- show quoted text -
Shouldn't a funicular railway have two cars that (approximately) balance
each other, one going up while the other descends?

Not always, the one at Southend has a single car with a counterbalance weight under the tracks.

There used to be an imdoor one at the NRM, but it seldom seemed to be working, and has now been removed.

On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 08:39:27 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 20:25:45 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:52:02 +0200, Jarle Hammen Knudsen
Will there be more passenger trains on the GOBLin after
electrification? Isn't the current frequency due to paths taken up by
freight?

No there won't be a higher frequency on the electrified GOBLIN, just
longer trains. There will be the same number of EMUs (eight) as the
172s, but they'll have four, rather than two, carriages.

It would be the same on the Uckfield branch. Electric trains would be
a bit quicker, but there aren't enough paths through East Croydon to
allow a higher frequency (and if there were, they'd be better used for
the Brighton main line). Much more of the mainly singled branch would
also need to be redoubled to support a higher frequency.

Of course the irony there is that the line could have been used as a
secondary route to/from Brighton if that visionary Beeching hadn't caused it
to be ripped up back to Uckfield.

It would be a much slower route, without the capacity to take much
traffic from the Brighton Main Line route that serves much more
important destinations.


The article also points out that there are much better candidates for
infill electrification, such as the North Downs Line to Reading.

Hmm. I suspect there are a lot more people who would potentially commute
from Uckfield with a better service than there are who would be bouncing along
under the north downs.

The North Downs route wouldn't be electrified for the benefit of
commuters.

There are many similar sized towns to uckfield and
crowborough that are currently commuter towns, there is nothing special about
these 2 other than the abysmal train service.

On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:25:41 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 08:39:27 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
Of course the irony there is that the line could have been used as a
secondary route to/from Brighton if that visionary Beeching hadn't caused it
to be ripped up back to Uckfield.

It would be a much slower route, without the capacity to take much
traffic from the Brighton Main Line route that serves much more
important destinations.

Given the brighton line did go belly up a few times last year any diversion
route would be better than nothing.

Hmm. I suspect there are a lot more people who would potentially commute
from Uckfield with a better service than there are who would be bouncing along
under the north downs.

The North Downs route wouldn't be electrified for the benefit of
commuters.

Then what, freight? Come off it. There was a discussion recently about how
the 92s arn't much liked so why suddenly would they be used in preference to
a 66 or 70 on the 3rd rail network?

--
Spud

wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:25:41 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 08:39:27 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
Of course the irony there is that the line could have been used as a
secondary route to/from Brighton if that visionary Beeching hadn't caused it
to be ripped up back to Uckfield.

It would be a much slower route, without the capacity to take much
traffic from the Brighton Main Line route that serves much more
important destinations.

Given the brighton line did go belly up a few times last year any diversion
route would be better than nothing.

Hmm. I suspect there are a lot more people who would potentially commute
from Uckfield with a better service than there are who would be bouncing along
under the north downs.

The North Downs route wouldn't be electrified for the benefit of
commuters.

Then what, freight? Come off it. There was a discussion recently about how
the 92s arn't much liked so why suddenly would they be used in preference to
a 66 or 70 on the 3rd rail network?

Who mentioned freight?

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 21:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:25:41 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 08:39:27 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
Of course the irony there is that the line could have been used as a
secondary route to/from Brighton if that visionary Beeching hadn't caused
it
to be ripped up back to Uckfield.

It would be a much slower route, without the capacity to take much
traffic from the Brighton Main Line route that serves much more
important destinations.

Given the brighton line did go belly up a few times last year any diversion
route would be better than nothing.

Hmm. I suspect there are a lot more people who would potentially commute
from Uckfield with a better service than there are who would be bouncing
along
under the north downs.

The North Downs route wouldn't be electrified for the benefit of
commuters.

Then what, freight? Come off it. There was a discussion recently about how
the 92s arn't much liked so why suddenly would they be used in preference to
a 66 or 70 on the 3rd rail network?

Who mentioned freight?

So if it wouldn't be electrified for passengers or freight, then what other
reason would there be? Electrocuting wildlife?

--
Spud

wrote:
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 21:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:25:41 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 08:39:27 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
Of course the irony there is that the line could have been used as a
secondary route to/from Brighton if that visionary Beeching hadn't caused
it
to be ripped up back to Uckfield.

It would be a much slower route, without the capacity to take much
traffic from the Brighton Main Line route that serves much more
important destinations.

Given the brighton line did go belly up a few times last year any diversion
route would be better than nothing.

Hmm. I suspect there are a lot more people who would potentially commute
from Uckfield with a better service than there are who would be bouncing
along
under the north downs.

The North Downs route wouldn't be electrified for the benefit of
commuters.

Then what, freight? Come off it. There was a discussion recently about how
the 92s arn't much liked so why suddenly would they be used in preference to
a 66 or 70 on the 3rd rail network?

Who mentioned freight?

So if it wouldn't be electrified for passengers or freight, then what other
reason would there be? Electrocuting wildlife?

Who said it wouldn't be electrified for passengers?

On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:38:48 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:

Then what, freight? Come off it. There was a discussion recently about how
the 92s arn't much liked so why suddenly would they be used in preference
to
a 66 or 70 on the 3rd rail network?

Who mentioned freight?

So if it wouldn't be electrified for passengers or freight, then what other
reason would there be? Electrocuting wildlife?

Who said it wouldn't be electrified for passengers?

You did:

"The North Downs route wouldn't be electrified for the benefit of commuters"

Or are you playing one of your silly nitpick games where you're going to say
that commuters are a specific type of passenger and you're actually referring
to passengers who arn't commuters? Whoever they may be. Trainspotters perhaps
or people going for a holiday in Reading.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:38:48 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:

Then what, freight? Come off it. There was a discussion recently about how
the 92s arn't much liked so why suddenly would they be used in preference
to
a 66 or 70 on the 3rd rail network?

Who mentioned freight?

So if it wouldn't be electrified for passengers or freight, then what other
reason would there be? Electrocuting wildlife?

Who said it wouldn't be electrified for passengers?

You did:

"The North Downs route wouldn't be electrified for the benefit of commuters"

Or are you playing one of your silly nitpick games where you're going to say
that commuters are a specific type of passenger and you're actually referring
to passengers who arn't commuters? Whoever they may be. Trainspotters perhaps
or people going for a holiday in Reading.

Yes, you fell into the tabloid trap of thinking *all* passengers are
commuters. You also don't seem to realise the services that run on that
line.

https://news.surreycc.gov.uk/2016/05/04/electrifying-north-downs-line-will-boost-economy-by-almost-2-billion/

On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 10:11:18 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Or are you playing one of your silly nitpick games where you're going to say
that commuters are a specific type of passenger and you're actually referring
to passengers who arn't commuters? Whoever they may be. Trainspotters perhaps
or people going for a holiday in Reading.

Yes, you fell into the tabloid trap of thinking *all* passengers are
commuters. You also don't seem to realise the services that run on that
line.

Probably 95% of passengers on the railways are commuters. If commuting doesn't
justify electrification then its highly unlikely any other reason for travel
will.

https://news.surreycc.gov.uk/2016/05...-line-will-boo
t-economy-by-almost-2-billion/

"suggested that the electrification would create around 8,000 jobs and stimulate
£1.9 billion of economic growth."

In other words the figures were plucked out of someones arse just like those
for the heathrow 3rd runway.

"opening up exciting journey opportunities to support jobs and economic growth."

Ie: commuters. Though I'm not sure exciting is a word I'd use in this context
but politicians always over egg the pud and make themselves sound stupid.

--
Spud

In message , at 11:07:59 on Thu, 6 Apr
2017, d remarked:

Yes, you fell into the tabloid trap of thinking *all* passengers are
commuters. You also don't seem to realise the services that run on that
line.

Probably 95% of passengers on the railways are commuters. If commuting doesn't
justify electrification then its highly unlikely any other reason for travel
will.

Not on that line. I have a friend who lives in Shalford and he cycles to
Guildford. People in Dorking will get the direct train, and people in
Reigate will use Redhill.

And the tph on the line, given you also need to change, is unsuitable
for commuters.
--
Roland Perry