<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:18:49 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 10:48:22 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> There are two numbers on the screen as well as the compass rose. The left
>>>> hand one is the speed, the right hand one the limit. If it’s running at
>>>> over 300 km/h then it’s almost certainly on a section of line with a 320
>>>> km/h limit. Don’t you expect it to be running at 320 km/h?
>>>
>>> Recliner was babbling on about the TGV rarely going over 300.
>>
>> Except on lines with a limit of 320 km/h, obvs. You were saying they
>> should always be running at line speed, weren’t you?
>
> It spends a long time within a few kph of 320. I doubt thats deliberate, more
> likely maxed out with gradients, wind, etc keeping it slightly down and in fact
> at one point it goes over 320 going down a hill.

It would be worthwhile asking Anna, but AIUI train cruise controls are just
as effective as road vehicle ones, and since the train spends most of its
time below line speed that’s probably because the cruise control is set
that way, or that the driver, working manually, is deliberately not running
at line speed.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:44:49 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> It spends a long time within a few kph of 320. I doubt thats deliberate, more
>
>> likely maxed out with gradients, wind, etc keeping it slightly down and in
>fact
>> at one point it goes over 320 going down a hill.
>
>It would be worthwhile asking Anna, but AIUI train cruise controls are just
>as effective as road vehicle ones, and since the train spends most of its

Cruise control isn't magic. If the vehicle doesn't have enough power going
up a hill it won't maintain its speed. You can have your foot to the floor
in an HGV but if its loaded and the hill is steep enough you won't be
maintaining 56mph. And yes I have personal experience of that on the M25.

>time below line speed that’s probably because the cruise control is set
>that way, or that the driver, working manually, is deliberately not running
>at line speed.

Given the differential is a mere few kmh and wanders up and down I suggests
to me the train is trying to hit 320 but isn't managing it for whatever
reason.

Am 26.01.2024 um 17:11 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:44:56 GMT
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> There are two numbers on the screen as well as the compass rose. The left
>>>> hand one is the speed, the right hand one the limit. If it’s running at
>>>> over 300 km/h then it’s almost certainly on a section of line with a 320
>>>> km/h limit. Don’t you expect it to be running at 320 km/h?
>>>
>>> Recliner was babbling on about the TGV rarely going over 300.
>>
>> There are only two 320 km/h LGVs, so on most of the network they don't go
>> over 300. On those two lines, they obviously do go over 300 when permitted,
>> and sometimes touch 320, but cruise at a lower speed. That's what I've
>
> A few kmh is neither here nor there as a slight difference in available
> power, gradiants and wind will make a difference at that speed.
>
>> repeatedly told you, but instead of comprehending, you describe it as
>> 'babbling'.
>>
>> I think the problem is that you have a different comprehension of speed
>> limits. You think they're minimum target speeds, not do-not-exceed speeds.
>
> They're target speeds. Railways arn't roads - if the line speed is X then the
> train should end up doing X unless there's some compelling reason for it not
> to.

And we have mentioned some compelling reasons:
1) for a reliable timetable it is useful to insert a few minutes buffer
time (e.g 3 minutes for weaving from Paris through various junctions to
the start of the LGV)
2) once this "timetable including buffer" exists, it saves a lot of
energy to adjust the planned max speed such as to use up this buffer
rather than to run a max speed and reach the destination a few minutes
early.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:44:49 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> It spends a long time within a few kph of 320. I doubt thats deliberate, more
>>
>>> likely maxed out with gradients, wind, etc keeping it slightly down and in
>> fact
>>> at one point it goes over 320 going down a hill.
>>
>> It would be worthwhile asking Anna, but AIUI train cruise controls are just
>> as effective as road vehicle ones, and since the train spends most of its
>
> Cruise control isn't magic. If the vehicle doesn't have enough power going
> up a hill it won't maintain its speed. You can have your foot to the floor
> in an HGV but if its loaded and the hill is steep enough you won't be
> maintaining 56mph. And yes I have personal experience of that on the M25.

I’m well aware of that. I used to drive a 2CV.

>> time below line speed that’s probably because the cruise control is set
>> that way, or that the driver, working manually, is deliberately not running
>> at line speed.
>
> Given the differential is a mere few kmh and wanders up and down I suggests
> to me the train is trying to hit 320 but isn't managing it for whatever
> reason.

That doesn’t explain why, on flat, very straight track earlier in the
video, the train ran for long periods in the mid 150s km/h rather than at
the line speed of 160 km/h.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:47:57 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Cruise control isn't magic. If the vehicle doesn't have enough power going
>> up a hill it won't maintain its speed. You can have your foot to the floor
>> in an HGV but if its loaded and the hill is steep enough you won't be
>> maintaining 56mph. And yes I have personal experience of that on the M25.
>
>I’m well aware of that. I used to drive a 2CV.

My sympathies.

>> Given the differential is a mere few kmh and wanders up and down I suggests
>> to me the train is trying to hit 320 but isn't managing it for whatever
>> reason.
>
>That doesn’t explain why, on flat, very straight track earlier in the
>video, the train ran for long periods in the mid 150s km/h rather than at
>the line speed of 160 km/h.

Whatever the reason I suspect it would probably be harder to deliberately keep
a few mph below the limit rather than just let the speed limiter limit it to
whatever the line speed is.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 10:47:57 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Cruise control isn't magic. If the vehicle doesn't have enough power going
>>> up a hill it won't maintain its speed. You can have your foot to the floor
>>> in an HGV but if its loaded and the hill is steep enough you won't be
>>> maintaining 56mph. And yes I have personal experience of that on the M25.
>>
>> I’m well aware of that. I used to drive a 2CV.
>
> My sympathies.

It was a lot of fun.

>>> Given the differential is a mere few kmh and wanders up and down I suggests
>>> to me the train is trying to hit 320 but isn't managing it for whatever
>>> reason.
>>
>> That doesn’t explain why, on flat, very straight track earlier in the
>> video, the train ran for long periods in the mid 150s km/h rather than at
>> the line speed of 160 km/h.
>
> Whatever the reason I suspect it would probably be harder to deliberately keep
> a few mph below the limit rather than just let the speed limiter limit it to
> whatever the line speed is.

So why *does* it mostly run at a few km/h below line speed? It’s clearly
not got a (an accurate) limiter to let it run at linespeed under easy
conditions (excess power, flat, straight, level track), and you’re saying
that the driver would find it difficult to what it actually does. What’s
the explanation?

I do have ideas but I wouldn’t want to second guess you.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:51:06 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> I’m well aware of that. I used to drive a 2CV.
>>
>> My sympathies.
>
>It was a lot of fun.

I occasionally had a lift in one to school when I was a kid. Its still the
only type of car I ever got car sick in. Don't see the appeal - slow, fugly
and not very practical unless you need to transport the proverbial basket of
eggs over a ploughed field.

>> Whatever the reason I suspect it would probably be harder to deliberately
>keep
>> a few mph below the limit rather than just let the speed limiter limit it to
>
>> whatever the line speed is.
>
>So why *does* it mostly run at a few km/h below line speed? It’s clearly
>not got a (an accurate) limiter to let it run at linespeed under easy
>conditions (excess power, flat, straight, level track), and you’re saying
>that the driver would find it difficult to what it actually does. What’s
>the explanation?
>
>I do have ideas but I wouldn’t want to second guess you.

No idea. But I doubt its the driver doing it.

In message <KMzsN.16033$x4Zc.1952@fx10.ams1>, at 20:46:34 on Thu, 25 Jan
2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <nVrsN.71011$c1y8.44355@fx15.ams1>, at 11:49:39 on Thu, 25
>> Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <nmivqi9aakpsrf27va14c7hm94hccbv475@4ax.com>, at 14:27:42 on
>>>> Tue, 23 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 13:53:48 +0000, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23/01/2024 11:10, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <SQsrN.24935$7uxe.5056@fx09.ams1>, at 12:04:02 on
>>>>>>>>Mon, 22 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> With HS2, the first mistake was that it was ridiculously
>>>>>>>>>over-ambitious, with the politicians wanting it to be the
>>>>>>>>>world's fastest, highest frequency high speed railway, with
>>>>>>>>>the fanciest stations. There was always much more focus on
>>>>>>>>>grandeur than economy. Adonis gets a lot of the blame for
>>>>>>>>>that, but his successors could have corrected it quickly,
>>>>>>>>>before so much was wasted. For no more than we'll end up
>>>>>>>>>Crewe and Ratcliffe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody needs a station at Ratcliffe. Not even people using the
>>>>>>>>airport. Apart from everything else, it's the wrong side of the
>>>>>>>> Midlands Parkway has been a white elephant ever since it
>>>>>>>>opened, and you can't turn it into a greyer elephant simply by
>>>>>>>>stopping more trains there which people won't buy tickets for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You should read what I wrote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A shuttle from London to Ratcliffe station would be as useless as one
>>>>>> from London to Handsacre station.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed so, but obviously that's not what I suggested. Nobody should
>>>>> fall into the trap of taking any notice of Roland's deliberate
>>>>> distortion of what I wrote.
>>>>
>>>> Says the expert in deliberate misinterpretation. Back your box you very
>>>> silly person.
>>>>
>>>>> It would simply be the location of the junction with the MML, with HS2
>>>>> trains then running on the classic lines to Nottingham, Derby and
>>>>> onward to Sheffield. They would use the existing lines, and station
>>>>> platforms, with no new infrastructure needed (and definitely not
>>>>> Roland's pet albino pachyderm at Toton).
>>>>
>>>> There you go again, shooting the messenger. The business case for Toton
>>>> (which is almost nothing at about being able to get to London quicker)
>>>> has been out in the wild for almost a decade now. But for some reason
>>>> you deliberately fail admit it.
>>>>
>>>>> It would be similar to the Handsacre junction (though, arguably, that
>>>>> should be further along the WCML, perhaps north of Stafford).
>>>>>
>>>>> Incidentally, Ratcliffe might become a more important MML station (not
>>>>> served by HS2 trains), depending on what gets built on the power
>>>>> station site.
>>>>
>>>> It's been below target since the day it opened. The reason for the
>>>> "Parkway" name, incidentally, is because Stagecoach envisaged it being a
>>>> railhead for Megabus passengers from mainly Yorkshire, but the venture
>>>> was a failure.
>>>>
>>>> It would also help if the walk-up fares weren't the same as to London,
>>>> and if the car park was free. They have, however fixed the marketing
>>>> blunder of the much-advertised 2tph being a flight of trains a couple
>>>> of minutes apart. But not by much... xx:25 and xx:45 mainly.
>>>>
>>>> The icing on the cake was the Nottingham to Airport express bus driving
>>>> straight past without stopping (so no use either for Nottingham
>>>> residents wanting to get a train, or train passengers wanting to get to
>>>> the airport).
>>>
>>> What has this got to do with HS2, which was never going to have a station
>>> there?
>>
>> Never? Even you said it would have a station, as a replacement for
>> Toton. Do try to keep up (with your old self, if not the rest of the
>> planet).
>
>No, I said HS2 may or may not have platforms there, mainly for joining and
>splitting trains. It would not have been a Toton replacement, as that's not
>needed.

In the greater scheme of things an East Midlands hub was needed to
promote regeneration, and also as a railhead for passengers. I remember
you arguing that Ratcliffe would just as good a location as Toton, which
is nonsense.

>But with the reduction in services from Euston, and the probable shortening
>of the HS2 trains, there's really no need for any HS2 trains to stop.

What makes you think *any* HS2 trains will be seen at Ratcliffe
(stopping or otherwise).
--
Roland Perry

In message <LMzsN.16034$x4Zc.6598@fx10.ams1>, at 20:46:35 on Thu, 25 Jan
2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <uotn2a$2acpr$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:18:02 on Thu, 25 Jan
>> 2024, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>> On 25/01/2024 11:11, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <nmivqi9aakpsrf27va14c7hm94hccbv475@4ax.com>, at 14:27:42
>>>> on Tue, 23 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 13:53:48 +0000, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>> A shuttle from London to Ratcliffe station would be as useless as one
>>>>>> from London to Handsacre station.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed so, but obviously that's not what I suggested. Nobody should
>>>>> fall into the trap of taking any notice of Roland's deliberate
>>>>> distortion of what I wrote.
>>
>>>> Says the expert in deliberate misinterpretation. Back your box you
>>>> very silly person.
>>>
>>> It seemed very clear to me that Recliner was discussing Ratcliffe as a
>>> junction rather than a destination, even if there is scope for a station
>>> in the area to serve the airport and act as a park and ride to London.
>>
>> If that's the case he's done a massive swerve.
>
>Nope. Perhaps you failed to spot that I was discussing a different, much
>more modest but affordable version of HS2 that we should have had.

The main lack of affordablity is appeasing NIMBYs, not building a few
miles of track and a handful of new stations.
--
Roland Perry

In message <MMzsN.16035$x4Zc.10812@fx10.ams1>, at 20:46:36 on Thu, 25
Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <NGtsN.38403$Qspa.1075@fx12.ams1>, at 13:50:37 on Thu, 25 Jan
>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <nmivqi9aakpsrf27va14c7hm94hccbv475@4ax.com>, at 14:27:42 on
>>>> Tue, 23 Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 13:53:48 +0000, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23/01/2024 11:10, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <SQsrN.24935$7uxe.5056@fx09.ams1>, at 12:04:02 on
>>>>>>>>Mon, 22 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> With HS2, the first mistake was that it was ridiculously
>>>>>>>>>over-ambitious, with the politicians wanting it to be the
>>>>>>>>>world's fastest, highest frequency high speed railway, with
>>>>>>>>>the fanciest stations. There was always much more focus on
>>>>>>>>>grandeur than economy. Adonis gets a lot of the blame for
>>>>>>>>>that, but his successors could have corrected it quickly,
>>>>>>>>>before so much was wasted. For no more than we'll end up
>>>>>>>>>Crewe and Ratcliffe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody needs a station at Ratcliffe. Not even people using the
>>>>>>>>airport. Apart from everything else, it's the wrong side of the
>>>>>>>> Midlands Parkway has been a white elephant ever since it
>>>>>>>>opened, and you can't turn it into a greyer elephant simply by
>>>>>>>>stopping more trains there which people won't buy tickets for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You should read what I wrote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A shuttle from London to Ratcliffe station would be as useless as one
>>>>>> from London to Handsacre station.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed so, but obviously that's not what I suggested. Nobody should
>>>>> fall into the trap of taking any notice of Roland's deliberate
>>>>> distortion of what I wrote.
>>>>
>>>> Says the expert in deliberate misinterpretation. Back your box you very
>>>> silly person.
>>>>
>>>>> It would simply be the location of the junction with the MML, with HS2
>>>>> trains then running on the classic lines to Nottingham, Derby and
>>>>> onward to Sheffield. They would use the existing lines, and station
>>>>> platforms, with no new infrastructure needed (and definitely not
>>>>> Roland's pet albino pachyderm at Toton).
>>>>
>>>> There you go again, shooting the messenger. The business case for Toton
>>>> (which is almost nothing at about being able to get to London quicker)
>>>> has been out in the wild for almost a decade now. But for some reason
>>>> you deliberately fail admit it.
>>>
>>> In which case it has nothing to do with HS2, and the large amount of land
>>> earmarked for the redundant giant station can be used for something more
>>> relevant. Indeed, I believe the council expects to sell it at a profit.
>>
>> Which site is that? Toton. Please be more specific rather than posting
>> ambiguities.
>
>No ambiguity. Obviously Toton.

There will still be some regeneration, but less effective without the
HS2 linking Birmingham to Yorkshire. The actual station itself is a
small part of the footprint of that project. (And since when was Notts
Council buying land for HS2?)

>>>>> It would be similar to the Handsacre junction (though, arguably, that
>>>>> should be further along the WCML, perhaps north of Stafford).
>>>>>
>>>>> Incidentally, Ratcliffe might become a more important MML station (not
>>>>> served by HS2 trains), depending on what gets built on the power
>>>>> station site.
>>>>
>>>> It's been below target since the day it opened. The reason for the
>>>> "Parkway" name, incidentally, is because Stagecoach envisaged it being a
>>>> railhead for Megabus passengers from mainly Yorkshire, but the venture
>>>> was a failure.
>>>>
>>>> It would also help if the walk-up fares weren't the same as to London,
>>>> and if the car park was free. They have, however fixed the marketing
>>>> blunder of the much-advertised 2tph being a flight of trains a couple
>>>> of minutes apart. But not by much... xx:25 and xx:45 mainly.
>>>>
>>>> The icing on the cake was the Nottingham to Airport express bus driving
>>>> straight past without stopping (so no use either for Nottingham
>>>> residents wanting to get a train, or train passengers wanting to get to
>>>> the airport).
>>>
>>> What has this old story got to do with HS2? It was never going to stop
>>> there anyway.
>>
>> But it was at Toton (for passengers in the Birmingham-Leeds corridor).
>
>You're talking about a different station.

Different to what? Toton is Toton, Ratcliffe under the previously agreed
plan would have been merely a tram-stop on the extension from Toton to
the airport.
--
Roland Perry

In message <mVrsN.71010$c1y8.40288@fx15.ams1>, at 11:49:38 on Thu, 25
Jan 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <uoogdc$19ro1$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:53:48 on Tue, 23 Jan
>> 2024, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>> On 23/01/2024 11:10, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <SQsrN.24935$7uxe.5056@fx09.ams1>, at 12:04:02 on Mon, 22 Jan
>>>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> With HS2, the first mistake was that it was ridiculously over-ambitious,
>>>>>> with the politicians wanting it to be the world's fastest, highest
>>>>>> frequency high speed railway, with the fanciest stations. There
>>>>>>was always
>>>>>> much more focus on grandeur than economy. Adonis gets a lot of the blame
>>>>>> for that, but his successors could have corrected it quickly, before so
>>>>>> much was wasted. For no more than we'll end up spending, we could
>>>>>>have had
>>>>>> a much more useful railway to Crewe and Ratcliffe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody needs a station at Ratcliffe. Not even people using the airport.
>>>>> Apart from everything else, it's the wrong side of the river. East
>>>>> Midlands Parkway has been a white elephant ever since it opened, and you
>>>>> can't turn it into a greyer elephant simply by stopping more trains
>>>>> there which people won't buy tickets for.
>>>> You should read what I wrote.
>>>
>>> A shuttle from London to Ratcliffe station would be as useless as one
>>> from London to Handsacre station.
>>
>> Not a shuttle, just a stop on a longer journey.
>>
>>> Fortunately, no one has proposed such white elephants;
>>
>> No-one has proposed a shuttle, but they *have* proposed a station stop.
>> To replace Toton.
>
>Nope, that's your invention. Toton was unnecessary, and wouldn't need
>replacing.

And that's your ignorance of the transport plans for the area.
--
Roland Perry

In message <lVrsN.71009$c1y8.427@fx15.ams1>, at 11:49:37 on Thu, 25 Jan
2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <Q8NrN.35235$Qspa.5109@fx12.ams1>, at 11:10:40 on Tue, 23 Jan
>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <SQsrN.24935$7uxe.5056@fx09.ams1>, at 12:04:02 on Mon, 22 Jan
>>>> 2024, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 07:04:11 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 21:05:43 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 21/01/2024 17:30, Tweed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope. However this sub thread started on the premise that the SNP
>>>>>>>>>> hadn?t done anything good for Scotland. They get an awful lot
>>>>>>>>>> wrong, but their rail policies seem to me to be much better. At
>>>>>>>>>> least they attempt to price people on to the railways rather than
>>>>>>>>>> off. They?ve been pushing electrification with more enthusiasm
>>>>>>>>>> than further south as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But is it sustainable to throw money at the railways long term?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We 'throw money' at nearly all public services. That's why we pay tax.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It’s an English government act of faith that railway subsidy
>>>>>>> needs to be reduced. Most other European countries don’t see it
>>>>>>> that way. Good transport oils the wheels of the economy, even for
>>>>>>> those who don’t use the railway. As a simple example, someone
>>>>>>> going by rail instead of road frees up road space for a van driver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, a cost-benefit analysis (which seems to be called a benefit-cost
>>>>>> analysis nowadays) willl come up with a very different answer to the
>>>>>> one the 'Mad Axeman' came up with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All that said - and as a big fan of the railways - I do think there is
>>>>>> a problem with the high capital cost compared with the other
>>>>>> countries. I'm not quoting figures (I'll leave that to others) but I
>>>>>> saw figures at one stage for cost per kilometre of electrification and
>>>>>> GB did spectacularly badly. I do think the cost base needs to be
>>>>>> looked at.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, electrification is an example of something we do badly and
>>>>> expensively. I believe HS2 will also be by far the most expensive high
>>>>> speed railway per km in the world.
>>>>
>>>> Driven primarily by appeasing NIMBYs.
>>>>
>>>>> With OHLE, we know the answer is to have a steady, rolling programme, and
>>>>> retain the skills, but that's not how governments tend to approve
>>>>>projects.
>>>>> We do currently seem to be doing it right on the MML, and Scotland has
>>>>> attempted to have a succession of projects. But there are still ridiculous
>>>>> gaps in the GWML OHLE.
>>>>>
>>>>> With HS2, the first mistake was that it was ridiculously over-ambitious,
>>>>> with the politicians wanting it to be the world's fastest, highest
>>>>> frequency high speed railway, with the fanciest stations. There was always
>>>>> much more focus on grandeur than economy. Adonis gets a lot of the blame
>>>>> for that, but his successors could have corrected it quickly, before so
>>>>> much was wasted. For no more than we'll end up spending, we could have had
>>>>> a much more useful railway to Crewe and Ratcliffe.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody needs a station at Ratcliffe. Not even people using the airport.
>>>> Apart from everything else, it's the wrong side of the river. East
>>>> Midlands Parkway has been a white elephant ever since it opened, and you
>>>> can't turn it into a greyer elephant simply by stopping more trains
>>>> there which people won't buy tickets for.
>>>
>>> You should read what I wrote.
>>
>> I can't reply without having read it. Perhaps you should repost with
>> some of the invisible words added, so we know what you meant to say, as
>> well as what you wrote.
>
>You're the one inserting invisible words. The fictitious station at
>Ratcliffe is purely your fantasy.

Your memory is failing you.

>>>>> There should have been no new stations other than OOC,
>>>>
>>>> I can see why you might think that for a railway with one end at London,
>>>> but that's the major mistake that's so often made. It's also a railway
>>>> with one end at Birmingham, with trains going elsewhere than London.
>>>
>>> I'm very well aware of the route network.
>>
>> Then it's absurd to suggest no new stations north of OOC.
>
>The aim of this thought experiment is to come up with a much lower cost way
>of relieving the loads on the southern WCML and MML. That needs no new
>stations other than OOC, and minimal changes to other existing stations,
>apart from a few extra platforms at Euston and a couple at Birmingham
>International.

For passengers to be able to use HS2 as a backbone, there needed to be a
few new hub stations. It's your fantasy that splintering the services to
a dozen legacy stations would work.
--
Roland Perry

On 11/02/2024 07:37, Roland Perry wrote:
> There will still be some regeneration, but less effective without the
> HS2 linking Birmingham to Yorkshire. The actual station itself is a
> small part of the footprint of that project. (And since when was Notts
> Council buying land for HS2?)

London to York via Birmingham was always an obviously silly diversion
given that London to York direct is one of Britain's fastest lines, and
I doubt that there was every any real intention to build it. Birmingham
to York has more potential but would never get funding because neither
of those places is London.

In message <uqaci6$v1bu$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:54:46 on Sun, 11 Feb
2024, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>On 11/02/2024 07:37, Roland Perry wrote:

>> There will still be some regeneration, but less effective without the
>>HS2 linking Birmingham to Yorkshire. The actual station itself is a
>>small part of the footprint of that project. (And since when was Notts
>>Council buying land for HS2?)
>
>London to York via Birmingham was always an obviously silly diversion

Please keep up!! It's Birmingham to York*SHIRE* which includes
Sheffield. It's never been about getting from London to York quicker.
Although doing it in the same time would nevertheless potentially
release paths on the ECML for freight. (Ditto MML for London to
Sheffield).

>given that London to York direct is one of Britain's fastest lines, and
>I doubt that there was every any real intention to build it. Birmingham
>to York has more potential but would never get funding because neither
>of those places is London.

It was later called "levelling up", regenerating the HS2 corridor.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 13:22:22 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <uqaci6$v1bu$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:54:46 on Sun, 11 Feb
>2024, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>On 11/02/2024 07:37, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>> There will still be some regeneration, but less effective without the
>>>HS2 linking Birmingham to Yorkshire. The actual station itself is a
>>>small part of the footprint of that project. (And since when was Notts
>>>Council buying land for HS2?)
>>
>>London to York via Birmingham was always an obviously silly diversion
>
>Please keep up!! It's Birmingham to York*SHIRE* which includes
>Sheffield. It's never been about getting from London to York quicker.
>Although doing it in the same time would nevertheless potentially
>release paths on the ECML for freight. (Ditto MML for London to
>Sheffield).

Yes; a straight line from London to Sheffield runs closer to Nuneaton (on
the WCML) than it does to Peterborough (on the ECML at the same latitude),
and not that much further from Birmingham. Given that a straight line isn't
practical, a western route to Sheffield makes about as much sense as an
eastern route.

Mark

On 25/01/2024 15:17, Recliner wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 15:09:18 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <uorf9l$1sort$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:53:09 on Wed, 24 Jan
>>> 2024, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> Incidentally, the 125mph ECML trains that run non-stop KGX-NCL only
>>>>> average about 85mph.

They've slowed down a lot then, because they used to do the 270 miles in
less than 2:45, including a stop at York, for an average of something like
98 mph.

Ah, I still have a spreadsheet to which someone posted a link here last year
(2023summer100mphlist.xls), of fastest average speeds between stops. That
has Newcastle to London listed as 268 miles in 156 minutes for an average of
103 mph, with a note that it is the longest run between stops.

Not bad a for a "Victorian railway line" and pretty good for any classic,
not dedicated new high speed route. Excluding HS1, the fastest time listed
is 108.9 mph between Stafford and Watford. Do other countries routinely
average more than 100 mph between stops on mixed use classic lines?

>>>> Part of that will, of course, be that there isn’t a clear 125 mph route
>>>> between KGX and NCL! What’s the limit over the bridge at Peterborough?
>>>
>>> Probably the same as the station itself: 105mph.
>>
>>Thank you - whatever it is it’s quite exciting.

Stilton Fen, Grantham, Newark and Doncaster all have 100 mph restrictions.
Heading north from London to Newcastle, the line speed does not reach 125
mph for the first 25 miles (until Knebworth) or the last 30 miles. It would
be interesting to know what the average line speed is, but I can't be
bothered to work it out from the Sectional Appendix. I expect it's somewhere
in the region of 110 mph.

>>>> Through Durham?

75 mph.

>>Anyone? Obviously much less than 125 mph, York even more so.
>
> I believe York is 30mph.

It is. Newcastle is 20 mph.