"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:24:24 +0100, "Peter Able" stuck@home wrote:


"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:31:37 -0700 (PDT), D7666
wrote:

On Oct 24, 11:57 am, 77002 wrote:

It really IS time to hand the fast pair over to NR/Chiltern and cut
TfL back to Moor Park and Watford.- Hide quoted text -

To acheive what ?

Vary it to future upgrading in the form of 25kV from Marylebone to
Aylesbury with DC left until further notice between Harrow and
Amersham. This leaves roughly the same track availability as at
present with the opportunity for future (whole/part) conversion of the
Met to 25kV when the DC equipment is beyond saving, possible use of
joint stock (i.e. including existing stock with new transformer
coaches and new sets re-using displaced coaches from old sets). With
the Met being diverted to Watford Junction and thoughts about
extensions north of Aylesbury it would reduce the electrical
incompatibility that LU has with surrounding systems.

Stand on any up platform, Amersham to Moor Park inclusive, and observe how
few passengers use the Chiltern services

Maybe they don't all want to go where the Chiltern trains (presently)
go ?

- so upgrading Aylesbury to
Marylebone would yield no benefit to the overwhelming majority of these
thousands of passengers.

I doubt if the passengers give a damn how the juice reaches the
trains; they are more likely to notice when things go missing such as
e.g. trains from Aylesbury to Baker Street. Getting rid of running two
different systems (one non-standard) in what is practically the same
space would add to flexibility and ought to decrease potential
problems.

Likewise with the god-forsaken idea of pushing the
Met on into Watford Junction. As for the conversion of the Met to OHLE -
this is the loose sort of thinking that spawned IEP.

Distinct from the loose sort of thinking of replacing a knackered
obsolete DC ground-based supply with a brand new obsolete DC
ground-based supply system ?
It is the sort of thinking that has contributed to the greatly
increased use of the North London line.
It is the sort of thinking that seems to be under serious
consideration in SR third-rail territory.

EXACTLY the same sort of loose thinking that produced IEP. Both the Dft's
case for IEP and your argument - particularly as demonstrated in the above
paragraph - are based upon an initial premise that is completely false (Dft:
It takes over 15 minutes to attach a diesel locomotive; Yours that DC 4th
rail is a "knackered obsolete" system). You then build your case on the
sandiest of sand.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:28:58 +0100, Peter Able wrote:

Dft: It takes over 15 minutes to attach a diesel locomotive.

I've never understood this. If the diesel loco is properly designed to
interwork with the unit(s) that it's expected to haul, then surely
(de)coupling should take no longer than splitting and combining any *MU
stock.

Although I do understand that one school of thought holds that the DfT
probably couldn't manage the proper design of a 1cm x 1cm x 1cm cube of
solid steel, let alone anything more complex, perhaps that's the real
issue? And yet they feel they can manage the design of IEP .....

Rgds

Denis McMahon