On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:36:29 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/02/2021 17:27, wrote:
No, that would have been far more disruptive and expensive than building a
new doube-track railway through unpopulated areas.

********. Most of the WCML is in countryside, it would have been easy to
build some extra trackwork in those areas. Thats why I said "where possible".



And what do you do where it isn't possible?

Nothing. This new track would be solely for freight and it would mean that
freight trains can run for further without blocking pax trains than they
do now. It doesn't mean they wouldn't have to stop at all. Through cities
they'd still have to share tracks but thats better than the current situation
and certainly better than spending north of 100 billion on a new pax railway
that will probably makde zero difference to freight times.

On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 21:44:54 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Jeremy Double wrote:
Thinking about their predecessors, the canals, at one point in the 19th
century, the annual dividend on a £100 Birmingham Canal share was £200. If

you were lucky enough to have invested early in the BCN then you were quids
in.

Similarly the original main lines serving the obvious major traffic flows
were very profitable, which led to railway mania, which caused many
marginal or basket case lines to be built. Essentially, main lines built by
about 1860 were very profitable, but most later ones weren't, or not for
long. The GCR was notoriously unprofitable from the beginning, as it was an
expensive way of duplicating the Midland Railway.

Though arguably a faster and more direct route, until it got past nottingham
anyway.

On 09/02/2021 08:28, wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:36:29 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 08/02/2021 17:27, wrote:
No, that would have been far more disruptive and expensive than building a
new doube-track railway through unpopulated areas.

********. Most of the WCML is in countryside, it would have been easy to
build some extra trackwork in those areas. Thats why I said "where possible".



And what do you do where it isn't possible?

Nothing. This new track would be solely for freight and it would mean that
freight trains can run for further without blocking pax trains than they
do now. It doesn't mean they wouldn't have to stop at all. Through cities
they'd still have to share tracks but thats better than the current situation
and certainly better than spending north of 100 billion on a new pax railway
that will probably makde zero difference to freight times.


So the usual half-arsed British answer which achieves none of the
desired objectives and ultimately costs far more than doing the job
properly in the first place.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 08:46:23 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/02/2021 08:28, wrote:
Nothing. This new track would be solely for freight and it would mean that
freight trains can run for further without blocking pax trains than they
do now. It doesn't mean they wouldn't have to stop at all. Through cities
they'd still have to share tracks but thats better than the current situation

and certainly better than spending north of 100 billion on a new pax railway
that will probably makde zero difference to freight times.


So the usual half-arsed British answer which achieves none of the
desired objectives and ultimately costs far more than doing the job
properly in the first place.

So you think spending 100B+ on a railway to shave off 30 mins for pax trains
and as yet unknown time (possibly zero) for freight trains is a good use of
taxpayers money do you?

I'll take the half arsed solution that would probably be 1/10th the cost or
less given the **** stew the economy is now in thanks to the covid hysteria.

On 09/02/2021 10:11, wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 08:46:23 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/02/2021 08:28, wrote:
Nothing. This new track would be solely for freight and it would mean that
freight trains can run for further without blocking pax trains than they
do now. It doesn't mean they wouldn't have to stop at all. Through cities
they'd still have to share tracks but thats better than the current situation

and certainly better than spending north of 100 billion on a new pax railway
that will probably makde zero difference to freight times.


So the usual half-arsed British answer which achieves none of the
desired objectives and ultimately costs far more than doing the job
properly in the first place.

So you think spending 100B+ on a railway to shave off 30 mins for pax trains
and as yet unknown time (possibly zero) for freight trains is a good use of
taxpayers money do you?

It's not about saving time on freight trains but allowing them to run at
all.


I'll take the half arsed solution that would probably be 1/10th the cost or
less given the **** stew the economy is now in thanks to the covid hysteria.



Still in denial Neil?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 10:11:01 on Tue, 9 Feb
2021, remarked:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 08:46:23 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/02/2021 08:28, wrote:
Nothing. This new track would be solely for freight and it would mean that
freight trains can run for further without blocking pax trains than they
do now. It doesn't mean they wouldn't have to stop at all. Through cities
they'd still have to share tracks but thats better than the current
situation

and certainly better than spending north of 100 billion on a new pax railway
that will probably makde zero difference to freight times.


So the usual half-arsed British answer which achieves none of the
desired objectives and ultimately costs far more than doing the job
properly in the first place.

So you think spending 100B+ on a railway to shave off 30 mins for pax trains

It's more than an hour for many destinations in the Midlands.

and as yet unknown time (possibly zero) for freight trains

HS2 isn't for freight trains.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:12:16 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/02/2021 10:11, wrote:
So you think spending 100B+ on a railway to shave off 30 mins for pax trains
and as yet unknown time (possibly zero) for freight trains is a good use of
taxpayers money do you?

It's not about saving time on freight trains but allowing them to run at
all.

And having more tracks won't make any difference to that?


I'll take the half arsed solution that would probably be 1/10th the cost or
less given the **** stew the economy is now in thanks to the covid hysteria.



Still in denial Neil?

Still coming up with non arguments Greem?

On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:38:17 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:11:01 on Tue, 9 Feb
2021, remarked:
So the usual half-arsed British answer which achieves none of the
desired objectives and ultimately costs far more than doing the job
properly in the first place.

So you think spending 100B+ on a railway to shave off 30 mins for pax trains

It's more than an hour for many destinations in the Midlands.

Which ones?

and as yet unknown time (possibly zero) for freight trains

HS2 isn't for freight trains.

*sigh*

On 09/02/2021 11:29, wrote:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:12:16 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 09/02/2021 10:11, wrote:
So you think spending 100B+ on a railway to shave off 30 mins for pax trains
and as yet unknown time (possibly zero) for freight trains is a good use of
taxpayers money do you?

It's not about saving time on freight trains but allowing them to run at
all.

And having more tracks won't make any difference to that?

Not 300 yards of extra track in the countryside leading to more flat
jucnction casuing even more congestion and delay



I'll take the half arsed solution that would probably be 1/10th the cost or
less given the **** stew the economy is now in thanks to the covid hysteria.



Still in denial Neil?

Still coming up with non arguments Greem?



So still in denial, 100,000 deaths is just down to hysteria is it?

NB I stopped worrying about idiots misspelling my name in kindergarten.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 11:31:31 on Tue, 9 Feb
2021, remarked:
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:38:17 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:11:01 on Tue, 9 Feb
2021, remarked:
So the usual half-arsed British answer which achieves none of the
desired objectives and ultimately costs far more than doing the job
properly in the first place.

So you think spending 100B+ on a railway to shave off 30 mins for pax trains

It's more than an hour for many destinations in the Midlands.

Which ones?

Birmingham to Leeds, 1hr 9 mins.

--
Roland Perry