In message , at 14:33:50 on Mon, 12 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant
local journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern


Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.

From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else at
all, that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.

There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services
and as there are already established customers for the local stations
west of Bedford opening up more destinations for these travelers
could be advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a complete white elephant.

East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.

but it is the complete new build part, albeit on a closed track bed,

No it's not.

and therefore has to meet new higher standards at road intersections
(if there are any)

So would a track on either a closed track bed (which it's not) or a new
track bed (which it is).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:33:39 on Mon, 12
Dec 2016, Robin9 remarked:

What a pity the line between Hitchin and Bedford was
closed all those years ago.


Not really. It would have been a drain on the finances, and thus likely
to have knock-on effects (closures) elsewhere.

--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:33:50 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016,
tim... remarked:
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant local
journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern

Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.

From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else at
all, that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.

There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services and
as there are already established customers for the local stations west
of Bedford opening up more destinations for these travelers could be
advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a complete white elephant.

East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.

but it is the complete new build part, albeit on a closed track bed,

No it's not.

so which part of Bedford (St John's) to Sandy has track in situ then

and therefore has to meet new higher standards at road intersections (if
there are any)

So would a track on either a closed track bed

The point is that West of Bletchley is not "closed" - technically anyway.

(which it's not) or a new track bed (which it is).

so your argument is that it's on a new alignment

still doesn't negate my point that East of Bedford is the completely new
build, West of Bedford is existing track

tim




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

What a pity the line between Hitchin and Bedford was
closed all those years ago.

what a pity the line from Bedford to Cambridge was closed (all those years
ago)

as otherwise we wouldn't be looking for a different route at all because
some of it (presumably) has been built over

tim




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In message , at 16:51:10 on Mon, 12 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:33:50 on Mon, 12 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant
local journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern

Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.

From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else
at all, that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.

There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services
and as there are already established customers for the local
stations west of Bedford opening up more destinations for these
travelers could be advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a
complete white elephant.

East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.

but it is the complete new build part, albeit on a closed track bed,

No it's not.

so which part of Bedford (St John's) to Sandy has track in situ then

Are you completely incapable of looking at the plans for yourself?

And how come suddenly "closed track bed" turns into "track in situ".

and therefore has to meet new higher standards at road intersections
(if there are any)

So would a track on either a closed track bed

The point is that West of Bletchley is not "closed" - technically anyway.

I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.

(which it's not) or a new track bed (which it is).

so your argument is that it's on a new alignment

See "new alignment" vs "closed track bed".

still doesn't negate my point that East of Bedford is the completely
new build,

On "closed track bed", or something else?

West of Bedford is existing track

I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:55:40 on Mon, 12 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:
What a pity the line between Hitchin and Bedford was
closed all those years ago.

what a pity the line from Bedford to Cambridge was closed (all those
years ago)

as otherwise we wouldn't be looking for a different route at all
because some of it (presumably) has been built over

Not just built over (Radio telescope, M11, Trumpington Meadows Estate,
Trumpington P&R, Guided Bus; as well as numerous other stretches
including a school and housing estate in north Sandy and quite a lot of
roads/buildings in south east Bedford) but also a very wiggly route you
couldn't suddenly have 100mph trains careering along.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 16:51:10 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:33:50 on Mon, 12 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant local
journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern

Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.

From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else at
all, that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.

There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services and
as there are already established customers for the local stations west
of Bedford opening up more destinations for these travelers could be
advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a complete white elephant.

East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.

but it is the complete new build part, albeit on a closed track bed,

No it's not.

so which part of Bedford (St John's) to Sandy has track in situ then

Are you completely incapable of looking at the plans for yourself?

As I was just discussing the route's potential as a useful "profitable"
service, I didn't really see it necessary. All that was relevant here was
that the route was new build and not simply a restoration of a passenger
service on a freight line, and therefore zillions of times more expensive to
build.

It was you who started nit-picking about whether the route was on
long-closed track bed or a completely new route, but that's irrelevant to my
point.


And how come suddenly "closed track bed" turns into "track in situ".

you claimed that it wasn't a closed track

I naturally assumed that you thought it a currently open (in part) track


and therefore has to meet new higher standards at road intersections (if
there are any)

So would a track on either a closed track bed

The point is that West of Bletchley is not "closed" - technically anyway.

I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.

I am explaining my terminology: Eastern section and Western section

The Western section is the part West of Bletchley that is an in situ freight
line and the Eastern Section is the part East of Bedford that is currently
open fields (or whatever). You can put the bit in the middle in whichever
section you like.

It just happens that this terminology also fits in with the likely service
pattern which will see many trains running to (and probably terminating at}
MK just off somewhere about the mid point of the route.

(which it's not) or a new track bed (which it is).

so your argument is that it's on a new alignment

See "new alignment" vs "closed track bed".

still doesn't negate my point that East of Bedford is the completely new
build,

On "closed track bed", or something else?

It doesn't' matter. It is new build and therefore much more expensive to
do.


West of Bedford is existing track

I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.

we are

I am explaining my rational by referring back to the rest of the route

tim




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 16:55:40 on Mon, 12 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:
What a pity the line between Hitchin and Bedford was
closed all those years ago.

what a pity the line from Bedford to Cambridge was closed (all those
years ago)

as otherwise we wouldn't be looking for a different route at all
because some of it (presumably) has been built over

Not just built over (Radio telescope, M11, Trumpington Meadows
Estate, Trumpington P&R, Guided Bus; as well as numerous other
stretches including a school and housing estate in north Sandy and
quite a lot of roads/buildings in south east Bedford) but also a very
wiggly route you couldn't suddenly have 100mph trains careering along.

People don't seem to realise how paltry the Cambridge-Oxford train service
was until 1967. Trains were slow and infrequent.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

tim... wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 16:51:10 on Mon, 12 Dec 2016,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 14:33:50 on Mon, 12 Dec
2016, tim... remarked:
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant local
journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern

Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.

From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else at
all, that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.

There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services and
as there are already established customers for the local stations west
of Bedford opening up more destinations for these travelers could be
advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a complete white elephant.

East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.

but it is the complete new build part, albeit on a closed track bed,

No it's not.

so which part of Bedford (St John's) to Sandy has track in situ then

Are you completely incapable of looking at the plans for yourself?

As I was just discussing the route's potential as a useful "profitable"
service, I didn't really see it necessary. All that was relevant here was
that the route was new build and not simply a restoration of a passenger
service on a freight line, and therefore zillions of times more expensive to
build.

It was you who started nit-picking about whether the route was on
long-closed track bed or a completely new route, but that's irrelevant to my
point.


And how come suddenly "closed track bed" turns into "track in situ".

you claimed that it wasn't a closed track

I naturally assumed that you thought it a currently open (in part) track


and therefore has to meet new higher standards at road intersections (if
there are any)

So would a track on either a closed track bed

The point is that West of Bletchley is not "closed" - technically anyway.

I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.

I am explaining my terminology: Eastern section and Western section

The Western section is the part West of Bletchley that is an in situ freight
line

Really? When did a train of any description last run between Bletchley and
Calvert?

It's been disused for years, and allegedly some of the track has been
nicked.

In article , (tim...)
wrote:

As I was just discussing the route's potential as a useful
"profitable" service, I didn't really see it necessary. All that was
relevant here was that the route was new build and not simply a
restoration of a passenger service on a freight line, and therefore
zillions of times more expensive to build.

I wouldn't assume new construction is much more expensive than restoring a
mothballed freight route or a line currently open like the Marston vale
section.

I was surprised to see estimated costs for the various East-West Rail
sections which shown the most expensive bit to be the Marston Vale upgrade.
A lot of work has since been done on that section but, new construction
doesn't generate so much compensation to existing operators. Its costs are
also a lot more predictable as HS1 discovered.

--
Colin Rosenstiel