In message , at 23:19:37 on Tue, 9
Jan 2018, Robin9 remarked:

I'm willing to give Mr. Grayling some slack because he recognises
Network Rail's shortcomings for what they are. I particularly
like the way he is giving the East West Rail project to a separate
company.-

Sort of. What he's said is that for it proceed, a separate privately
funded company needs to own the project. Apparently this counts as
giving his full support.-

Isn't there a billion of state money going in, too?-

Not for the bits which still need doing now (I'm unsighted as to the
amount they've spent on the bits which are by now open).

I have the impression that the project is unofficially split in
two. The realistic part - between Bicester Village Station and
Bletchley - is now going ahead with a large dollop of taxpayers'
money.

If it's costing a billion to re-open a line that's pretty much already
there, that's a disgrace. However, isn't most of that project almost
done now?

The unrealistic part - the new build between Bedford
and Cambridge - seems to be making no real progress, with
neither the route nor finance at all certain.

The finance is "certain", in the sense that (this week anyway) it will
have to be raised privately, and is therefore zero. And the various
promoters of the scheme keep making absurdly over-optimistic noises
about both the benefit and the likelihood of it going ahead.

Not only are they attempting to create a Golden Age That Never Was[3],
but they're papering-over the fact the original promise was Oxford to
Bedford in 43 minutes, now slipped to 71 minutes[1]; and almost all the
Bedford-Cambridge intermediate sources/sinks of traffic[2] are bypassed
in the currently "favoured by Network Rail" scheme C2-2 [4].

Looking at that scheme it does appear to be genuinely the least-worst,
so I don't think the route is "uncertain" should it be built.

[1] Thus longer than the 60 minutes originally promised for Oxford-
Cambridge.
[2] Including missing out central Bedford!
[3] Hat-tip to BevanPrice:
"from Cambridge, you could not arrive in Oxford before 10:29 - with
a 29 minute wait at Bletchley; return departures from Oxford were
(SX) 14:48 then 18:48; an intermediate departure at 17:18 to
Bletchley had no connections beyond Bedford. Likewise From Oxford,
you could not arrive in Cambridge before 10:32. (1963 timetable).
[4] p25 he http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/wp-co...ploads/2015/03
/Central-Section-Engineering-Summary-Report.pdf
--
Roland Perry

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 06:55:42 on Wed, 10 Jan 2018, Recliner
remarked:

Have we been told what the new ministerial responsibilities with the DfT are
yet? I wouldn't assume Johnson has London. Minister for London is usually a
non-transport role, I think.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/j...er-clashes-wit
h-pm-vd3tr8mz5?shareToken=a031a0715b0d99c7de53ada25c736 5a9

That makes it sound more like "Conservative junior Party Chairman for
London" rather than "minister".
--
Roland Perry

Work on the section between the new Bicester junction and
Bletchley hasn't even started yet. The track bed has suffered
serious erosion since being mothballed and in places will require
a complete rebuild. I've walked along part of the route and have
seen small ponds and robust vegetation in what was once the
track bed.

I do agree that a billion is - or should be - way over the top.
I assume one part of that huge sum is to pay for whatever
irrational scheme they come up with for Bedford and that
another part is to pay for accommodating HS2 in the Claydon
Junction area.

I didn't know that 43 minutes was ever planned for Oxford to
Bedford. I'm not sure what the distance is or how many stops
were intended, but Winslow will be the only station between
Bicester Village and Bletchley and the route is well laid out so
fairly high speeds will be possible.

In message , at 11:23:03 on Wed, 10
Jan 2018, Robin9 remarked:

Roland Perry;164657 Wrote:
In message , at 23:19:37 on Tue, 9
Jan 2018, Robin9 remarked:
--
I'm willing to give Mr. Grayling some slack because he recognises
Network Rail's shortcomings for what they are. I particularly
like the way he is giving the East West Rail project to a separate
company.-

Sort of. What he's said is that for it proceed, a separate privately
funded company needs to own the project. Apparently this counts as
giving his full support.-

Isn't there a billion of state money going in, too?-

Not for the bits which still need doing now (I'm unsighted as to the
amount they've spent on the bits which are by now open).-

I have the impression that the project is unofficially split in
two. The realistic part - between Bicester Village Station and
Bletchley - is now going ahead with a large dollop of taxpayers'
money.-

If it's costing a billion to re-open a line that's pretty much already
there, that's a disgrace. However, isn't most of that project almost
done now?
-
The unrealistic part - the new build between Bedford
and Cambridge - seems to be making no real progress, with
neither the route nor finance at all certain.-

The finance is "certain", in the sense that (this week anyway) it will
have to be raised privately, and is therefore zero. And the various
promoters of the scheme keep making absurdly over-optimistic noises
about both the benefit and the likelihood of it going ahead.

Not only are they attempting to create a Golden Age That Never Was[3],
but they're papering-over the fact the original promise was Oxford to
Bedford in 43 minutes, now slipped to 71 minutes

Work on the section between the new Bicester junction and
Bletchley hasn't even started yet. The track bed has suffered
serious erosion since being mothballed and in places will require
a complete rebuild. I've walked along part of the route and have
seen small ponds and robust vegetation in what was once the
track bed.

I do agree that a billion is - or should be - way over the top.
I assume one part of that huge sum is to pay for whatever
irrational scheme they come up with for Bedford and that
another part is to pay for accommodating HS2 in the Claydon
Junction area.

I didn't know that 43 minutes was ever planned for Oxford to
Bedford.

"Cambridge to Oxford being connected by frequent trains in just 60
minutes, and Cambridge to Bedford in just 28 minutes."[3]

So that's Oxford-Bedford in (a stunningly unrealistic) 32 min[4],
actually.

But I'm sure the 43 minutes is from a different (probably maybe later)
such pipedream^H^H^H plan. I would not have picked something as precise
as 43 minutes out of a hat.

I'm not sure what the distance is

That's easy - it's about 58 miles. Thus suspiciously close to 80mph now,
which they presumably thought on the back of an envelope a 100-125mph[1]
electric train could manage.

or how many stops were intended,

Traditionally, these "fastest times" are always cheekily quoted for the
only service each day that's non-stop. But that's marketing people for
you!

but Winslow will be the only station between Bicester Village and
Bletchley and the route is well laid out so fairly high speeds will be
possible.

Another problem has always been that the incessant reports over the
years all ignore many of the practical aspects, such as the route into
Cambridge, or even into Bedford and back out.

But as that now appears to be "settled" as missing Bedford, then via
Sandy and Foxton[2], all they need to do now is explain how it's
financially viable given Bedford, Luton, Stevenage, Hitchin and other
such places en-route have fallen by the wayside, that earlier plans said
it would serve.

[1] https://www.railfuture.org.uk/ox-cam...lfuture-OxCam-
Cambridge-Bedford-Route-Options-2nd-Ed.pdf
[2] Junction just north of Shepreth, actually.
[3] http://www.railtechnologymagazine.co...e-backing-for-
re-opening-of-oxford-cambridge-varsity-route
[4] Suspiciously close to 110mph average.
--
Roland Perry

On 2018\01\09 19:34, Tim Watts wrote:
On 09/01/18 16:17, Recliner wrote:

Osborne sums it up neatly in the Standard:
Â* "You have to hand it to this Prime Minister: she’s given us the
hat-trick
of the worst reshuffle, the worst party conference speech and the worst
manifesto in modern history.

Worst election call?

If they were not facing one of the worst oppositions we’ve ever had, the
Tories would be finished."

Well, that's true...

No it's not. If they were not facing one of the worst oppositions we’ve
ever had, May would be replaced.

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:54:52 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2018\01\09 19:34, Tim Watts wrote:
On 09/01/18 16:17, Recliner wrote:

Osborne sums it up neatly in the Standard:
Â* "You have to hand it to this Prime Minister: she’s given us the
hat-trick
of the worst reshuffle, the worst party conference speech and the worst
manifesto in modern history.

Worst election call?

If they were not facing one of the worst oppositions we’ve ever had, the
Tories would be finished."

Well, that's true...

No it's not. If they were not facing one of the worst oppositions we’ve
ever had, May would be replaced.

She was never replaced as Home Secretary despite being utterly useless in
just about every important sphere - she refused to limit immigration, refused
to introduce proper in/out border checks, cut funding to the border force and
****ed off the police who ended up despising her. Thats some achievment for a
Tory - normally that would be the province of a loony lefty.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
So, despite the quickly-withdrawn mistakenly tweeted announcement of a
move
to party chairman, Chris Grayling survives as Transport Secretary. Given
May's inability to make further large reshuffles, he could be set to stay
in that role for some time.

not sure staying with the poisoned chalice counts as surviving


tim

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 09/01/18 16:17, Recliner wrote:

Osborne sums it up neatly in the Standard:
"You have to hand it to this Prime Minister: she’s given us the
hat-trick
of the worst reshuffle, the worst party conference speech and the worst
manifesto in modern history.

Worst election call?

I'm inclined to go with the awful manifest killing the opportunity

tim

Robin9 wrote:

Roland Perry;164657 Wrote:
In message , at 23:19:37 on Tue, 9
Jan 2018, Robin9 remarked:
--
I'm willing to give Mr. Grayling some slack because he recognises
Network Rail's shortcomings for what they are. I particularly
like the way he is giving the East West Rail project to a separate
company.-

Sort of. What he's said is that for it proceed, a separate privately
funded company needs to own the project. Apparently this counts as
giving his full support.-

Isn't there a billion of state money going in, too?-

Not for the bits which still need doing now (I'm unsighted as to the
amount they've spent on the bits which are by now open).-

I have the impression that the project is unofficially split in
two. The realistic part - between Bicester Village Station and
Bletchley - is now going ahead with a large dollop of taxpayers'
money.-

If it's costing a billion to re-open a line that's pretty much already
there, that's a disgrace. However, isn't most of that project almost
done now?
-
The unrealistic part - the new build between Bedford
and Cambridge - seems to be making no real progress, with
neither the route nor finance at all certain.-

The finance is "certain", in the sense that (this week anyway) it will
have to be raised privately, and is therefore zero. And the various
promoters of the scheme keep making absurdly over-optimistic noises
about both the benefit and the likelihood of it going ahead.

Not only are they attempting to create a Golden Age That Never Was[3],
but they're papering-over the fact the original promise was Oxford to
Bedford in 43 minutes, now slipped to 71 minutes
Roland Perry

Work on the section between the new Bicester junction and
Bletchley hasn't even started yet. The track bed has suffered
serious erosion since being mothballed and in places will require
a complete rebuild. I've walked along part of the route and have
seen small ponds and robust vegetation in what was once the
track bed.

I do agree that a billion is - or should be - way over the top.
I assume one part of that huge sum is to pay for whatever
irrational scheme they come up with for Bedford and that
another part is to pay for accommodating HS2 in the Claydon
Junction area.

The cost also covers upgrading the existing little-used freight line from
Claydon to Aylesbury Vale Parkway, and improving that station. But I think
it'll remain mainly single track.

I overlooked the section between Aylesbury and Claydon
Junction. Because it's still in use, it hasn't been allowed to
deteriorate to the same degree so the cost of restoration
should be manageable .

It's a brilliant piece of road building with no tunnels, no level
crossings, a few bridges, long straight stretches and easy
curves. One immediately north of Quainton Road Station will
to my uneducated eye need a speed limit of about 60 mph,
but after that there are only two slight curves before Calvert
Station.

This YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izplBjuif_M
- sadly with mediocre picture quality - let's us see the potential.