"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...


There would be a need for some land take.

There was a wartime spur from the SWML to the DNS northbound at Winchester
Junction, so Shawford needn't be a problem - just run southbound freights
via Chesil but northbound via Winchester City.

I suspect you may not have been near the sites of Chesil, or Kingsworthy, or
Shawford junction recently, the railway would need to resite the entire
A34/A33 flyover junction at Kingsworthy, remove a large proportion of
WInchester's multi story car park and park and ride facilities at Chesil,
and the southern end of the viaduct leads directly to Junction 11 of the
M27, where the railway and a sliproad are under the motorway. I can't be
sure of the formation between the north end of Chesil tunnel through Winnall
and the various trading estates to the north, and I can just imagine the
Nimbys reaction to a regular container train through the watermeadows,
Chesil, and the WInnall housing estates as well.

Thats before you look at the many miles of A34 on the formation, especially
just to the north of Whitchurch, and the southern end of the Newbury bypass.

Paul

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...


Using GE I've answered one of my earlier questions, it is very easy to
reverse the traffic flow at Southampton Container Port so that the trains
arrive and depart from the west. I'm surprised they are not doing it
already.


On the face of it it seems possible, but it might be due to so many of the
drivers being based at Eastleigh. About half of the trains do their crew
changes in the platforms there, indeed they regular cause short notice
platform alterations or delays. Aso, they are able to recess the trains in
the north yard sidings to await their paths and keep them out of the way
during the peaks, apparently there isn't room to do this down at the docks.

Paul

In article ,
(Theo Markettos) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
The route across the Fens would need electrification and then
there is the single track section from Soham to Ely to be
sorted out.

ISTR Virgin XC offering to electrify it in exchange for being able
to run to Stansted. Instead it got lumbered with CT, and now
son-of-Virgin is going to take it over anyway...

Not Ely to Newmarket (via Soham), though. That's in the 'one' franchise.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message
"Paul Scott" wrote:


"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...


Using GE I've answered one of my earlier questions, it is very easy to
reverse the traffic flow at Southampton Container Port so that the trains
arrive and depart from the west. I'm surprised they are not doing it
already.


On the face of it it seems possible, but it might be due to so many of the
drivers being based at Eastleigh. About half of the trains do their crew
changes in the platforms there, indeed they regular cause short notice
platform alterations or delays.

That's a good point I'd forgotten that aspect of the operation.

Aso, they are able to recess the trains in the north yard sidings to await
their paths and keep them out of the way during the peaks, apparently
there isn't room to do this down at the docks.


That's to get them through the Northam Junction and Park Tunnel two track
section. I would have thought it would be easier from the western end, there
seem to be several reception sidings between Redbridge Junction and the
container port proper.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...


On the face of it it seems possible, but it might be due to so many of
the
drivers being based at Eastleigh. About half of the trains do their crew
changes in the platforms there, indeed they regular cause short notice
platform alterations or delays.

That's a good point I'd forgotten that aspect of the operation.


I suspect it would be very difficult to get the workforce to agree to be
based down in Millbrook, after all it must be all of 5 miles away...

Paul

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:23:34 +0000, Michael Hoffman
wrote:

Clearly, as many people as can fit on the train right now are.

And they do on Merseyrail in pretty big numbers, given that driving in
Liverpool isn't half as bad as it is in London.

What I would say is that 4tph is the bare minimum that's going to
attract "turn up and go" pax, and there are many people who, if they
have to go in the drawer for a timetable, will instead pull out their
car keys.

Neil

In message
"Paul Scott" wrote:


"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...


On the face of it it seems possible, but it might be due to so many of
the
drivers being based at Eastleigh. About half of the trains do their crew
changes in the platforms there, indeed they regular cause short notice
platform alterations or delays.

That's a good point I'd forgotten that aspect of the operation.


I suspect it would be very difficult to get the workforce to agree to be
based down in Millbrook, after all it must be all of 5 miles away...


They could always get the train...

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

On 28 Feb 2007 10:31:12 -0800, "Adrian"
wrote:

Agreed, and my arc does nothing for Channel tunnel freight coming from
the CTRL.

Tonbridge - Redhill - Guildford - Reading?

Issues:
1. New flyover (across A23 in Redhill) between Nutfield and Reigate if
reversing in Redhill station is to be avoided.
2. Reigate level crossing (increased freight traffic will cause this
to be closed more often to road traffic, but it's a major road - an
M25 feeder). A new bridge would, I think, require significant land
take - possibly including demolition of my home!
3.Portsmouth line conflict from Shalford junction - Guildford.
4. Can it be connected to the SWML at Farnborough?

Peter.

Agreed, and my arc does nothing for Channel tunnel freight coming from
the CTRL.


First we need some *significant* channel tunnel freight.

There simply is not the traffic for any route - never mind CTRL.

We really can't talk about proposals for domestic freight flows to/
from the tunnel and the need to divert from classic routes or upgrade
corridors until traffic is at a sustainable and significantly higher
level. It is not even doubling or quadrupling present traffic, but
about two orders of magnitude before any infrastructure work is
justifiable. One we have got to the minimum situation of about 10-12
trains per day *each* via CTR1 and CTR2 and CTRL i.e. 30-40 long term
flows of freight every day, through the tunnel, every year, on long
contracts.

Releif routes, junctions, flyoevers, diveunders, catenary, and what
not will never ever get built for one or two trains a day

--
Nick

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:09:35 +0000, Peter
wrote:

On 28 Feb 2007 10:31:12 -0800, "Adrian"
wrote:

Agreed, and my arc does nothing for Channel tunnel freight coming from
the CTRL.

Tonbridge - Redhill - Guildford - Reading?

Issues:
1. New flyover (across A23 in Redhill) between Nutfield and Reigate if
reversing in Redhill station is to be avoided.

This would need to be on a substantial viaduct.

2. Reigate level crossing (increased freight traffic will cause this
to be closed more often to road traffic, but it's a major road - an
M25 feeder). A new bridge would, I think, require significant land
take - possibly including demolition of my home!

What about taking the road beneath the railway? It's quite a rise from
the roundabout to the level crossing.

3.Portsmouth line conflict from Shalford junction - Guildford.

A flyover would sort this out, and avoid conflict between passenger
trains as well.

4. Can it be connected to the SWML at Farnborough?

Pass. My old 1 inch OS Map 169 shows an embankment between the two
from Southbound to Eastbound, south of Farnborough North Station. I
bet most of the spare land of 1959 has been built on nowadays.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org