In article <7k0gkederwn4$***@40tude.net>, ***@supanet.com
> says...
>> Jim Mason wrote:
>>
>>> In article <***@perry.co.uk>, ***@perry.co.uk says...
>>>> In message <***@4ax.com>, at 08:09:21 on
>>>> Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>AFAIK doubling the Welwyn viaduct is about increasing capacity &
>>>>>>resiliance, not faster timings.
>>>>>
>>>>>'Doubling' as in rebuilding?
>>>>
>>>> Putting another one alongside.
>>>
>>> Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?
>>
>> If our roads were built on that basis, we wouldn't have any.
>
> Surely you expand as is needed? The ECML in Scotland is working nowhere
> near capacity I would have thought.

The Welwyn Viaduct isn't in Scotland.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683622.html
(50328 (Class 101) at Birmingham New Street, 1977)
Jim Mason
2008-06-04 15:06:17 UTC
Permalink
In article <14thk5t71edtm.13287i620q88c$***@40tude.net>, ***@supanet.com
says...
> Jim Mason wrote:
>
> > In article <7k0gkederwn4$***@40tude.net>, ***@supanet.com
> > says...
> >> Jim Mason wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <***@perry.co.uk>, ***@perry.co.uk says...
> >>>> In message <***@4ax.com>, at 08:09:21 on
> >>>> Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> remarked:
> >>>>>>AFAIK doubling the Welwyn viaduct is about increasing capacity &
> >>>>>>resiliance, not faster timings.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>'Doubling' as in rebuilding?
> >>>>
> >>>> Putting another one alongside.
> >>>
> >>> Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?
> >>
> >> If our roads were built on that basis, we wouldn't have any.
> >
> > Surely you expand as is needed? The ECML in Scotland is working nowhere
> > near capacity I would have thought.
>
> The Welwyn Viaduct isn't in Scotland.

So I believe.
Chris Tolley
2008-06-04 19:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Jim Mason wrote:

> In article <14thk5t71edtm.13287i620q88c$***@40tude.net>, ***@supanet.com
> says...
>> Jim Mason wrote:
>>
>>> In article <7k0gkederwn4$***@40tude.net>, ***@supanet.com
>>> says...
>>>> Jim Mason wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <***@perry.co.uk>, ***@perry.co.uk says...
>>>>>> In message <***@4ax.com>, at 08:09:21 on
>>>>>> Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>AFAIK doubling the Welwyn viaduct is about increasing capacity &
>>>>>>>>resiliance, not faster timings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>'Doubling' as in rebuilding?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Putting another one alongside.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?
>>>>
>>>> If our roads were built on that basis, we wouldn't have any.
>>>
>>> Surely you expand as is needed? The ECML in Scotland is working nowhere
>>> near capacity I would have thought.
>>
>> The Welwyn Viaduct isn't in Scotland.
>
> So I believe.

... which begs the question as to why, in discussing the need to double
that viaduct, you think that capacity issues several hundred miles away
are relevant.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14104748.html
(47 002 at Llandudno Junction, 5 Jun 1985)
Jim Mason
2008-06-04 19:54:11 UTC
Permalink
In article <1xtj8izl3d1cy$***@40tude.net>, ***@supanet.com
says...
> Jim Mason wrote:
>
> > In article <14thk5t71edtm.13287i620q88c$***@40tude.net>, ***@supanet.com
> > says...
> >> Jim Mason wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <7k0gkederwn4$***@40tude.net>, ***@supanet.com
> >>> says...
> >>>> Jim Mason wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <***@perry.co.uk>, ***@perry.co.uk says...
> >>>>>> In message <***@4ax.com>, at 08:09:21 on
> >>>>>> Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> remarked:
> >>>>>>>>AFAIK doubling the Welwyn viaduct is about increasing capacity &
> >>>>>>>>resiliance, not faster timings.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>'Doubling' as in rebuilding?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Putting another one alongside.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?
> >>>>
> >>>> If our roads were built on that basis, we wouldn't have any.
> >>>
> >>> Surely you expand as is needed? The ECML in Scotland is working nowhere
> >>> near capacity I would have thought.
> >>
> >> The Welwyn Viaduct isn't in Scotland.
> >
> > So I believe.
>
> ... which begs the question as to why, in discussing the need to double
> that viaduct, you think that capacity issues several hundred miles away
> are relevant.

You HAVE read this thread from the outset I assume? If so you will realise
why capacity issues several hundred miles away are relevant.

If not then The Scotland on Sunday reference in the title might even be a
small clue for you?
Chris Tolley
2008-06-04 20:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Jim Mason wrote:

> In article <1xtj8izl3d1cy$***@40tude.net>, ***@supanet.com
> says...
>> Jim Mason wrote:
>>
>>> In article <14thk5t71edtm.13287i620q88c$***@40tude.net>, ***@supanet.com
>>> says...
>>>> Jim Mason wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <7k0gkederwn4$***@40tude.net>, ***@supanet.com
>>>>> says...
>>>>>> Jim Mason wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <***@perry.co.uk>, ***@perry.co.uk says...
>>>>>>>> In message <***@4ax.com>, at 08:09:21 on
>>>>>>>> Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>AFAIK doubling the Welwyn viaduct is about increasing capacity &
>>>>>>>>>>resiliance, not faster timings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>'Doubling' as in rebuilding?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Putting another one alongside.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If our roads were built on that basis, we wouldn't have any.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely you expand as is needed? The ECML in Scotland is working nowhere
>>>>> near capacity I would have thought.
>>>>
>>>> The Welwyn Viaduct isn't in Scotland.
>>>
>>> So I believe.
>>
>> ... which begs the question as to why, in discussing the need to double
>> that viaduct, you think that capacity issues several hundred miles away
>> are relevant.
>
> You HAVE read this thread from the outset I assume?

That's an unproductive assumption. The only reasonable assumption on
usenet is that I am commenting on the parts of the thread that have been
retained in the post.

> If not then The Scotland on Sunday reference in the title might even be a
> small clue for you?

Threads drift, and after several exchanges few experienced usenauts
assume that the title means very much. I entered this thread at the
point when doubling the Welwyn viaduct was being discussed, and you were
saying there wasn't the demand, and that's what my comments are about.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13857113.html
(Black "Orion" nameplate on 47 083 at Basingstoke, 17 Apr 1985)
Jim Mason
2008-06-04 20:53:42 UTC
Permalink
In article <1lmejyf6jeb23$***@40tude.net>, ***@supanet.com
says...
?
>
> Threads drift, and after several exchanges few experienced usenauts
> assume that the title means very much. I entered this thread at the
> point when doubling the Welwyn viaduct was being discussed, and you were
> saying there wasn't the demand, and that's what my comments are about.

I rest my case.
Jim Mason
2008-06-04 19:41:23 UTC
Permalink
In article <48d24daa4f%***@greywall.demon.co.uk>,
***@greywall.demon.co.uk says...
> In message <***@4ax.com>
> Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:48:50 GMT, Chris Tolley <***@supanet.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?
> >
> > >If our roads were built on that basis, we wouldn't have any.
> >
> > Dr Beecham almost killed the surburban rail network?
> >
>
> He certainly caught a cold...

FU's restored.

I certainly wish we had now what is detailed here

http://www.railbrit.co.uk/Frames/railfr.htm

(for the benefit of the non uk.railway subscribers)
Cats
2008-06-04 12:14:20 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 4, 10:28 am, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <***@perry.co.uk>, ***@perry.co.uk says...
>
> > In message <***@4ax.com>, at 08:09:21 on
> > Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> remarked:
> > >>AFAIK doubling the Welwyn viaduct is about increasing capacity &
> > >>resiliance, not faster timings.
>
> > >'Doubling' as in rebuilding?
>
> > Putting another one alongside.
>
> Does anyone believe demand will grow so great to need such expansion?

The demand is already there as this section limits paths and makes
recovery from problems difficult. However I suspect the money isn't
there.
Cats
2008-06-04 12:12:14 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 4, 9:09 am, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Cats <***@uk2.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> The ECML is as fast as it is likely to get IMO. The speed gains are more
> >> likely to happen on the WCML.
> >AFAIK doubling the Welwyn viaduct is about increasing capacity &
> >resiliance, not faster timings.
>
> 'Doubling' as in rebuilding?

I should have said quadrupling. And no, there is no rebuilding
involved - 'just' buiding. But then a few minutes work with Google
would have told you all this.
The Real Doctor
2008-06-03 11:03:40 UTC
Permalink
On 2 Jun, 14:25, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On 2 Jun, 06:45, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > That's not a surprise. It's impractical to do day trips by rail between
> > Glasgow and London
>
> Seem to recall when WCML services were electrified to/from Glasgow
> Central over 30 years ago there was a promotional £5 Day Return on the
> first southbound/last northbound "Electric Scots" for a brief period.
> The then new headline journey time was 5 hours.

<old story>

Indeed. I had child day return number 000000 from Glasgow to London.
My father had adult day return number 000008.

</old story>

Ian
Callum Johnstone
2008-06-03 21:37:24 UTC
Permalink
"B" <***@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:d0f177f8-1102-4925-8bd5-***@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 1, 9:42 pm, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
> A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
> Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between the
> UK and Scottish Governments.
>
> http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Secret-talks-on-
> London.4139887.jp
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5d2x88
>
> I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page ad
> from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic air
> travel.

>Well saying that, the Scotland-London airports pax totals are dipping,
>moreso at EDI,

The development of more direct international flights from EDI over recent
years being a big help in that welcome dip.
Roland Perry
2008-06-04 07:11:32 UTC
Permalink
In message <zQi1k.85272$***@newsfe16.ams2>, at 22:37:24 on Tue, 3
Jun 2008, Callum Johnstone <***@blueyonder.co.uk> remarked:
>>the Scotland-London airports pax totals are dipping,
>>moreso at EDI,
>
>The development of more direct international flights from EDI over recent
>years being a big help in that welcome dip.

Yes, but on the "last in, first out" principle, I think those are the
very fights most in danger of being cancelled as airlines decide to cut
their less profitable routes.
--
Roland Perry
Jim Mason
2008-06-04 14:31:12 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@perry.co.uk>, ***@perry.co.uk says...
> In message <***@4ax.com>, at 13:53:31 on
> Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> remarked:
> >>>The development of more direct international flights from EDI over recent
> >>>years being a big help in that welcome dip.
> >
> >>Yes, but on the "last in, first out" principle, I think those are the
> >>very fights most in danger of being cancelled as airlines decide to cut
> >>their less profitable routes.
> >
> >But it will not just be confined to EDI?
>
> It'll happen at many airports which aren't major hubs for the airlines
> concerned.

Indeed and the pie-in-the-sky predicted pax numbers for Scottish BAA
airports will be exactly that.
Neil Williams
2008-06-01 21:39:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 21:42:19 +0100, The Voice of EDI
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
>Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between the
>UK and Scottish Governments.

And it will be as much of a bloody waste of money in such a small
country (pair of countries) as it is every time it comes up.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
allan tracy
2008-06-02 14:12:17 UTC
Permalink
>
> And it will be as much of a bloody waste of money in such a small
> country (pair of countries) as it is every time it comes up.
>

How so it's been done profitably elsewhere.

The best comparison to the UK is the Tokaido Shinkansen, which has
proven to be a license to print money.

Eventually, the full extremity of the line will reach from Tokyo to
Nagasaki with a journey time hopelessly uncompetitive with air but it
will still be profitable thanks to intermediate traffic, just like it
could be here in the UK if we stopped pretending London was the centre
of the universe.
Mister Niceguy
2008-06-02 20:04:40 UTC
Permalink
allan tracy <***@hotmail.com> wrote in news:55d70550-a509-
499e-980b-***@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

>>
>> And it will be as much of a bloody waste of money in such a small
>> country (pair of countries) as it is every time it comes up.
>>
>
> How so it's been done profitably elsewhere.
>
> The best comparison to the UK is the Tokaido Shinkansen, which has
> proven to be a license to print money.
>
> Eventually, the full extremity of the line will reach from Tokyo to
> Nagasaki with a journey time hopelessly uncompetitive with air but it
> will still be profitable thanks to intermediate traffic, just like it
> could be here in the UK if we stopped pretending London was the centre
> of the universe.

F.A.B.

Yes I think that's a fair picture. The trouble, though, with the ECML is
that it avoids anywhere big on route other than Newcastle and to a lesser
extent York. An upgraded WCML probably won't go via the West Midlands
either.


The French seem to have done well with their TGV.
i***@batten.eu.org
2008-06-04 08:39:11 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 2, 3:12 pm, allan tracy <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The best comparison to the UK is the Tokaido Shinkansen, which has
> proven to be a license to print money.

It's not cheap. A swift look at my expenses claim for last May shows
that a return, out Friday night back Saturday night, booked three days
in advance, from Tokyo (Shinagawa, but let's not split hairs) to
Hiroshima was 34820 yen, which at the then-prevailing exchange rate
was £142. These days it's more like £170. Flying would have been
about the same price, and quicker (Hiroshima is at the limits of train/
plane competitiveness at the moment).

The demographics are on Japan's side, too. The population of the
Tokyo metropolitan area is 35 million, and of Keihanshin (Osaka-Kobe-
Kyoto) is 17 million. It's about 550km between the two centres.
It's hard to imagine a more perfect LGV setup: 30% of national
population, 15% of national population, sub-two hours, both ends
having very dense public transport and extremely dense housing.

>
> Eventually, the full extremity of the line will reach from Tokyo to
> Nagasaki with a journey time hopelessly uncompetitive with air but it
> will still be profitable thanks to intermediate traffic,

The Nozomis west of Osaka are much less full than east, so I'm not
sure how true that is. I don't see why it's any different to, say,
Manchester--Glasgow flows.

> just like it
> could be here in the UK if we stopped pretending London was the centre
> of the universe.

Speaking as a resident of Birmingham, with a whole chip-shop on each
shoulder about our living in the shadow of London, trying to argue
London _isn't_ the centre of the universe is like trying to argue
water isn't wet. Kyoto is Japan's former capital. It's a major
tourist destination. Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool: they don't
have the same allure. The Osaka area is half the population of the
Tokyo area, itself one of the largest metropolitan areas in the
world. Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool taken together aren't
half the population inside the M25.

ian
j***@flyglasgow.net
2008-06-01 22:42:48 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 1, 9:42�pm, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
> A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
> Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between the
> UK and Scottish Governments.
>
> http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Secret-talks-on-
> London.4139887.jp
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5d2x88
>
> I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page ad
> from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic air
> travel.

Less flights to London could also mean less opertunity for connections
and with that hopefuly more direct flights from Glasgow.
Roland Perry
2008-06-02 06:39:56 UTC
Permalink
In message
<27269784-9532-44ae-a3b7-***@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, at
15:42:48 on Sun, 1 Jun 2008, ***@flyglasgow.net remarked:
>> I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page ad
>> from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic air
>> travel.
>
>Less flights to London could also mean less opertunity for connections
>and with that hopefuly more direct flights from Glasgow.

Unlikely. The mid/long haul carriers are consolidating their routes,
withdrawing to major hubs - not adding new routes to smaller airports.
Expect to see all the UK's regional airports losing flights, and
therefore more trips via London.
--
Roland Perry
allan tracy
2008-06-02 14:06:11 UTC
Permalink
>
> Unlikely. The mid/long haul carriers are consolidating their routes,
> withdrawing to major hubs - not adding new routes to smaller airports.

Not so, no one but no one travels from Birmingham to Sydney via London
anymore thanks to Emirates (twice a day and booming).

Emirates plan to use A380s into Brum once the runway extension is
complete.

And it's not just Emirates.

> Expect to see all the UK's regional airports losing flights, and
> therefore more trips via London.
>

... err... no therefore more trips via Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt or
even Dublin.

You've been reading too many of those hopelss BA projections that
thankfully so few other airlines agree with.

BA lives in a dream World where everyone pays over the odds because
it's BA and they like to be reminded what it's like to be insulted.

BA has desterted Brum and it will be their loss as FlyBE and now
Ryanair move in en mass.
Roland Perry
2008-06-02 14:36:53 UTC
Permalink
In message
<1bccd32f-a378-4048-b088-***@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, at
07:06:11 on Mon, 2 Jun 2008, allan tracy <***@hotmail.com>
remarked:
>>
>> Unlikely. The mid/long haul carriers are consolidating their routes,
>> withdrawing to major hubs - not adding new routes to smaller airports.
>
>Not so, no one but no one travels from Birmingham to Sydney via London
>anymore thanks to Emirates (twice a day and booming).
>
>Emirates plan to use A380s into Brum once the runway extension is
>complete.
>
>And it's not just Emirates.

We'll see what happens to Emirates once the fuel prices start to hit (of
course, they no doubt have their own cheap fuel, so are probably a poor
example).

American Airlines are cancelling their Stansted flights, and I expect to
see more of that kind of thing. In the USA there is a bloodbath of
cities losing direct flights (and in some cases all flights) as the
airlines retract to their hubs.

>> Expect to see all the UK's regional airports losing flights, and
>> therefore more trips via London.
>
>... err... no therefore more trips via Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt or
>even Dublin.

I meant more train trips to London. But yes, people may start taking
fights via European hubs if the only alternative is a train to London.

>You've been reading too many of those hopelss BA projections that
>thankfully so few other airlines agree with.
>
>BA lives in a dream World where everyone pays over the odds because
>it's BA and they like to be reminded what it's like to be insulted.
>
>BA has desterted Brum and it will be their loss as FlyBE and now
>Ryanair move in en mass.

I don't read any BA projections, and nothing I've posted is as a result
of what they are doing (apart from anything else, being the home carrier
will always distort things, and I'm trying to take a wider view).
--
Roland Perry
John B
2008-06-02 15:14:34 UTC
Permalink
On 2 Jun, 15:36, Roland Perry <***@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> We'll see what happens to Emirates once the fuel prices start to hit (of
> course, they no doubt have their own cheap fuel, so are probably a poor
> example).

Less fuel than you might expect - Dubai is not a major oil producing
country and hasn't been for some time. Emirates will be fine: economic
gloom might slow expansion of its westbound flights (although business
links between Europe/US and Dubai are sure to keep increasing), but
growth in flights eastbound is going to continue at a rate of knots.

As far as fuel prices go, there's a small cost advantage to refuelling
in the mid-east compared with elsewhere generally - but the main point
is that Emirates isn't bound by a) US/Europe-style union deals b) US/
Europe-style debts or c) nearly-all-national-flag-carrier-style
incompetence and political meddling. This means it can make a profit
at far higher oil price levels than other carriers...

> American Airlines are cancelling their Stansted flights, and I expect to
> see more of that kind of thing. In the USA there is a bloodbath of
> cities losing direct flights (and in some cases all flights) as the
> airlines retract to their hubs.

But the expansion of European aviation over the last 10 years has
largely been on a point-to-point rather than a hub-and-spoke model,
which is completely not comparable with US trends [where AIUI
expansion has been based on serving an ever-increasing number of small
cities from major hubs, hence cutbacks involve reducing/axing flights
from O'Hare or Newark to Nowhere, Iowa].

I'm not sure Ryanair or Easyjet even has "hubs" in the traditional
sense - yes, they have a lot of flights out of Stansted and Hahn, or
Luton, Schiphol and Geneva, respectively - but only a vanishingly
small proportion of their traffic is made up of flights between those
"hub" destinations, and nobody in their right mind would change planes
there given the ticketing model.

Don't take this comment as bullish about the medium-term prospects for
the aviation industry - most European flag carriers and major US
airlines should all be bust already, and this will happen over the
next few years unless governments intervene on a 1970s scale.

But Easyjet, Ryanair and Emirates would be my tips for Airlines Most
Likely To Be In Business [*] In 10 Years Time, and "small-local-
airport to small-local-airport" for short-haul combined with "hub-and-
spoke, hub is somewhere outside the EU with low wages and cheap
kerosene" for long-haul would be my tips for most successful business
model. And high-speed rail will take a lot of the big-city-to-big-city
traffic [**].

[*] Alitalia-style zombification does not count as "in business" in
this context
[**] by 2012 I expect daily air seat capacity between London and AMS
to have fallen by 25%. Anyone want to take up a bet on this?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
Roland Perry
2008-06-02 15:34:52 UTC
Permalink
In message
<54300e9d-8d37-48ab-9c6a-***@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, at
08:14:34 on Mon, 2 Jun 2008, John B <***@johnband.org> remarked:
>I'm not sure Ryanair or Easyjet even has "hubs" in the traditional
>sense - yes, they have a lot of flights out of Stansted and Hahn, or
>Luton, Schiphol and Geneva, respectively - but only a vanishingly
>small proportion of their traffic is made up of flights between those
>"hub" destinations, and nobody in their right mind would change planes
>there given the ticketing model.

They both clearly have "hubs" with lots of routes out on spokes to small
places. What they don't have is point-point flights between many of the
small places. And as Europe is smaller and denser than the USA, you
don't often need to take two flights (and as you say their business
model discourages it).

Let's look at Easyjet down the west of France and Spain: Nantes is
served from both Gatwick and Geneva, but you can't fly anywhere other
than Gatwick or Geneva. Similarly Jersey (Liverpool and Luton), La
Rochelle (Bristol and Gatwick). And pretty much everywhere along that
west coast. Faro is an extreme example (flights from 9 airports in UK,
none anywhere else).
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
2008-06-02 19:07:46 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:14:34 -0700 (PDT), John B <***@johnband.org>
wrote:

>[**] by 2012 I expect daily air seat capacity between London and AMS
>to have fallen by 25%. Anyone want to take up a bet on this?

It will reduce at LCY substantially, I would bet, given the takeover
of VLM by KLM and given that KLM's load factors tend to be far higher
than VLM's.

That said, a Fokker 50 every two hours ain't going to make much dent
on services to/from Thiefrow. Which itself is madness, given that
every single other option is vastly superior, but so many people think
London = Thiefrow.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
Neil Williams
2008-06-02 18:59:14 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 07:06:11 -0700 (PDT), allan tracy
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>BA has desterted Brum and it will be their loss as FlyBE and now
>Ryanair move in en mass.

Except for that flyBE's reliability and punctuality is piss-poor, as
is their way of dealing with customers, IMX.

Nice interesting aircraft, but not a lot else going for them.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
Cats
2008-06-02 12:39:26 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 1, 9:42 pm, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
> A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
> Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between the
> UK and Scottish Governments.
>
> http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Secret-talks-on-London.4139887.jp
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5d2x88
>
> I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page ad
> from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic air
> travel.

This looks like pie-in-the-sky to me. The actual route will be highly
contentious, both in terms of which cities want to be connected and
where people don't want it to go. The public enquiry would never end.
There is also the issue of how much Scotland would have to pay for,
given (according to the article) that England would be unwilling to
pay north of whatever the north-most major city on the new line would
be since it would be track not of obvious direct benefit to England.
Mister Niceguy
2008-06-02 20:14:43 UTC
Permalink
Cats <***@uk2.net> wrote in
news:90365d73-e34f-414d-8782-***@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 1, 9:42 pm, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
>> Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between
>> the UK and Scottish Governments.
>>
>> http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Secret-talks-on-
Londo
>> n.41
> 39887.jp
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5d2x88
>>
>> I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page ad
>> from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic air
>> travel.
>
> This looks like pie-in-the-sky to me. The actual route will be highly
> contentious, both in terms of which cities want to be connected and
> where people don't want it to go. The public enquiry would never end.
> There is also the issue of how much Scotland would have to pay for,
> given (according to the article) that England would be unwilling to
> pay north of whatever the north-most major city on the new line would
> be since it would be track not of obvious direct benefit to England.
>

Alas your picture of doom and gloom is probably a fair predictor of
major transport improvements in the UK, Cats. Eurotunnel was an obvious
choice of route but has been a financial disaster. Other major
developments in my lifetime have all been in London. (Can you call ECML
electrification a major development?)

A fast rail link that reduces journey time to 3 hours would be enough to
swing it away from air for most people.
B
2008-06-02 20:26:58 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 2, 9:14 pm, Mister Niceguy <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> Cats <***@uk2.net> wrote innews:90365d73-e34f-414d-8782-***@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 9:42 pm, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
> >> Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between
> >> the UK and Scottish Governments.
>
> >>http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Secret-talks-on-
> Londo
> >> n.41
> > 39887.jp
>
> >> or
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/5d2x88
>
> >> I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page ad
> >> from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic air
> >> travel.
>
> > This looks like pie-in-the-sky to me.  The actual route will be highly
> > contentious, both in terms of which cities want to be connected and
> > where people don't want it to go. The public enquiry would never end.
> > There is also the issue of how much Scotland would have to pay for,
> > given (according to the article) that England would be unwilling to
> > pay north of whatever the north-most major city on the new line would
> > be since it would be track not of obvious direct benefit to England.
>
> Alas your picture of doom and gloom is probably a fair predictor of
> major transport improvements in the UK, Cats.  Eurotunnel was an obvious
> choice of route but has been a financial disaster.  Other major
> developments in my lifetime have all been in London.  (Can you call ECML
> electrification a major development?)
>
> A fast rail link that reduces journey time to 3 hours would be enough to
> swing it away from air for most people.

When it comes to transport infrastructure the UK is a backward country
without a shadow of a doubt IMO, too much red tape and 'consultants'
TBH,
Mister Niceguy
2008-06-03 20:22:02 UTC
Permalink
B <***@btopenworld.com> wrote in
news:fe0079ff-ec93-4e86-9d2b-***@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 2, 9:14 pm, Mister Niceguy <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Cats <***@uk2.net> wrote
>> innews:90365d73-e34f-414d-8782-23129bdf6cec@
> 56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 1, 9:42 pm, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
>> > wrote:
>> >> A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link
>> >> between Scotland and London is back on track following secret
>> >> talks between the UK and Scottish Governments.
>>
>> >>http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Secret-talks-on-
>> Londo
>> >> n.41
>> > 39887.jp
>>
>> >> or
>>
>> >>http://tinyurl.com/5d2x88
>>
>> >> I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page
>> >> ad from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic
>> >> air travel.
>>
>> > This looks like pie-in-the-sky to me.  The actual route will be
>> > highly
>
>> > contentious, both in terms of which cities want to be connected and
>> > where people don't want it to go. The public enquiry would never
>> > end. There is also the issue of how much Scotland would have to pay
>> > for, given (according to the article) that England would be
>> > unwilling to pay north of whatever the north-most major city on the
>> > new line would be since it would be track not of obvious direct
>> > benefit to England.
>>
>> Alas your picture of doom and gloom is probably a fair predictor of
>> major transport improvements in the UK, Cats.  Eurotunnel was an
>> obvious
>
>> choice of route but has been a financial disaster.  Other major
>> developments in my lifetime have all been in London.  (Can you call
>> ECML
>
>> electrification a major development?)
>>
>> A fast rail link that reduces journey time to 3 hours would be enough
>> to swing it away from air for most people.
>
> When it comes to transport infrastructure the UK is a backward country
> without a shadow of a doubt IMO, too much red tape and 'consultants'
> TBH,

Public inquiries certainly take years to complete. But that's the
mentality in the UK. When the French built their equivalent of the CTRL
it was seen as a jobs boom to northern France. By contrast, the people
of Kent (of the angry from Tunbridge Wells variety) didn't want our
CTRL in their "back yard".
GKirk
2008-06-03 13:03:06 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Jun, 13:00, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <2475393e-5994-4880-adab-acd918cd0574
> @j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > On 3 Jun, 12:19, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <87ee3dcd-b505-4938-b0e4-8875b17bc8a4@
> > > 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...
>
> > > > On Jun 3, 11:59 am, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > In article <***@bt.com>, peter.masson1
> > > > > @privacy.net says...
>
> > > > > > "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:***@4ax.com...
> > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:55:15 +0100, "Peter Masson"
> > > > > > > <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the ECML quicker pre-electrification?
>
> > > > > > > >It was only between 1974 and the introduction of HSTs that was quicker to
> > > > > > go
> > > > > > > >from Euston to Glasgow via the WCML than from Kings Cross to Edinburgh
> > > > > > via
> > > > > > > >the ECML. However, London to Glasgow has almost always been quicker via
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >WCML than via the ECML and Edinburgh.
>
> > > > > > > Thanks for that..what are the current Kings X - Edinburgh and Euston -
> > > > > > > Glasgow?
>
> > > > > > Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
> > > > > > Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
> > > > > > Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m
>
> > > > > I never realised that the timings were so close these days. Are there still
> > > > > `improvements` to show on the WCML?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
> > > > hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>
> > > I assume that will be timed to arrive at Euston to allow a large part of
> > > the day in London?
>
> > No, leaves London around 4pm
>
> In my favour - I had just wakened up after night shift ;-)

IIRC, all the Glasgow-Euston services will stop at Carlisle, Preston,
Wigan and Rugby for definite, with alternative trains stopping at
either Motherwell, Lockerbie, Penrith, Oxenholme and Lancaster
Jim Mason
2008-06-03 13:06:28 UTC
Permalink
In article <d9543ab9-8a10-4dcd-9ab0-6fc9770d00a7@
25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...

> IIRC, all the Glasgow-Euston services will stop at Carlisle, Preston,
> Wigan and Rugby for definite, with alternative trains stopping at
> either Motherwell, Lockerbie, Penrith, Oxenholme and Lancaster

Thanks for that Graham.

Which is nearer for you - Lockerbie, Carlisle or Penrith?
GKirk
2008-06-03 13:08:22 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Jun, 14:06, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <d9543ab9-8a10-4dcd-9ab0-6fc9770d00a7@
> 25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...
>
> > IIRC, all the Glasgow-Euston services will stop at Carlisle, Preston,
> > Wigan and Rugby for definite, with alternative trains stopping at
> > either Motherwell, Lockerbie, Penrith, Oxenholme and Lancaster
>
> Thanks for that Graham.
>
> Which is nearer for you - Lockerbie, Carlisle or Penrith?

Carlisle, 45 mins on the bus or 20 mins on the train from Annan.
Lockerbie involves a change of bus in Annan or Dumfries.
Jim Mason
2008-06-03 13:18:14 UTC
Permalink
In article <f1caf762-e2f5-4617-8f21-
***@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com
says...
> On 3 Jun, 14:06, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <d9543ab9-8a10-4dcd-9ab0-6fc9770d00a7@
> > 25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...
> >
> > > IIRC, all the Glasgow-Euston services will stop at Carlisle, Preston,
> > > Wigan and Rugby for definite, with alternative trains stopping at
> > > either Motherwell, Lockerbie, Penrith, Oxenholme and Lancaster
> >
> > Thanks for that Graham.
> >
> > Which is nearer for you - Lockerbie, Carlisle or Penrith?
>
> Carlisle, 45 mins on the bus or 20 mins on the train from Annan.
> Lockerbie involves a change of bus in Annan or Dumfries.

A very much viable alternative to flying then?
GKirk
2008-06-03 13:27:00 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Jun, 14:18, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <f1caf762-e2f5-4617-8f21-
> ***@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com
> says...
>
> > On 3 Jun, 14:06, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <d9543ab9-8a10-4dcd-9ab0-6fc9770d00a7@
> > > 25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...
>
> > > > IIRC, all the Glasgow-Euston services will stop at Carlisle, Preston,
> > > > Wigan and Rugby for definite, with alternative trains stopping at
> > > > either Motherwell, Lockerbie, Penrith, Oxenholme and Lancaster
>
> > > Thanks for that Graham.
>
> > > Which is nearer for you - Lockerbie, Carlisle or Penrith?
>
> > Carlisle, 45 mins on the bus or 20 mins on the train from Annan.
> > Lockerbie involves a change of bus in Annan or Dumfries.
>
> A very much viable alternative to flying then?

Yup. At the present time, there's a few trains from Carlisle to
London, with only the 1 stop at Preston. Takes around 3 hrs 20 mins or
so.

Or, it;'s just over an hours drive to NCL
B
2008-06-03 19:46:00 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 8:39 pm, "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:***@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:26:42 +0100, Jim Mason
> > <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> > Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve times
> > >> > on Kings X - Edinburgh?
>
> > >> And it will never happen.  It's far too expensive - if they are going
> > >> to spend mega-bucks on the ECML there are plenty of more worthy
> > >> candidates, such as the Welwyn viaduct.
>
> > >The ECML is as fast as it is likely to get IMO. The speed gains are more
> > >likely to happen on the WCML.
>
> > A matter of opinion surely? The ECML does not have the geographical
> > challenges of the WCML.?
>
> The best way of reducing journey times on the ECML would be to increase the
> permitted speed to 140 or even 155 mph where possible south of Darlington.
> This would benefit London to Leeds and Newcastle passengers, as well as
> those travelling through to Scotland. Increasing permitted speeds north of
> Newcastle would benefit far fewer passengers.

Except those heading for Glasgow, the terminus, Waverley being just an
intermediate stop en-route to Scotlands busiest main line station.
Callum Johnstone
2008-06-03 21:29:37 UTC
Permalink
"B" <***@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:e7b82e09-29c8-4fcd-ac09-***@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 3, 8:39 pm, "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:***@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:26:42 +0100, Jim Mason
> > <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> > Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve times
> > >> > on Kings X - Edinburgh?
>
> > >> And it will never happen. It's far too expensive - if they are going
> > >> to spend mega-bucks on the ECML there are plenty of more worthy
> > >> candidates, such as the Welwyn viaduct.
>
> > >The ECML is as fast as it is likely to get IMO. The speed gains are
> > >more
> > >likely to happen on the WCML.
>
> > A matter of opinion surely? The ECML does not have the geographical
> > challenges of the WCML.?
>
> The best way of reducing journey times on the ECML would be to increase
> the
> permitted speed to 140 or even 155 mph where possible south of Darlington.
> This would benefit London to Leeds and Newcastle passengers, as well as
> those travelling through to Scotland. Increasing permitted speeds north of
> Newcastle would benefit far fewer passengers.

>Except those heading for Glasgow, the terminus, Waverley being just an
>intermediate stop en-route to Scotlands busiest main line station.

But not Scotland's busiest InterCity station ... I believe we had that
conversation a few years back? ;-)
GKirk
2008-06-04 18:43:13 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Jun, 22:29, "Callum Johnstone" <***@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> "B" <***@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e7b82e09-29c8-4fcd-ac09-***@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 3, 8:39 pm, "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >news:***@4ax.com...
>
> > > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:26:42 +0100, Jim Mason
> > > <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > >> > Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve times
> > > >> > on Kings X - Edinburgh?
>
> > > >> And it will never happen. It's far too expensive - if they are going
> > > >> to spend mega-bucks on the ECML there are plenty of more worthy
> > > >> candidates, such as the Welwyn viaduct.
>
> > > >The ECML is as fast as it is likely to get IMO. The speed gains are
> > > >more
> > > >likely to happen on the WCML.
>
> > > A matter of opinion surely? The ECML does not have the geographical
> > > challenges of the WCML.?
>
> > The best way of reducing journey times on the ECML would be to increase
> > the
> > permitted speed to 140 or even 155 mph where possible south of Darlington.
> > This would benefit London to Leeds and Newcastle passengers, as well as
> > those travelling through to Scotland. Increasing permitted speeds north of
> > Newcastle would benefit far fewer passengers.
> >Except those heading for Glasgow, the terminus, Waverley being just an
> >intermediate stop en-route to Scotlands busiest main line station.
>
> But not Scotland's busiest InterCity station ... I believe we had that
> conversation a few years back? ;-)

Surely you'd have to consider Glasgow Central and Queen Street as one,
the same with Waverly and Haymarket? ;-)
Callum Johnstone
2008-06-04 18:48:36 UTC
Permalink
On 4 Jun, 19:43, GKirk <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Jun, 22:29, "Callum Johnstone" <***@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "B" <***@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:e7b82e09-29c8-4fcd-ac09-***@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 3, 8:39 pm, "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > >news:***@4ax.com...
>
> > > > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:26:42 +0100, Jim Mason
> > > > <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve times
> > > > >> > on Kings X - Edinburgh?
>
> > > > >> And it will never happen. It's far too expensive - if they are going
> > > > >> to spend mega-bucks on the ECML there are plenty of more worthy
> > > > >> candidates, such as the Welwyn viaduct.
>
> > > > >The ECML is as fast as it is likely to get IMO. The speed gains are
> > > > >more
> > > > >likely to happen on the WCML.
>
> > > > A matter of opinion surely? The ECML does not have the geographical
> > > > challenges of the WCML.?
>
> > > The best way of reducing journey times on the ECML would be to increase
> > > the
> > > permitted speed to 140 or even 155 mph where possible south of Darlington.
> > > This would benefit London to Leeds and Newcastle passengers, as well as
> > > those travelling through to Scotland. Increasing permitted speeds north of
> > > Newcastle would benefit far fewer passengers.
> > >Except those heading for Glasgow, the terminus, Waverley being just an
> > >intermediate stop en-route to Scotlands busiest main line station.
>
> > But not Scotland's busiest InterCity station ... I believe we had that
> > conversation a few years back? ;-)
>
> Surely you'd have to consider Glasgow Central and Queen Street as one,
> the same with Waverly and Haymarket? ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Queen Street doesn't have InterCity service.
GKirk
2008-06-04 18:49:58 UTC
Permalink
On 4 Jun, 19:48, Callum Johnstone <***@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> On 4 Jun, 19:43, GKirk <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3 Jun, 22:29, "Callum Johnstone" <***@blueyonder.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "B" <***@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:e7b82e09-29c8-4fcd-ac09-***@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Jun 3, 8:39 pm, "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:***@4ax.com...
>
> > > > > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:26:42 +0100, Jim Mason
> > > > > <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > >> > Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve times
> > > > > >> > on Kings X - Edinburgh?
>
> > > > > >> And it will never happen. It's far too expensive - if they are going
> > > > > >> to spend mega-bucks on the ECML there are plenty of more worthy
> > > > > >> candidates, such as the Welwyn viaduct.
>
> > > > > >The ECML is as fast as it is likely to get IMO. The speed gains are
> > > > > >more
> > > > > >likely to happen on the WCML.
>
> > > > > A matter of opinion surely? The ECML does not have the geographical
> > > > > challenges of the WCML.?
>
> > > > The best way of reducing journey times on the ECML would be to increase
> > > > the
> > > > permitted speed to 140 or even 155 mph where possible south of Darlington.
> > > > This would benefit London to Leeds and Newcastle passengers, as well as
> > > > those travelling through to Scotland. Increasing permitted speeds north of
> > > > Newcastle would benefit far fewer passengers.
> > > >Except those heading for Glasgow, the terminus, Waverley being just an
> > > >intermediate stop en-route to Scotlands busiest main line station.
>
> > > But not Scotland's busiest InterCity station ... I believe we had that
> > > conversation a few years back? ;-)
>
> > Surely you'd have to consider Glasgow Central and Queen Street as one,
> > the same with Waverly and Haymarket? ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Queen Street doesn't have InterCity service.

Whats thon Glasgow-Edinburgh and Aberdeen services then? ;-)
Callum Johnstone
2008-06-04 18:52:21 UTC
Permalink
On 4 Jun, 19:49, GKirk <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 Jun, 19:48, Callum Johnstone <***@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 Jun, 19:43, GKirk <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 3 Jun, 22:29, "Callum Johnstone" <***@blueyonder.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > "B" <***@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:e7b82e09-29c8-4fcd-ac09-***@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Jun 3, 8:39 pm, "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:***@4ax.com...
>
> > > > > > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:26:42 +0100, Jim Mason
> > > > > > <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> > Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve times
> > > > > > >> > on Kings X - Edinburgh?
>
> > > > > > >> And it will never happen. It's far too expensive - if they are going
> > > > > > >> to spend mega-bucks on the ECML there are plenty of more worthy
> > > > > > >> candidates, such as the Welwyn viaduct.
>
> > > > > > >The ECML is as fast as it is likely to get IMO. The speed gains are
> > > > > > >more
> > > > > > >likely to happen on the WCML.
>
> > > > > > A matter of opinion surely? The ECML does not have the geographical
> > > > > > challenges of the WCML.?
>
> > > > > The best way of reducing journey times on the ECML would be to increase
> > > > > the
> > > > > permitted speed to 140 or even 155 mph where possible south of Darlington.
> > > > > This would benefit London to Leeds and Newcastle passengers, as well as
> > > > > those travelling through to Scotland. Increasing permitted speeds north of
> > > > > Newcastle would benefit far fewer passengers.
> > > > >Except those heading for Glasgow, the terminus, Waverley being just an
> > > > >intermediate stop en-route to Scotlands busiest main line station.
>
> > > > But not Scotland's busiest InterCity station ... I believe we had that
> > > > conversation a few years back? ;-)
>
> > > Surely you'd have to consider Glasgow Central and Queen Street as one,
> > > the same with Waverly and Haymarket? ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Queen Street doesn't have InterCity service.
>
> Whats thon Glasgow-Edinburgh and Aberdeen services then? ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Inter city ... but not InterCity.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...