ukclique > railway

Graeme Wall (22.08.2017, 11:43)
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41007784>
Recliner (22.08.2017, 11:46)
Graeme Wall <rail> wrote:
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41007784>


At least, as the editor of the London Evening Standard, he won't have to
find the money for it.
Graeme Wall (22.08.2017, 13:02)
On 22/08/2017 09:46, Recliner wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail> wrote:
>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41007784>

> At least, as the editor of the London Evening Standard, he won't have to
> find the money for it.


He's still preparing the ground for his political comeback.
Recliner (22.08.2017, 15:12)
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:02:14 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail> wrote:

>On 22/08/2017 09:46, Recliner wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail> wrote:
>>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41007784>

>> At least, as the editor of the London Evening Standard, he won't have to
>> find the money for it.

>He's still preparing the ground for his political comeback.


Yes, I wonder if he really thinks he could become PM, after a period
outside parliament? There wouldn't be any other reason to re-enter
parliament, as he's already held the de facto number 2 political job
for six years.

He's making a fortune from his six current jobs, and through the
Standard, probably has quite a lot of political clout. He is also
having a lot more fun than the miserable PM. I don't think he'd want
to have to administer the Brexit process, or take over post-Brexit.

I suppose the one theoretically possible scenario is that the Brexit
process collapses, and there's a new referendum to reverse it. But
that looks highly improbable. And even if it happened, the right wing
of the Tory party wouldn't want an ardent Remainer like him as leader.
Certes (22.08.2017, 15:41)
On 22/08/17 09:43, Graeme Wall wrote:
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41007784>


I'm still not clear whether this would be a true high-speed line of
similar quality and expense to HS2, or just new vinyls on old stock
and a few miles of electrified running where there happen to be wires
for the important London services. I suspect the ambiguity is
deliberate.
Graeme Wall (22.08.2017, 15:47)
On 22/08/2017 13:12, Recliner wrote:
[..]
> process collapses, and there's a new referendum to reverse it. But
> that looks highly improbable. And even if it happened, the right wing
> of the Tory party wouldn't want an ardent Remainer like him as leader.


If it did happen the right wing of the tory party would be impotent,
that's when he would see his chance, untainted by the failure of the
party and riding the back-lash against them and Corbyn's inability to
come up with a coherent policy. Perhaps as leader of a new centrist
party that has been mooted several times in recent months.

FAOD I'm interpreting his scenario, not proposing it as my own.
Graeme Wall (22.08.2017, 15:56)
On 22/08/2017 13:41, Certes wrote:
> On 22/08/17 09:43, Graeme Wall wrote:
> I'm still not clear whether this would be a true high-speed line of
> similar quality and expense to HS2, or just new vinyls on old stock
> and a few miles of electrified running where there happen to be wires
> for the important London services.  I suspect the ambiguity is
> deliberate.


They are talking about "a new line across the Pennines". Can't see what
is unclear about that. Similarly they want HS2b to remodel 4 junctions
to add further connections under their proposals. Estimated cost £7bn
which would pay for an awful lot of Vinyl
Recliner (22.08.2017, 15:56)
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 13:47:06 +0100, Graeme Wall
<rail> wrote:

>On 22/08/2017 13:12, Recliner wrote:
>If it did happen the right wing of the tory party would be impotent,
>that's when he would see his chance, untainted by the failure of the
>party and riding the back-lash against them and Corbyn's inability to
>come up with a coherent policy. Perhaps as leader of a new centrist
>party that has been mooted several times in recent months.
>FAOD I'm interpreting his scenario, not proposing it as my own.


Yes, you could well be right. I suppose he has the best of both
worlds: he's getting seriously rich and having fun, maintaining a high
profile, while keeping a slim chance of coming back as PM.
Recliner (22.08.2017, 15:58)
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 13:41:22 +0100, Certes <none> wrote:

>On 22/08/17 09:43, Graeme Wall wrote:
>I'm still not clear whether this would be a true high-speed line of
>similar quality and expense to HS2, or just new vinyls on old stock
>and a few miles of electrified running where there happen to be wires
>for the important London services. I suspect the ambiguity is
>deliberate.


It'll be closer to the latter, if it ever happens. I think there would
be some new track, bypassing bottlenecks, and electrified throughout.
But it'll be a classic railway, with trains running at no more than
125mph, and averaging much less.
Jim Chisholm (22.08.2017, 18:02)
On 22/08/2017 13:58, Recliner wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 13:41:22 +0100, Certes <none> wrote:
> It'll be closer to the latter, if it ever happens. I think there would
> be some new track, bypassing bottlenecks, and electrified throughout.
> But it'll be a classic railway, with trains running at no more than
> 125mph, and averaging much less.

Given the likely stopping points (Huddersfield to Manchester being a
mere 25 miles) you gain almost nothing by speeds in excess of 125mph (or
even 110).
Why not 'just' build a new 'base' tunnel to a generous loading gauge (7
miles & 500ft AOD)) from nr Mossley to nr Slaithwaite?
Does it need a Morley 'base tunnel' as well?
You could 'divert' services via Normanton to rebuild the Morley one?

I suspect when you consider 'delays and disruption' in reconstruction
new tunnel(s) might be cheaper.
Compare with a Motorway tunnel under the Pennines it would be cheap.

Jim
Recliner (22.08.2017, 18:35)
Jim Chisholm <jim.chisholm> wrote:
[..]
> I suspect when you consider 'delays and disruption' in reconstruction
> new tunnel(s) might be cheaper.
> Compare with a Motorway tunnel under the Pennines it would be cheap.


Yes, railway tunnels are now cheaper and more straightforward than before,
so a new bae tunnel would make sense. It would have made even more sense
for the project to follow straight after Crossrail, so the tunneling skills
and some of the kit could be redeployed.
Arthur Figgis (22.08.2017, 20:53)
On 22/08/2017 13:41, Certes wrote:

> I'm still not clear whether this would be a true high-speed line of
> similar quality and expense to HS2, or just new vinyls on old stock
> and a few miles of electrified running where there happen to be wires
> for the important London services. I suspect the ambiguity is
> deliberate.


ISTM that it is whatever you want it to be.

Crossrail 2 was given the full go-ahead with a billion squillion of
Northeners' money (just like the Garden Bridge they are building), so
this is Crossrail for the North. HS2 will allow rich London bankers to
save 20 min on their commute from their luxury apartments in Birmingham,
so this HS3 too. Transpennine electrification has been scrapped in
favour of the London suburb of Cardiff, the Pacers will stay forever,
and the new trains being built by CAF are really old tube trains which
catch fire, and so this is all those too.

AFAICT, the issues are:

a) there is no-one in charge, at least pending Transport for the North
getting up and running, so it can be all things to all people (except
southern jessies).

b) if there were an actual plan, it would annoy someone; you can get
political unanimity on "London is evil, I went there once and didn't
like it", but not on "the route should serve Bradford but not
Huddersfield".

c) geography. Presumably a Pennine base tunnel or high speed line or
whatever wouldn't have many intermediate stations, so would get
condemned by people not directly served. Newcastle, Carlisle and Hull
will always be able to say "what about us?". Scots will be loudly
moaning that Northern England is south of most of Scotland so shouldn't
even be called the North and anyway they deserve all the shiny things.

d) saying "Northern Poorhouse, tee hee" is cutting-edge political debate.
BevanPrice (22.08.2017, 21:44)
On 22/08/2017 16:02, Jim Chisholm wrote:
> On 22/08/2017 13:58, Recliner wrote:
> Given the likely stopping points (Huddersfield to Manchester being a
> mere 25 miles) you gain almost nothing by speeds in excess of 125mph
> (or even 110). Why not 'just' build a new 'base' tunnel to a generous
> loading gauge (7 miles & 500ft AOD)) from nr Mossley to nr
> Slaithwaite? Does it need a Morley 'base tunnel' as well? You could
> 'divert' services via Normanton to rebuild the Morley one?
> Jim


Not much of the existing Trans Pennine route is suitable for high speed,
and that includes the eastern ends of both Morley & Standege Tunnels.
Long sections of the current route have speed limits no more than 65 to
75 mph, and there are several curved sections with much lower limits;
the local geography would make it difficult (i.e. very expensive) to
create long / continuous / sections suitable for running at 90 mph or
higher.

Huddersfield might well be "omitted" if a "true" HS3 is ever built. I
would expect much of the line between Manchester & Leeds to be mostly in
tunnel, maybe with the route being possibly roughly parallel to the
alignment of the M62.
Graeme Wall (22.08.2017, 23:58)
On 22/08/2017 18:53, Arthur Figgis wrote:
> On 22/08/2017 13:41, Certes wrote:
> ISTM that it is whatever you want it to be.
> Crossrail 2 was given the full go-ahead with a billion squillion of
> Northeners' money (just like the Garden Bridge they are building),


Cancelled last week.
Recliner (23.08.2017, 00:11)
Graeme Wall <rail> wrote:
> On 22/08/2017 18:53, Arthur Figgis wrote:
> Cancelled last week.


Indeed so, and it had never been given the full go-ahead. No actual
building work ever commenced. It's true that a ridiculous amount of money
was wasted on the vanity project, but it wasn't Northerners' money.

And Crossrail 2 will only go ahead if it's largly funded locally, in
advance. Some of the rest of the funding will come from national funds,
largely generated in the south east. In any case, the 'full go-ahead'
certainly hasn't happened yet, and won't for some time.

If HS3 ever happens, it'll also be largely be funded by the southeast,
which will put much more into the project than Northerners will.

Similar Threads