"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

The real cost of moving "dead" rail vehicles is down to Network Rail's
access charges. These are such that even mainline TOCs move locos and
other
vehicles by road because it's cheaper. Stupid or what?

Not entirely true. Shunters, maiinline locomotives and stock unfit to move
at line speed without causing delays are moved by road. Most locomotives and
stock fit to be moved at line speed are still moved by rail - for example
the convoys of slam-door Mark I stock being transported weekly to South
Wales or Immingham for scrapping, or the Class 312 units from Pig's Bay.
Only today a convoy of four class 56s have been moved from Immingham to
Healey Mills for continued storage at that location.

I think further moves will be done by rail. The link between National Rail
and the District Line at Umpinster Depot has been reinstated recently.

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

The real cost of moving "dead" rail vehicles is down to Network Rail's
access charges. These are such that even mainline TOCs move locos and
other
vehicles by road because it's cheaper. Stupid or what?

Not entirely true. Shunters, maiinline locomotives and stock unfit to move
at line speed without causing delays are moved by road. Most locomotives
and
stock fit to be moved at line speed are still moved by rail - for example
the convoys of slam-door Mark I stock being transported weekly to South
Wales or Immingham for scrapping, or the Class 312 units from Pig's Bay.
Only today a convoy of four class 56s have been moved from Immingham to
Healey Mills for continued storage at that location.

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 10:50:13 GMT, Jack Taylor wrote:

Because as trains have become faster and more frequent there are fewer and
fewer paths for moving low-speed stock around the country. Would you
appreciate your 125mph train being delayed whilst a 40mph transfer of London
Underground stock limped into a loop ahead of you?

No, which is why I would very much appreciate the reinstatement of some
of the "slow lines" that have disappeared from 1979 onwards, and the
addition of some new ones where practicable.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9767288.html
(Gatwick Express, Mark 1: 4VEG unit 7910 at London Victoria in 1980)

"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
...

I would very much appreciate the reinstatement of some
of the "slow lines" that have disappeared from 1979 onwards, and the
addition of some new ones where practicable.

Hear, hear! We are repeatedly told that we have a rapidly growing railway,
both in passenger and freight terms, and yet there is complete reluctance to
invest in the infrastructure that will perpetuate the growth (such as the
reinstatement of removed loops, redoubling of singled "slow" lines such as
on the Midland main line and restoration of mothballed diversionary and
secondary routes). The establishment of the SRA has only worsened the
problems - never was the word "strategic" less appropriately used. According
to this month's "Modern Railways" one of the loops on the GWML is the latest
casualty of cutbacks, which will further restrict lower speed movements on
that route.

Unfortunately, since accountants were given carte blanche to take over the
management of British industry we have seen this myopic approach adopted in
many areas, the only figures of interest to these people being the current
year's balance sheet. The sooner that 'broader thinkers' return to the fore
and long-term, joined-up thinking is employed, the better. If the current
mentality had been prominent in the nineteenth century then we wouldn't have
a railway system at all!

Jack Taylor wrote:

Hear, hear! We are repeatedly told that we have a rapidly
growing railway, both in passenger and freight terms, and
yet there is complete reluctance to invest in the
infrastructure that will perpetuate the growth (such as the
reinstatement of removed loops, redoubling of singled
"slow" lines such as on the Midland main line and
restoration of mothballed diversionary and secondary
routes). The establishment of the SRA has only worsened the
problems - never was the word "strategic" less appropriately
used. According to this month's "Modern Railways" one of
the loops on the GWML is the latest casualty of cutbacks,
which will further restrict lower speed movements on that
route.

Agreed. You would think that MML and GNER would see the sense of
setting up a DBFT, like Evergreen II, to rebuild the missing
infrastructure. While the franchise length may not be enough to recoup
the obvious benefits immediately, if they continued to retain the
franchise they would certainly reap the benefits long-term.


Unfortunately, since accountants were given carte blanche
to take over the management of British industry we have
seen this myopic approach adopted in many areas, the only
figures of interest to these people being the current
year's balance sheet. The sooner that 'broader thinkers'
return to the fore and long-term, joined-up thinking is
employed, the better. If the current mentality had been
prominent in the nineteenth century then we wouldn't have
a railway system at all!

Again, agreed. Fortunately the Chiltern management have repeatedly
demonstrated that they are long-term thinkers, and AFAIK the
accountants have been firmly banished to their cubicles over at Laing
Rail, if Evergreen II is any indication of such.

TheOneKEA wrote:

While the franchise length may not be enough to recoup
the obvious benefits immediately, if they continued to retain the
franchise they would certainly reap the benefits long-term.


According to SWT (and I assume the rules are the same for all
franchises):

"at the moment, franchising rules prevent a return on the investment
beyond the end of the franchise period"

Source: SWT E-motion magazine, Issue 9 , Page 27, "Why can't you..."

--
Chris