Discussion:
Scotland on Sunday: Secret talks on London bullet train
(too old to reply)
The Voice of EDI
2008-06-01 20:42:19 UTC
Permalink
A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between the
UK and Scottish Governments.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Secret-talks-on-
London.4139887.jp

or

http://tinyurl.com/5d2x88

I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page ad
from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic air
travel.
Joe Curry
2008-06-01 20:57:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 21:42:19 +0100, The Voice of EDI
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
>Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between the
>UK and Scottish Governments.

This quote being spot on:

"The East Coast route is the cheapest for Scotland per mile, as it
could leap from new track to old, just like the first TGV's in France
did. Additionally it could link the major cities of Newcastle, Leeds,
Nottingham etc to London. These means support, back up and MORE
MONEY."
B
2008-06-01 20:58:03 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 1, 9:42 pm, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
> A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
> Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between the
> UK and Scottish Governments.
>
> http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Secret-talks-on-
> London.4139887.jp
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5d2x88
>
> I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page ad
> from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic air
> travel.

Well saying that, the Scotland-London airports pax totals are dipping,
moreso at EDI,
The Voice of EDI
2008-06-02 05:45:19 UTC
Permalink
In article <d0f177f8-1102-4925-8bd5-251ace9700a5@
2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, ***@btopenworld.com says...
> On Jun 1, 9:42 pm, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> > A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
> > Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between the
> > UK and Scottish Governments.
> >
> > http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Secret-talks-on-
> > London.4139887.jp
> >
> > or
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/5d2x88
> >
> > I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page ad
> > from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic air
> > travel.
>
> Well saying that, the Scotland-London airports pax totals are dipping,
> moreso at EDI,
>

That's not a surprise. It's impractical to do day trips by rail between
Glasgow and London; less so between Edinburgh and London.
Joe Curry
2008-06-02 07:06:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 06:45:19 +0100, The Voice of EDI
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote:


>> Well saying that, the Scotland-London airports pax totals are dipping,
>> moreso at EDI,

>That's not a surprise. It's impractical to do day trips by rail between
>Glasgow and London; less so between Edinburgh and London.

Spot on...
t***@aol.com
2008-06-02 13:25:37 UTC
Permalink
On 2 Jun, 06:45, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
> That's not a surprise. It's impractical to do day trips by rail between
> Glasgow and London

Seem to recall when WCML services were electrified to/from Glasgow
Central over 30 years ago there was a promotional £5 Day Return on the
first southbound/last northbound "Electric Scots" for a brief period.
The then new headline journey time was 5 hours.

--
gordon
Graeme Wall
2008-06-02 14:52:03 UTC
Permalink
In message <8314a5fb-e393-4c7c-959e-***@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
"***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:

> On 2 Jun, 06:45, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
> > That's not a surprise. It's impractical to do day trips by rail between
> > Glasgow and London
>
> Seem to recall when WCML services were electrified to/from Glasgow
> Central over 30 years ago there was a promotional £5 Day Return on the
> first southbound/last northbound "Electric Scots" for a brief period.
> The then new headline journey time was 5 hours.
>

1968, it's the only time I've done London-Glasgow by train. At that time I
was earning £12/10/0 a week. IIRC the return journey was 5 and a half hours.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Peter Masson
2008-06-02 15:38:00 UTC
Permalink
"Graeme Wall" <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote
>
> 1968, it's the only time I've done London-Glasgow by train. At that time
I
> was earning £12/10/0 a week. IIRC the return journey was 5 and a half
hours.
>
1968 the wires only went as far as Crewe (actually Weaver Junction). Euston
to Glasgow took 6.5 hours, or a bit more.
1970 trains were booked for a pair of 50s between Crewe and Glasgow, and
journey time from Euston was reduced to 6 hours, or a few minutes less.
1974 the wires were up through to Glasgow, and the Royal Scot was booked in
5 hours, with only one intermediate stop at Preston. On one occasion when I
travelled on it during the 1970s it got to Glasgow 22 hours late, having
been dragged from Crewe to Preston via Denton, because of a freight
collision at Weaver Junction.

Peter
Joe Curry
2008-06-02 16:22:36 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:38:00 +0100, "Peter Masson"
<***@privacy.net> wrote:


>1968 the wires only went as far as Crewe (actually Weaver Junction). Euston
>to Glasgow took 6.5 hours, or a bit more.
>1970 trains were booked for a pair of 50s between Crewe and Glasgow, and
>journey time from Euston was reduced to 6 hours, or a few minutes less.
>1974 the wires were up through to Glasgow, and the Royal Scot was booked in
>5 hours, with only one intermediate stop at Preston. On one occasion when I
>travelled on it during the 1970s it got to Glasgow 22 hours late, having
>been dragged from Crewe to Preston via Denton, because of a freight
>collision at Weaver Junction.


Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the ECML quicker pre-electrification?
Peter Masson
2008-06-02 16:55:15 UTC
Permalink
"Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:38:00 +0100, "Peter Masson"
> <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >1968 the wires only went as far as Crewe (actually Weaver Junction).
Euston
> >to Glasgow took 6.5 hours, or a bit more.
> >1970 trains were booked for a pair of 50s between Crewe and Glasgow, and
> >journey time from Euston was reduced to 6 hours, or a few minutes less.
> >1974 the wires were up through to Glasgow, and the Royal Scot was booked
in
> >5 hours, with only one intermediate stop at Preston. On one occasion when
I
> >travelled on it during the 1970s it got to Glasgow 22 hours late, having
> >been dragged from Crewe to Preston via Denton, because of a freight
> >collision at Weaver Junction.
>
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the ECML quicker pre-electrification?
>
It was only between 1974 and the introduction of HSTs that was quicker to go
from Euston to Glasgow via the WCML than from Kings Cross to Edinburgh via
the ECML. However, London to Glasgow has almost always been quicker via the
WCML than via the ECML and Edinburgh.

Sorry - correction to my previous post (sticky keyboard) - the time I
travelled on the Royal Scot via Denton it was 2 hours late, not 22.

Peter
B
2008-06-02 19:29:32 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 2, 5:55 pm, "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:***@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:38:00 +0100, "Peter Masson"
> > <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > >1968 the wires only went as far as Crewe (actually Weaver Junction).
> Euston
> > >to Glasgow took 6.5 hours, or a bit more.
> > >1970 trains were booked for a pair of 50s between Crewe and Glasgow, and
> > >journey time from Euston was reduced to 6 hours, or a few minutes less.
> > >1974 the wires were up through to Glasgow, and the Royal Scot was booked
> in
> > >5 hours, with only one intermediate stop at Preston. On one occasion when
> I
> > >travelled on it during the 1970s it got to Glasgow 22 hours late, having
> > >been dragged from Crewe to Preston via Denton, because of a freight
> > >collision at Weaver Junction.
>
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the ECML quicker pre-electrification?
>
> It was only between 1974 and the introduction of HSTs that was quicker to go
> from Euston to Glasgow via the WCML than from Kings Cross to Edinburgh via
> the ECML. However, London to Glasgow has almost always been quicker via the
> WCML than via the ECML and Edinburgh.
>
> Sorry - correction to my previous post (sticky keyboard) - the time I
> travelled on the Royal Scot via Denton it was 2 hours late, not 22.

FU's restored, please be aware guys that the troll is asking inane
questions in a pathetic attempt at stopping replies to aaug.
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 09:45:57 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:29:32 -0700 (PDT), B <***@btopenworld.com>
wrote:


>FU's restored, please be aware guys that the troll is asking inane
>questions in a pathetic attempt at stopping replies to aaug.

We forgive you....
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 09:59:05 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:55:15 +0100, "Peter Masson"
<***@privacy.net> wrote:


>> Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the ECML quicker pre-electrification?

>It was only between 1974 and the introduction of HSTs that was quicker to go
>from Euston to Glasgow via the WCML than from Kings Cross to Edinburgh via
>the ECML. However, London to Glasgow has almost always been quicker via the
>WCML than via the ECML and Edinburgh.

Thanks for that..what are the current Kings X - Edinburgh and Euston -
Glasgow?
Peter Masson
2008-06-03 10:54:14 UTC
Permalink
"Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:55:15 +0100, "Peter Masson"
> <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the ECML quicker pre-electrification?
>
> >It was only between 1974 and the introduction of HSTs that was quicker to
go
> >from Euston to Glasgow via the WCML than from Kings Cross to Edinburgh
via
> >the ECML. However, London to Glasgow has almost always been quicker via
the
> >WCML than via the ECML and Edinburgh.
>
> Thanks for that..what are the current Kings X - Edinburgh and Euston -
> Glasgow?

Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m

Peter
Jim Mason
2008-06-03 10:59:25 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@bt.com>, peter.masson1
@privacy.net says...
>
> "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:55:15 +0100, "Peter Masson"
> > <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the ECML quicker pre-electrification?
> >
> > >It was only between 1974 and the introduction of HSTs that was quicker to
> go
> > >from Euston to Glasgow via the WCML than from Kings Cross to Edinburgh
> via
> > >the ECML. However, London to Glasgow has almost always been quicker via
> the
> > >WCML than via the ECML and Edinburgh.
> >
> > Thanks for that..what are the current Kings X - Edinburgh and Euston -
> > Glasgow?
>
> Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
> Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
> Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m

I never realised that the timings were so close these days. Are there still
`improvements` to show on the WCML?
i***@aol.com
2008-06-03 11:10:49 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 11:59 am, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <***@bt.com>, peter.masson1
> @privacy.net says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:***@4ax.com...
> > > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:55:15 +0100, "Peter Masson"
> > > <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the ECML quicker pre-electrification?
>
> > > >It was only between 1974 and the introduction of HSTs that was quicker to
> > go
> > > >from Euston to Glasgow via the WCML than from Kings Cross to Edinburgh
> > via
> > > >the ECML. However, London to Glasgow has almost always been quicker via
> > the
> > > >WCML than via the ECML and Edinburgh.
>
> > > Thanks for that..what are the current Kings X - Edinburgh and Euston -
> > > Glasgow?
>
> > Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
> > Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
> > Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m
>
> I never realised that the timings were so close these days. Are there still
> `improvements` to show on the WCML?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
Jim Mason
2008-06-03 11:19:13 UTC
Permalink
In article <87ee3dcd-b505-4938-b0e4-8875b17bc8a4@
8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...
> On Jun 3, 11:59 am, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > In article <***@bt.com>, peter.masson1
> > @privacy.net says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:***@4ax.com...
> > > > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:55:15 +0100, "Peter Masson"
> > > > <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the ECML quicker pre-electrification?
> >
> > > > >It was only between 1974 and the introduction of HSTs that was quicker to
> > > go
> > > > >from Euston to Glasgow via the WCML than from Kings Cross to Edinburgh
> > > via
> > > > >the ECML. However, London to Glasgow has almost always been quicker via
> > > the
> > > > >WCML than via the ECML and Edinburgh.
> >
> > > > Thanks for that..what are the current Kings X - Edinburgh and Euston -
> > > > Glasgow?
> >
> > > Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
> > > Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
> > > Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m
> >
> > I never realised that the timings were so close these days. Are there still
> > `improvements` to show on the WCML?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>

I assume that will be timed to arrive at Euston to allow a large part of
the day in London?
GKirk
2008-06-03 11:48:31 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Jun, 12:19, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <87ee3dcd-b505-4938-b0e4-8875b17bc8a4@
> 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 11:59 am, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > In article <***@bt.com>, peter.masson1
> > > @privacy.net says...
>
> > > > "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > >news:***@4ax.com...
> > > > > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:55:15 +0100, "Peter Masson"
> > > > > <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the ECML quicker pre-electrification?
>
> > > > > >It was only between 1974 and the introduction of HSTs that was quicker to
> > > > go
> > > > > >from Euston to Glasgow via the WCML than from Kings Cross to Edinburgh
> > > > via
> > > > > >the ECML. However, London to Glasgow has almost always been quicker via
> > > > the
> > > > > >WCML than via the ECML and Edinburgh.
>
> > > > > Thanks for that..what are the current Kings X - Edinburgh and Euston -
> > > > > Glasgow?
>
> > > > Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
> > > > Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
> > > > Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m
>
> > > I never realised that the timings were so close these days. Are there still
> > > `improvements` to show on the WCML?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
> > hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>
> I assume that will be timed to arrive at Euston to allow a large part of
> the day in London?

No, leaves London around 4pm
Jim Mason
2008-06-03 12:00:33 UTC
Permalink
In article <2475393e-5994-4880-adab-acd918cd0574
@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...
> On 3 Jun, 12:19, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <87ee3dcd-b505-4938-b0e4-8875b17bc8a4@
> > 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 3, 11:59 am, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > In article <***@bt.com>, peter.masson1
> > > > @privacy.net says...
> >
> > > > > "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > >news:***@4ax.com...
> > > > > > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:55:15 +0100, "Peter Masson"
> > > > > > <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the ECML quicker pre-electrification?
> >
> > > > > > >It was only between 1974 and the introduction of HSTs that was quicker to
> > > > > go
> > > > > > >from Euston to Glasgow via the WCML than from Kings Cross to Edinburgh
> > > > > via
> > > > > > >the ECML. However, London to Glasgow has almost always been quicker via
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >WCML than via the ECML and Edinburgh.
> >
> > > > > > Thanks for that..what are the current Kings X - Edinburgh and Euston -
> > > > > > Glasgow?
> >
> > > > > Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
> > > > > Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
> > > > > Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m
> >
> > > > I never realised that the timings were so close these days. Are there still
> > > > `improvements` to show on the WCML?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
> > > hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
> >
> > I assume that will be timed to arrive at Euston to allow a large part of
> > the day in London?
>
> No, leaves London around 4pm

In my favour - I had just wakened up after night shift ;-)
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 16:08:16 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:00:33 +0100, Jim Mason
<***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:


>> No, leaves London around 4pm

>In my favour - I had just wakened up after night shift ;-)

Your office is in Grangemouth?
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 16:06:36 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 04:48:31 -0700 (PDT), GKirk
<***@gmail.com> wrote:


>> I assume that will be timed to arrive at Euston to allow a large part of
>> the day in London?

>No, leaves London around 4pm

Arriving a couple of hours before closing time? };-)
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 16:03:56 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:19:13 +0100, Jim Mason
<***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:


>> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
>> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.

>I assume that will be timed to arrive at Euston to allow a large part of
>the day in London?

Still trying to figure why Preston? Crew change perhaps?
Mister Niceguy
2008-06-03 20:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:***@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:19:13 +0100, Jim Mason
> <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
>>> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>
>>I assume that will be timed to arrive at Euston to allow a large part of
>>the day in London?
>
> Still trying to figure why Preston? Crew change perhaps?
>
>

Probably. That's usually where Scotts accents are replaced by Brummie
accents when I go down on that line. Also allows for connections to the
big NW cities.
B
2008-06-03 20:30:13 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 9:25 pm, Mister Niceguy <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote innews:***@4ax.com:
>
> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:19:13 +0100, Jim Mason
> > <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
> >>> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>
> >>I assume that will be timed to arrive at Euston to allow a large part of
> >>the day in London?
>
> > Still trying to figure why Preston? Crew change perhaps?
>
> Probably.  That's usually where Scotts accents are replaced by Brummie
> accents when I go down on that line.  Also allows for connections to the
> big NW cities.

Scotts. Is that porridge oats or what?
®i©ardo
2008-06-03 20:33:30 UTC
Permalink
B wrote:
> On Jun 3, 9:25 pm, Mister Niceguy <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote innews:***@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:19:13 +0100, Jim Mason
>>> <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
>>>>> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>>>> I assume that will be timed to arrive at Euston to allow a large part of
>>>> the day in London?
>>> Still trying to figure why Preston? Crew change perhaps?
>> Probably. That's usually where Scotts accents are replaced by Brummie
>> accents when I go down on that line. Also allows for connections to the
>> big NW cities.
>
> Scotts. Is that porridge oats or what?

Porage, please!

--
Moving things in still pictures!
Mister Niceguy
2008-06-03 20:36:22 UTC
Permalink
B <***@btopenworld.com> wrote in
news:85233d0f-872c-4423-8cff-***@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 3, 9:25 pm, Mister Niceguy <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>> innews:aoqa44tkqrj73na2mqvecpta9ls
> ***@4ax.com:
>>
>> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:19:13 +0100, Jim Mason
>> > <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >>> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in
>> >>> 4 hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>>
>> >>I assume that will be timed to arrive at Euston to allow a large
>> >>part of
>
>> >>the day in London?
>>
>> > Still trying to figure why Preston? Crew change perhaps?
>>
>> Probably.  That's usually where Scotts accents are replaced by
>> Brummie accents when I go down on that line.  Also allows for
>> connections to the
>
>> big NW cities.
>
> Scotts. Is that porridge oats or what?

I thought that was Scots?
Cats
2008-06-03 13:53:00 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 12:10 pm, ***@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.

Why on earth did they pick Preston?
Roland Perry
2008-06-03 13:55:11 UTC
Permalink
In message
<1f53701e-f600-4026-8381-***@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, at
06:53:00 on Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Cats <***@uk2.net> remarked:
>> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
>> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>
>Why on earth did they pick Preston?

Because it's half way (crew change I expect).
--
Roland Perry
GKirk
2008-06-03 14:21:43 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Jun, 14:55, Roland Perry <***@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <1f53701e-f600-4026-8381-***@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, at
> 06:53:00 on Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Cats <***@uk2.net> remarked:
>
> >> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
> >> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>
> >Why on earth did they pick Preston?
>
> Because it's half way (crew change I expect).
> --
> Roland Perry

Combination of that, connections to Manchester and the vast number of
people who travel from Preston to London. There must be around 25
trains a day to Euston
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 16:11:32 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 07:21:43 -0700 (PDT), GKirk
<***@gmail.com> wrote:


>> Because it's half way (crew change I expect).

>> Roland Perry

>Combination of that, connections to Manchester and the vast number of
>people who travel from Preston to London. There must be around 25
>trains a day to Euston

Is Preston really that busy or is it an interchange?
GKirk
2008-06-03 17:03:27 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Jun, 17:11, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 07:21:43 -0700 (PDT), GKirk
>
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Because it's half way (crew change I expect).
> >> Roland Perry
> >Combination of that, connections to Manchester and the vast number of
> >people who travel from Preston to London. There must be around 25
> >trains a day to Euston
>
> Is Preston really that busy or is it an interchange?

Bit of both. Connections are available from stations from Barrow,
Blackpool, Ormskirk, Colne, stations to Manchester, stations from
Liverpool. Oh dear, I think I'm on the train to Preston far too
often. Oh well, down that way again on friday.

Preston is where the Scottish crews get off, and either Preston/London
crews get on.
B
2008-06-03 17:24:37 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 6:03 pm, GKirk <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Jun, 17:11, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 07:21:43 -0700 (PDT), GKirk
>
> > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Because it's half way (crew change I expect).
> > >> Roland Perry
> > >Combination of that, connections to Manchester and the vast number of
> > >people who travel from Preston to London. There must be around 25
> > >trains a day to Euston
>
> > Is Preston really that busy or is it an interchange?
>
> Bit of both. Connections are available from stations from Barrow,
> Blackpool, Ormskirk, Colne, stations to Manchester, stations from
> Liverpool.  Oh dear, I think I'm on the train to Preston far too
> often. Oh well, down that way again on friday.
>
> Preston is where the Scottish crews get off, and either Preston/London
> crews get on.

And drive another train back to their origin,
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 18:44:41 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:24:37 -0700 (PDT), B <***@btopenworld.com>
wrote:


>> Preston is where the Scottish crews get off, and either Preston/London
>> crews get on.

>And drive another train back to their origin,

So timings are affected through 'operational' reasons? Crews from both
North and South could learn the various 'roads' surely?
Mister Niceguy
2008-06-03 20:29:11 UTC
Permalink
B <***@btopenworld.com> wrote in news:0aa8e73e-5d1d-46a4-a5da-
***@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 3, 6:03 pm, GKirk <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3 Jun, 17:11, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 07:21:43 -0700 (PDT), GKirk
>>
>> > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> Because it's half way (crew change I expect).
>> > >> Roland Perry
>> > >Combination of that, connections to Manchester and the vast number of
>> > >people who travel from Preston to London. There must be around 25
>> > >trains a day to Euston
>>
>> > Is Preston really that busy or is it an interchange?
>>
>> Bit of both. Connections are available from stations from Barrow,
>> Blackpool, Ormskirk, Colne, stations to Manchester, stations from
>> Liverpool.  Oh dear, I think I'm on the train to Preston far too
>> often. Oh well, down that way again on friday.
>>
>> Preston is where the Scottish crews get off, and either Preston/London
>> crews get on.
>
> And drive another train back to their origin,

Yes. Last time I was on that line the train was late (plodded through
Lockerbie area) and we were given some unbelievable reason as to why the
train wasn't going any further than Preston. We transfered onto a train
which had similarly terminated its northbound service. Absolutely nothing
to do with crew logistics, of course.
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 18:41:55 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:03:27 -0700 (PDT), GKirk
<***@gmail.com> wrote:


>> Is Preston really that busy or is it an interchange?

>Bit of both. Connections are available from stations from Barrow,
>Blackpool, Ormskirk, Colne, stations to Manchester, stations from
>Liverpool. Oh dear, I think I'm on the train to Preston far too
>often. Oh well, down that way again on friday.

>Preston is where the Scottish crews get off, and either Preston/London
>crews get on.

I wonder what timings could be achieved without that 'tech' stop?
Peter Masson
2008-06-03 19:36:12 UTC
Permalink
"Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>
> I wonder what timings could be achieved without that 'tech' stop?
>
Permitted speed through Preston is low, so a 3 minute stop probably only
costs 4 minutes in end-to-end time. Allowing for booking-on time, personal
needs break, etc, the driver probably could not do a Euston - Glasgow return
trip in one shift. Omitting the Preston stop would also depend on whether
the train could be filled with Euston - Glasgow passengers, whereas with the
stop seats can be used either for end-to-end passengers, or for Euston to
Preston plus Preston to Glasgow passengers.

Peter
B
2008-06-03 19:43:40 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 8:36 pm, "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>
> > I wonder what timings could be achieved without that 'tech' stop?
>
> Permitted speed through Preston is low, so a 3 minute stop probably only
> costs 4 minutes in end-to-end time. Allowing for booking-on time, personal
> needs break, etc, the driver probably could not do a Euston - Glasgow return
> trip in one shift. Omitting the Preston stop would also depend on whether
> the train could be filled with Euston - Glasgow passengers, whereas with the
> stop seats can be used either for end-to-end passengers, or for Euston to
> Preston plus Preston to Glasgow passengers.

"Personal needs break" - I like it ;-)
GKirk
2008-06-03 19:45:13 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Jun, 20:36, "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>
> > I wonder what timings could be achieved without that 'tech' stop?
>
> Permitted speed through Preston is low, so a 3 minute stop probably only
> costs 4 minutes in end-to-end time. Allowing for booking-on time, personal
> needs break, etc, the driver probably could not do a Euston - Glasgow return
> trip in one shift. Omitting the Preston stop would also depend on whether
> the train could be filled with Euston - Glasgow passengers, whereas with the
> stop seats can be used either for end-to-end passengers, or for Euston to
> Preston plus Preston to Glasgow passengers.
>
> Peter

Yes, but one of the trains in the new timetable is omitting the
Carlisle stop, where speeds are just as low. You would have thought
that Euston-Glasgow, stopping at Preston and Carlisle would have been
sensible enough, after all, they do it about 3 or 4 times a day at the
moment
Mister Niceguy
2008-06-03 20:30:35 UTC
Permalink
GKirk <***@gmail.com> wrote in
news:8a731d5e-019c-4f72-b2ee-***@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com:

> On 3 Jun, 20:36, "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>> "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>>
>> > I wonder what timings could be achieved without that 'tech' stop?
>>
>> Permitted speed through Preston is low, so a 3 minute stop probably
>> only costs 4 minutes in end-to-end time. Allowing for booking-on
>> time, personal needs break, etc, the driver probably could not do a
>> Euston - Glasgow return trip in one shift. Omitting the Preston stop
>> would also depend on whether the train could be filled with Euston -
>> Glasgow passengers, whereas with the stop seats can be used either
>> for end-to-end passengers, or for Euston to Preston plus Preston to
>> Glasgow passengers.
>>
>> Peter
>
> Yes, but one of the trains in the new timetable is omitting the
> Carlisle stop, where speeds are just as low. You would have thought
> that Euston-Glasgow, stopping at Preston and Carlisle would have been
> sensible enough, after all, they do it about 3 or 4 times a day at the
> moment
>

Whassup - your local stop by any chance? ;-)
Peter Masson
2008-06-03 20:54:07 UTC
Permalink
"GKirk" <***@gmail.com> wrote
>
> Yes, but one of the trains in the new timetable is omitting the
> Carlisle stop, where speeds are just as low. You would have thought
> that Euston-Glasgow, stopping at Preston and Carlisle would have been
> sensible enough, after all, they do it about 3 or 4 times a day at the
> moment

Before 1966 the Royal Scot made one intermediate stop, at Carlisle. I
suspect that was a lodging turn - the driver would stay in Carlisle
overnight and make the return trip the next day. When one stop trains were
resumed in 1974 the intermediate stop was at Preston, and drivers would do a
Euston - Preston return, or a Glasgow - Preston return, trip in one shift.

Peter
B
2008-06-03 21:13:47 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 9:54 pm, "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> "GKirk" <***@gmail.com> wrote
>
>
>
> > Yes, but one of the trains in the new timetable is omitting the
> > Carlisle stop, where speeds are just as low. You would have thought
> > that Euston-Glasgow, stopping at Preston and Carlisle would have been
> > sensible enough, after all, they do it about 3 or 4 times a day at the
> > moment
>
> Before 1966 the Royal Scot made one intermediate stop, at Carlisle. I
> suspect that was a lodging turn - the driver would stay in Carlisle
> overnight and make the return trip the next day. When one stop trains were
> resumed in 1974 the intermediate stop was at Preston, and drivers would do a
> Euston - Preston return, or a Glasgow - Preston return, trip in one shift.

100% correct.
Cats
2008-06-03 17:06:09 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 3:21 pm, GKirk <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Jun, 14:55, Roland Perry <***@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In message
> > <1f53701e-f600-4026-8381-***@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, at
> > 06:53:00 on Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Cats <***@uk2.net> remarked:
>
> > >> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
> > >> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>
> > >Why on earth did they pick Preston?
>
> > Because it's half way (crew change I expect).

>
> Combination of that, connections to Manchester and the vast number of
> people who travel from Preston to London. There must be around 25
> trains a day to Euston

I can understand people wanting to get out of Preston...
GKirk
2008-06-03 17:27:42 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Jun, 18:06, Cats <***@uk2.net> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 3:21 pm, GKirk <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3 Jun, 14:55, Roland Perry <***@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > In message
> > > <1f53701e-f600-4026-8381-***@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, at
> > > 06:53:00 on Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Cats <***@uk2.net> remarked:
>
> > > >> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
> > > >> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>
> > > >Why on earth did they pick Preston?
>
> > > Because it's half way (crew change I expect).
>
> > Combination of that, connections to Manchester and the vast number of
> > people who travel from Preston to London. There must be around 25
> > trains a day to Euston
>
> I can understand people wanting to get out of Preston...

Dunno, very nice lapdancing bar down there :-)
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 18:46:07 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:27:42 -0700 (PDT), GKirk
<***@gmail.com> wrote:


>> I can understand people wanting to get out of Preston...

>Dunno, very nice lapdancing bar down there :-)

Whatever? :-)
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 18:45:28 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:06:09 -0700 (PDT), Cats <***@uk2.net>
wrote:


>> Combination of that, connections to Manchester and the vast number of
>> people who travel from Preston to London. There must be around 25
>> trains a day to Euston

>I can understand people wanting to get out of Preston...

Transferring elsewhere?
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 16:10:12 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:55:11 +0100, Roland Perry <***@perry.co.uk>
wrote:


>>Why on earth did they pick Preston?

>Because it's half way (crew change I expect).

I remember the days when crews lodged at either end..
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 16:08:54 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 06:53:00 -0700 (PDT), Cats <***@uk2.net>
wrote:

>On Jun 3, 12:10 pm, ***@aol.com wrote:
><snip>
>> From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
>> hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.

>Why on earth did they pick Preston?

Strange to say the least..
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 16:02:13 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 04:10:49 -0700 (PDT), ***@aol.com wrote:


>From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
>hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.

Why Preston? :-)
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 15:07:46 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:59:25 +0100, Jim Mason
<***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:


>> Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
>> Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
>> Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m

>I never realised that the timings were so close these days. Are there still
>`improvements` to show on the WCML?

Pity the SNP goverment cancelled the Edinburgh Airport Rail link.
Kings X - Edinburgh - Glasgow in under 4 hrs 30 minutes?
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 16:00:46 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:54:14 +0100, "Peter Masson"
<***@privacy.net> wrote:


>Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
>Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
>Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m

Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve times
on Kings X - Edinburgh?
Cats
2008-06-03 18:10:17 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 5:00 pm, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:54:14 +0100, "Peter Masson"
>
> <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> >Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
> >Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
> >Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m
>
> Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve times
> on Kings X - Edinburgh?

And it will never happen. It's far too expensive - if they are going
to spend mega-bucks on the ECML there are plenty of more worthy
candidates, such as the Welwyn viaduct.
Jim Mason
2008-06-03 18:26:42 UTC
Permalink
In article <4a723f6e-f553-4925-91d0-
***@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, ***@uk2.net says...
> On Jun 3, 5:00 pm, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:54:14 +0100, "Peter Masson"
> >
> > <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> > >Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
> > >Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
> > >Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m
> >
> > Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve times
> > on Kings X - Edinburgh?
>
> And it will never happen. It's far too expensive - if they are going
> to spend mega-bucks on the ECML there are plenty of more worthy
> candidates, such as the Welwyn viaduct.

The ECML is as fast as it is likely to get IMO. The speed gains are more
likely to happen on the WCML.
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 18:40:25 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:26:42 +0100, Jim Mason
<***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:


>> > Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve times
>> > on Kings X - Edinburgh?

>> And it will never happen. It's far too expensive - if they are going
>> to spend mega-bucks on the ECML there are plenty of more worthy
>> candidates, such as the Welwyn viaduct.

>The ECML is as fast as it is likely to get IMO. The speed gains are more
>likely to happen on the WCML.

A matter of opinion surely? The ECML does not have the geographical
challenges of the WCML.?
Peter Masson
2008-06-03 19:39:02 UTC
Permalink
"Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:26:42 +0100, Jim Mason
> <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> > Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve times
> >> > on Kings X - Edinburgh?
>
> >> And it will never happen. It's far too expensive - if they are going
> >> to spend mega-bucks on the ECML there are plenty of more worthy
> >> candidates, such as the Welwyn viaduct.
>
> >The ECML is as fast as it is likely to get IMO. The speed gains are more
> >likely to happen on the WCML.
>
> A matter of opinion surely? The ECML does not have the geographical
> challenges of the WCML.?
>
The best way of reducing journey times on the ECML would be to increase the
permitted speed to 140 or even 155 mph where possible south of Darlington.
This would benefit London to Leeds and Newcastle passengers, as well as
those travelling through to Scotland. Increasing permitted speeds north of
Newcastle would benefit far fewer passengers.

Peter
Mister Niceguy
2008-06-03 20:34:26 UTC
Permalink
"Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote in
news:***@bt.com:

>
> "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:26:42 +0100, Jim Mason
>> <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> > Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve
>> >> > times on Kings X - Edinburgh?
>>
>> >> And it will never happen. It's far too expensive - if they are
>> >> going to spend mega-bucks on the ECML there are plenty of more
>> >> worthy candidates, such as the Welwyn viaduct.
>>
>> >The ECML is as fast as it is likely to get IMO. The speed gains are
>> >more likely to happen on the WCML.
>>
>> A matter of opinion surely? The ECML does not have the geographical
>> challenges of the WCML.?
>>
> The best way of reducing journey times on the ECML would be to
> increase the permitted speed to 140 or even 155 mph where possible
> south of Darlington. This would benefit London to Leeds and Newcastle
> passengers, as well as those travelling through to Scotland.
> Increasing permitted speeds north of Newcastle would benefit far fewer
> passengers.

That's already the slowest section anyway. York is about half way,
distance-wise, between Edinburgh and London but much closer to London time-
wise.

But if rail is to challenge air travel, increasing speeds south of
Darlington won't help a lot. 15-30 mins off Darlington-London is a small
gain. 1 hour off Edinburgh-London makes a large dent.
Cats
2008-06-03 20:21:07 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 7:26 pm, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <4a723f6e-f553-4925-91d0-
> ***@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, ***@uk2.net says...
>
> > On Jun 3, 5:00 pm, Joe Curry <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:54:14 +0100, "Peter Masson"
>
> > > <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> > > >Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
> > > >Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
> > > >Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m
>
> > > Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve times
> > > on Kings X - Edinburgh?
>
> > And it will never happen.  It's far too expensive - if they are going
> > to spend mega-bucks on the ECML there are plenty of more worthy
> > candidates, such as the Welwyn viaduct.
>
> The ECML is as fast as it is likely to get IMO. The speed gains are more
> likely to happen on the WCML.

AFAIK doubling the Welwyn viaduct is about increasing capacity &
resiliance, not faster timings.
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 18:38:22 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:10:17 -0700 (PDT), Cats <***@uk2.net>
wrote:


>> Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve times
>> on Kings X - Edinburgh?

>And it will never happen. It's far too expensive

A cheaper proposition than the bullet train?
Graeme Wall
2008-06-02 16:48:51 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@bt.com>
"Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:

>
> "Graeme Wall" <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > 1968, it's the only time I've done London-Glasgow by train. At that time
> > I was earning £12/10/0 a week. IIRC the return journey was 5 and a half
> > hours.
> >
> 1968 the wires only went as far as Crewe (actually Weaver Junction). Euston
> to Glasgow took 6.5 hours, or a bit more.

Memory going, I remember seeing the 5 hour claims on my first trip to Euston,
which was in '68, and conflated that with actually doing the trip then.

> 1970 trains were booked for a pair of 50s between Crewe and Glasgow, and
> journey time from Euston was reduced to 6 hours, or a few minutes less.
> 1974 the wires were up through to Glasgow, and the Royal Scot was booked in
> 5 hours, with only one intermediate stop at Preston. On one occasion when I
> travelled on it during the 1970s it got to Glasgow 22 hours late, having
> been dragged from Crewe to Preston via Denton, because of a freight
> collision at Weaver Junction.
>

Luckily I avoided that one. If it was '74 I was earning a bit more than
12/10/0

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Peter Masson
2008-06-02 17:03:19 UTC
Permalink
"Graeme Wall" <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fa737a94f%***@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> In message <***@bt.com>
> "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > 1974 the wires were up through to Glasgow, and the Royal Scot was booked
in
> > 5 hours, with only one intermediate stop at Preston. On one occasion
when I
> > travelled on it during the 1970s it got to Glasgow 22 hours late, having
> > been dragged from Crewe to Preston via Denton, because of a freight
> > collision at Weaver Junction.
> >
>
> Luckily I avoided that one. If it was '74 I was earning a bit more than
> 12/10/0
>
though see my correction (sticky keyboard) - it was actually 2 hours late,
not 22.

Peter
Graeme Wall
2008-06-02 18:09:28 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@bt.com>
"Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:

>
> "Graeme Wall" <***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fa737a94f%***@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> > In message <***@bt.com>
> > "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> > > 1974 the wires were up through to Glasgow, and the Royal Scot was booked
> in
> > > 5 hours, with only one intermediate stop at Preston. On one occasion
> when I
> > > travelled on it during the 1970s it got to Glasgow 22 hours late, having
> > > been dragged from Crewe to Preston via Denton, because of a freight
> > > collision at Weaver Junction.
> > >
> >
> > Luckily I avoided that one. If it was '74 I was earning a bit more than
> > 12/10/0
> >
> though see my correction (sticky keyboard) - it was actually 2 hours late,
> not 22.
>

Ah, not quite so bad.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 09:51:40 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:48:51 +0100, Graeme Wall
<***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:


>Luckily I avoided that one. If it was '74 I was earning a bit more than
>12/10/0

Looking back @ footplate wages in the early 1950's, a locomotive
Fireman was earning a basic £9 per-week. I wonder what an assistant
motorman can expect crewing a future bullet train?
Joe Curry
2008-06-02 16:20:50 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:52:03 +0100, Graeme Wall
<***@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:



>1968, it's the only time I've done London-Glasgow by train. At that time I
>was earning £12/10/0 a week. IIRC the return journey was 5 and a half hours.

Not much improverment since then?
Joe Curry
2008-06-02 16:14:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 06:25:37 -0700 (PDT), "***@aol.com"
<***@aol.com> wrote:


>The then new headline journey time was 5 hours.

Add an 8 hour day in London and working day trips were impossible?
The Real Doctor
2008-06-03 11:03:40 UTC
Permalink
On 2 Jun, 14:25, "***@aol.com" <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On 2 Jun, 06:45, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > That's not a surprise. It's impractical to do day trips by rail between
> > Glasgow and London
>
> Seem to recall when WCML services were electrified to/from Glasgow
> Central over 30 years ago there was a promotional £5 Day Return on the
> first southbound/last northbound "Electric Scots" for a brief period.
> The then new headline journey time was 5 hours.

<old story>

Indeed. I had child day return number 000000 from Glasgow to London.
My father had adult day return number 000008.

</old story>

Ian
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 16:12:39 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 04:03:40 -0700 (PDT), The Real Doctor
<***@btinternet.com> wrote:


>Indeed. I had child day return number 000000 from Glasgow to London.
>My father had adult day return number 000008.

Ticket stubs will be worth a few bob?
Joe Curry
2008-06-02 07:06:24 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 13:58:03 -0700 (PDT), B <***@btopenworld.com>
wrote:


>Well saying that, the Scotland-London airports pax totals are dipping,
>moreso at EDI,

Given the faster train times from Edinburgh?
EDI has more direct Euro flights that cut the need for flights ex
London anyway.
Neil Williams
2008-06-01 21:39:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 21:42:19 +0100, The Voice of EDI
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
>Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between the
>UK and Scottish Governments.

And it will be as much of a bloody waste of money in such a small
country (pair of countries) as it is every time it comes up.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
Joe Curry
2008-06-02 07:09:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:39:53 GMT, ***@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>>A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
>>Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between the
>>UK and Scottish Governments.

>And it will be as much of a bloody waste of money in such a small
>country (pair of countries) as it is every time it comes up.

Dualling the A9 and A1 is a greater priority.
allan tracy
2008-06-02 14:12:17 UTC
Permalink
>
> And it will be as much of a bloody waste of money in such a small
> country (pair of countries) as it is every time it comes up.
>

How so it's been done profitably elsewhere.

The best comparison to the UK is the Tokaido Shinkansen, which has
proven to be a license to print money.

Eventually, the full extremity of the line will reach from Tokyo to
Nagasaki with a journey time hopelessly uncompetitive with air but it
will still be profitable thanks to intermediate traffic, just like it
could be here in the UK if we stopped pretending London was the centre
of the universe.
Mister Niceguy
2008-06-02 20:04:40 UTC
Permalink
allan tracy <***@hotmail.com> wrote in news:55d70550-a509-
499e-980b-***@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

>>
>> And it will be as much of a bloody waste of money in such a small
>> country (pair of countries) as it is every time it comes up.
>>
>
> How so it's been done profitably elsewhere.
>
> The best comparison to the UK is the Tokaido Shinkansen, which has
> proven to be a license to print money.
>
> Eventually, the full extremity of the line will reach from Tokyo to
> Nagasaki with a journey time hopelessly uncompetitive with air but it
> will still be profitable thanks to intermediate traffic, just like it
> could be here in the UK if we stopped pretending London was the centre
> of the universe.

F.A.B.

Yes I think that's a fair picture. The trouble, though, with the ECML is
that it avoids anywhere big on route other than Newcastle and to a lesser
extent York. An upgraded WCML probably won't go via the West Midlands
either.


The French seem to have done well with their TGV.
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 09:44:51 UTC
Permalink
On 02 Jun 2008 20:04:40 GMT, Mister Niceguy <***@privacy.net> wrote:


>> Eventually, the full extremity of the line will reach from Tokyo to
>> Nagasaki with a journey time hopelessly uncompetitive with air but it
>> will still be profitable thanks to intermediate traffic, just like it
>> could be here in the UK if we stopped pretending London was the centre
>> of the universe.

>Yes I think that's a fair picture. The trouble, though, with the ECML is
>that it avoids anywhere big on route other than Newcastle and to a lesser
>extent York. An upgraded WCML probably won't go via the West Midlands
>either.

So a WCLM route to Manchester then x-country to Edinburgh and the
final x-country leg to Glasgow?
j***@flyglasgow.net
2008-06-01 22:42:48 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 1, 9:42�pm, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
> A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
> Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between the
> UK and Scottish Governments.
>
> http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Secret-talks-on-
> London.4139887.jp
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5d2x88
>
> I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page ad
> from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic air
> travel.

Less flights to London could also mean less opertunity for connections
and with that hopefuly more direct flights from Glasgow.
Roland Perry
2008-06-02 06:39:56 UTC
Permalink
In message
<27269784-9532-44ae-a3b7-***@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, at
15:42:48 on Sun, 1 Jun 2008, ***@flyglasgow.net remarked:
>> I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page ad
>> from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic air
>> travel.
>
>Less flights to London could also mean less opertunity for connections
>and with that hopefuly more direct flights from Glasgow.

Unlikely. The mid/long haul carriers are consolidating their routes,
withdrawing to major hubs - not adding new routes to smaller airports.
Expect to see all the UK's regional airports losing flights, and
therefore more trips via London.
--
Roland Perry
Joe Curry
2008-06-02 07:13:27 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 07:39:56 +0100, Roland Perry <***@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>Unlikely. The mid/long haul carriers are consolidating their routes,
>withdrawing to major hubs - not adding new routes to smaller airports.
>Expect to see all the UK's regional airports losing flights, and
>therefore more trips via London.

EDI seems to be gaining more Euro flights than most regionals..perhaps
it is destined to become a future hub to be reckoned with?

Even more so under new ownership?
allan tracy
2008-06-02 14:06:11 UTC
Permalink
>
> Unlikely. The mid/long haul carriers are consolidating their routes,
> withdrawing to major hubs - not adding new routes to smaller airports.

Not so, no one but no one travels from Birmingham to Sydney via London
anymore thanks to Emirates (twice a day and booming).

Emirates plan to use A380s into Brum once the runway extension is
complete.

And it's not just Emirates.

> Expect to see all the UK's regional airports losing flights, and
> therefore more trips via London.
>

... err... no therefore more trips via Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt or
even Dublin.

You've been reading too many of those hopelss BA projections that
thankfully so few other airlines agree with.

BA lives in a dream World where everyone pays over the odds because
it's BA and they like to be reminded what it's like to be insulted.

BA has desterted Brum and it will be their loss as FlyBE and now
Ryanair move in en mass.
Roland Perry
2008-06-02 14:36:53 UTC
Permalink
In message
<1bccd32f-a378-4048-b088-***@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, at
07:06:11 on Mon, 2 Jun 2008, allan tracy <***@hotmail.com>
remarked:
>>
>> Unlikely. The mid/long haul carriers are consolidating their routes,
>> withdrawing to major hubs - not adding new routes to smaller airports.
>
>Not so, no one but no one travels from Birmingham to Sydney via London
>anymore thanks to Emirates (twice a day and booming).
>
>Emirates plan to use A380s into Brum once the runway extension is
>complete.
>
>And it's not just Emirates.

We'll see what happens to Emirates once the fuel prices start to hit (of
course, they no doubt have their own cheap fuel, so are probably a poor
example).

American Airlines are cancelling their Stansted flights, and I expect to
see more of that kind of thing. In the USA there is a bloodbath of
cities losing direct flights (and in some cases all flights) as the
airlines retract to their hubs.

>> Expect to see all the UK's regional airports losing flights, and
>> therefore more trips via London.
>
>... err... no therefore more trips via Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt or
>even Dublin.

I meant more train trips to London. But yes, people may start taking
fights via European hubs if the only alternative is a train to London.

>You've been reading too many of those hopelss BA projections that
>thankfully so few other airlines agree with.
>
>BA lives in a dream World where everyone pays over the odds because
>it's BA and they like to be reminded what it's like to be insulted.
>
>BA has desterted Brum and it will be their loss as FlyBE and now
>Ryanair move in en mass.

I don't read any BA projections, and nothing I've posted is as a result
of what they are doing (apart from anything else, being the home carrier
will always distort things, and I'm trying to take a wider view).
--
Roland Perry
John B
2008-06-02 15:14:34 UTC
Permalink
On 2 Jun, 15:36, Roland Perry <***@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> We'll see what happens to Emirates once the fuel prices start to hit (of
> course, they no doubt have their own cheap fuel, so are probably a poor
> example).

Less fuel than you might expect - Dubai is not a major oil producing
country and hasn't been for some time. Emirates will be fine: economic
gloom might slow expansion of its westbound flights (although business
links between Europe/US and Dubai are sure to keep increasing), but
growth in flights eastbound is going to continue at a rate of knots.

As far as fuel prices go, there's a small cost advantage to refuelling
in the mid-east compared with elsewhere generally - but the main point
is that Emirates isn't bound by a) US/Europe-style union deals b) US/
Europe-style debts or c) nearly-all-national-flag-carrier-style
incompetence and political meddling. This means it can make a profit
at far higher oil price levels than other carriers...

> American Airlines are cancelling their Stansted flights, and I expect to
> see more of that kind of thing. In the USA there is a bloodbath of
> cities losing direct flights (and in some cases all flights) as the
> airlines retract to their hubs.

But the expansion of European aviation over the last 10 years has
largely been on a point-to-point rather than a hub-and-spoke model,
which is completely not comparable with US trends [where AIUI
expansion has been based on serving an ever-increasing number of small
cities from major hubs, hence cutbacks involve reducing/axing flights
from O'Hare or Newark to Nowhere, Iowa].

I'm not sure Ryanair or Easyjet even has "hubs" in the traditional
sense - yes, they have a lot of flights out of Stansted and Hahn, or
Luton, Schiphol and Geneva, respectively - but only a vanishingly
small proportion of their traffic is made up of flights between those
"hub" destinations, and nobody in their right mind would change planes
there given the ticketing model.

Don't take this comment as bullish about the medium-term prospects for
the aviation industry - most European flag carriers and major US
airlines should all be bust already, and this will happen over the
next few years unless governments intervene on a 1970s scale.

But Easyjet, Ryanair and Emirates would be my tips for Airlines Most
Likely To Be In Business [*] In 10 Years Time, and "small-local-
airport to small-local-airport" for short-haul combined with "hub-and-
spoke, hub is somewhere outside the EU with low wages and cheap
kerosene" for long-haul would be my tips for most successful business
model. And high-speed rail will take a lot of the big-city-to-big-city
traffic [**].

[*] Alitalia-style zombification does not count as "in business" in
this context
[**] by 2012 I expect daily air seat capacity between London and AMS
to have fallen by 25%. Anyone want to take up a bet on this?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
Roland Perry
2008-06-02 15:34:52 UTC
Permalink
In message
<54300e9d-8d37-48ab-9c6a-***@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, at
08:14:34 on Mon, 2 Jun 2008, John B <***@johnband.org> remarked:
>I'm not sure Ryanair or Easyjet even has "hubs" in the traditional
>sense - yes, they have a lot of flights out of Stansted and Hahn, or
>Luton, Schiphol and Geneva, respectively - but only a vanishingly
>small proportion of their traffic is made up of flights between those
>"hub" destinations, and nobody in their right mind would change planes
>there given the ticketing model.

They both clearly have "hubs" with lots of routes out on spokes to small
places. What they don't have is point-point flights between many of the
small places. And as Europe is smaller and denser than the USA, you
don't often need to take two flights (and as you say their business
model discourages it).

Let's look at Easyjet down the west of France and Spain: Nantes is
served from both Gatwick and Geneva, but you can't fly anywhere other
than Gatwick or Geneva. Similarly Jersey (Liverpool and Luton), La
Rochelle (Bristol and Gatwick). And pretty much everywhere along that
west coast. Faro is an extreme example (flights from 9 airports in UK,
none anywhere else).
--
Roland Perry
Joe Curry
2008-06-02 16:18:54 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:14:34 -0700 (PDT), John B <***@johnband.org>
wrote:


> And high-speed rail will take a lot of the big-city-to-big-city
>traffic [**].

That discounts the WCML then? :)
Neil Williams
2008-06-02 19:07:46 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:14:34 -0700 (PDT), John B <***@johnband.org>
wrote:

>[**] by 2012 I expect daily air seat capacity between London and AMS
>to have fallen by 25%. Anyone want to take up a bet on this?

It will reduce at LCY substantially, I would bet, given the takeover
of VLM by KLM and given that KLM's load factors tend to be far higher
than VLM's.

That said, a Fokker 50 every two hours ain't going to make much dent
on services to/from Thiefrow. Which itself is madness, given that
every single other option is vastly superior, but so many people think
London = Thiefrow.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 09:54:18 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:07:46 GMT, ***@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>It will reduce at LCY substantially,

Aren't EDI-LCY services showing growth?
Joe Curry
2008-06-02 16:16:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:36:53 +0100, Roland Perry <***@perry.co.uk>
wrote:



>I don't read any BA projections, and nothing I've posted is as a result
>of what they are doing (apart from anything else, being the home carrier
>will always distort things, and I'm trying to take a wider view).

Which is the nature of the beast?
Joe Curry
2008-06-02 16:15:25 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 07:06:11 -0700 (PDT), allan tracy
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:



>BA has desterted Brum and it will be their loss as FlyBE and now
>Ryanair move in en mass.

It's the connections and through baggage that count..?
Neil Williams
2008-06-02 18:59:14 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 07:06:11 -0700 (PDT), allan tracy
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>BA has desterted Brum and it will be their loss as FlyBE and now
>Ryanair move in en mass.

Except for that flyBE's reliability and punctuality is piss-poor, as
is their way of dealing with customers, IMX.

Nice interesting aircraft, but not a lot else going for them.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 09:55:25 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:59:14 GMT, ***@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:


>Except for that flyBE's reliability and punctuality is piss-poor, as
>is their way of dealing with customers, IMX.

>Nice interesting aircraft, but not a lot else going for them.

Still not interlining?
Joe Curry
2008-06-02 07:10:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 15:42:48 -0700 (PDT), ***@flyglasgow.net
wrote:


>Less flights to London could also mean less opertunity for connections
>and with that hopefuly more direct flights from Glasgow.

The EDI relevance being?
Cats
2008-06-02 12:39:26 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 1, 9:42 pm, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
> A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
> Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between the
> UK and Scottish Governments.
>
> http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Secret-talks-on-London.4139887.jp
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5d2x88
>
> I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page ad
> from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic air
> travel.

This looks like pie-in-the-sky to me. The actual route will be highly
contentious, both in terms of which cities want to be connected and
where people don't want it to go. The public enquiry would never end.
There is also the issue of how much Scotland would have to pay for,
given (according to the article) that England would be unwilling to
pay north of whatever the north-most major city on the new line would
be since it would be track not of obvious direct benefit to England.
Joe Curry
2008-06-02 13:58:14 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 05:39:26 -0700 (PDT), Cats <***@uk2.net>
wrote:


>This looks like pie-in-the-sky to me. The actual route will be highly
>contentious, both in terms of which cities want to be connected and
>where people don't want it to go.

Got it in one... :-)
Mister Niceguy
2008-06-02 20:14:43 UTC
Permalink
Cats <***@uk2.net> wrote in
news:90365d73-e34f-414d-8782-***@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 1, 9:42 pm, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
>> Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between
>> the UK and Scottish Governments.
>>
>> http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Secret-talks-on-
Londo
>> n.41
> 39887.jp
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5d2x88
>>
>> I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page ad
>> from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic air
>> travel.
>
> This looks like pie-in-the-sky to me. The actual route will be highly
> contentious, both in terms of which cities want to be connected and
> where people don't want it to go. The public enquiry would never end.
> There is also the issue of how much Scotland would have to pay for,
> given (according to the article) that England would be unwilling to
> pay north of whatever the north-most major city on the new line would
> be since it would be track not of obvious direct benefit to England.
>

Alas your picture of doom and gloom is probably a fair predictor of
major transport improvements in the UK, Cats. Eurotunnel was an obvious
choice of route but has been a financial disaster. Other major
developments in my lifetime have all been in London. (Can you call ECML
electrification a major development?)

A fast rail link that reduces journey time to 3 hours would be enough to
swing it away from air for most people.
B
2008-06-02 20:26:58 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 2, 9:14 pm, Mister Niceguy <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> Cats <***@uk2.net> wrote innews:90365d73-e34f-414d-8782-***@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 9:42 pm, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link between
> >> Scotland and London is back on track following secret talks between
> >> the UK and Scottish Governments.
>
> >>http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Secret-talks-on-
> Londo
> >> n.41
> > 39887.jp
>
> >> or
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/5d2x88
>
> >> I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page ad
> >> from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic air
> >> travel.
>
> > This looks like pie-in-the-sky to me.  The actual route will be highly
> > contentious, both in terms of which cities want to be connected and
> > where people don't want it to go. The public enquiry would never end.
> > There is also the issue of how much Scotland would have to pay for,
> > given (according to the article) that England would be unwilling to
> > pay north of whatever the north-most major city on the new line would
> > be since it would be track not of obvious direct benefit to England.
>
> Alas your picture of doom and gloom is probably a fair predictor of
> major transport improvements in the UK, Cats.  Eurotunnel was an obvious
> choice of route but has been a financial disaster.  Other major
> developments in my lifetime have all been in London.  (Can you call ECML
> electrification a major development?)
>
> A fast rail link that reduces journey time to 3 hours would be enough to
> swing it away from air for most people.

When it comes to transport infrastructure the UK is a backward country
without a shadow of a doubt IMO, too much red tape and 'consultants'
TBH,
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 09:38:41 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 13:26:58 -0700 (PDT), B <***@btopenworld.com>
wrote:


>When it comes to transport infrastructure the UK is a backward country
>without a shadow of a doubt IMO, too much red tape and 'consultants'
>TBH,

The same could be said of the UK in general?
Mister Niceguy
2008-06-03 20:22:02 UTC
Permalink
B <***@btopenworld.com> wrote in
news:fe0079ff-ec93-4e86-9d2b-***@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 2, 9:14 pm, Mister Niceguy <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Cats <***@uk2.net> wrote
>> innews:90365d73-e34f-414d-8782-23129bdf6cec@
> 56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 1, 9:42 pm, The Voice of EDI <***@invalid.invalid>
>> > wrote:
>> >> A MULTI-billion-pound plan to build a high-speed train link
>> >> between Scotland and London is back on track following secret
>> >> talks between the UK and Scottish Governments.
>>
>> >>http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/-Secret-talks-on-
>> Londo
>> >> n.41
>> > 39887.jp
>>
>> >> or
>>
>> >>http://tinyurl.com/5d2x88
>>
>> >> I noticed that the print edition of the same paper had a full page
>> >> ad from NXEC extolling the benefits of train travel over domestic
>> >> air travel.
>>
>> > This looks like pie-in-the-sky to me.  The actual route will be
>> > highly
>
>> > contentious, both in terms of which cities want to be connected and
>> > where people don't want it to go. The public enquiry would never
>> > end. There is also the issue of how much Scotland would have to pay
>> > for, given (according to the article) that England would be
>> > unwilling to pay north of whatever the north-most major city on the
>> > new line would be since it would be track not of obvious direct
>> > benefit to England.
>>
>> Alas your picture of doom and gloom is probably a fair predictor of
>> major transport improvements in the UK, Cats.  Eurotunnel was an
>> obvious
>
>> choice of route but has been a financial disaster.  Other major
>> developments in my lifetime have all been in London.  (Can you call
>> ECML
>
>> electrification a major development?)
>>
>> A fast rail link that reduces journey time to 3 hours would be enough
>> to swing it away from air for most people.
>
> When it comes to transport infrastructure the UK is a backward country
> without a shadow of a doubt IMO, too much red tape and 'consultants'
> TBH,

Public inquiries certainly take years to complete. But that's the
mentality in the UK. When the French built their equivalent of the CTRL
it was seen as a jobs boom to northern France. By contrast, the people
of Kent (of the angry from Tunbridge Wells variety) didn't want our
CTRL in their "back yard".
Joe Curry
2008-06-03 09:42:25 UTC
Permalink
On 02 Jun 2008 20:14:43 GMT, Mister Niceguy <***@privacy.net> wrote:

>A fast rail link that reduces journey time to 3 hours would be enough to
>swing it away from air for most people.

Above average non-stop speeds of some 300mph London-Edinburgh taking
into account a few stops @ major cities?
GKirk
2008-06-03 13:03:06 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Jun, 13:00, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <2475393e-5994-4880-adab-acd918cd0574
> @j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > On 3 Jun, 12:19, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <87ee3dcd-b505-4938-b0e4-8875b17bc8a4@
> > > 8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...
>
> > > > On Jun 3, 11:59 am, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > In article <***@bt.com>, peter.masson1
> > > > > @privacy.net says...
>
> > > > > > "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:***@4ax.com...
> > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:55:15 +0100, "Peter Masson"
> > > > > > > <***@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't the ECML quicker pre-electrification?
>
> > > > > > > >It was only between 1974 and the introduction of HSTs that was quicker to
> > > > > > go
> > > > > > > >from Euston to Glasgow via the WCML than from Kings Cross to Edinburgh
> > > > > > via
> > > > > > > >the ECML. However, London to Glasgow has almost always been quicker via
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >WCML than via the ECML and Edinburgh.
>
> > > > > > > Thanks for that..what are the current Kings X - Edinburgh and Euston -
> > > > > > > Glasgow?
>
> > > > > > Kings Cross - Edinburgh fastest 4h13m
> > > > > > Kings Cross - Glasgow Central via Edinburgh fastest 5h17m
> > > > > > Euston - Glasgow Central fastest 4h25m
>
> > > > > I never realised that the timings were so close these days. Are there still
> > > > > `improvements` to show on the WCML?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > From December 2008, 1 train will do the Euston - Glasgow trip in 4
> > > > hours 10 minutes, stopping at Preston only.
>
> > > I assume that will be timed to arrive at Euston to allow a large part of
> > > the day in London?
>
> > No, leaves London around 4pm
>
> In my favour - I had just wakened up after night shift ;-)

IIRC, all the Glasgow-Euston services will stop at Carlisle, Preston,
Wigan and Rugby for definite, with alternative trains stopping at
either Motherwell, Lockerbie, Penrith, Oxenholme and Lancaster
Jim Mason
2008-06-03 13:06:28 UTC
Permalink
In article <d9543ab9-8a10-4dcd-9ab0-6fc9770d00a7@
25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...

> IIRC, all the Glasgow-Euston services will stop at Carlisle, Preston,
> Wigan and Rugby for definite, with alternative trains stopping at
> either Motherwell, Lockerbie, Penrith, Oxenholme and Lancaster

Thanks for that Graham.

Which is nearer for you - Lockerbie, Carlisle or Penrith?
GKirk
2008-06-03 13:08:22 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Jun, 14:06, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <d9543ab9-8a10-4dcd-9ab0-6fc9770d00a7@
> 25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...
>
> > IIRC, all the Glasgow-Euston services will stop at Carlisle, Preston,
> > Wigan and Rugby for definite, with alternative trains stopping at
> > either Motherwell, Lockerbie, Penrith, Oxenholme and Lancaster
>
> Thanks for that Graham.
>
> Which is nearer for you - Lockerbie, Carlisle or Penrith?

Carlisle, 45 mins on the bus or 20 mins on the train from Annan.
Lockerbie involves a change of bus in Annan or Dumfries.
Jim Mason
2008-06-03 13:18:14 UTC
Permalink
In article <f1caf762-e2f5-4617-8f21-
***@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com
says...
> On 3 Jun, 14:06, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <d9543ab9-8a10-4dcd-9ab0-6fc9770d00a7@
> > 25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...
> >
> > > IIRC, all the Glasgow-Euston services will stop at Carlisle, Preston,
> > > Wigan and Rugby for definite, with alternative trains stopping at
> > > either Motherwell, Lockerbie, Penrith, Oxenholme and Lancaster
> >
> > Thanks for that Graham.
> >
> > Which is nearer for you - Lockerbie, Carlisle or Penrith?
>
> Carlisle, 45 mins on the bus or 20 mins on the train from Annan.
> Lockerbie involves a change of bus in Annan or Dumfries.

A very much viable alternative to flying then?
GKirk
2008-06-03 13:27:00 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Jun, 14:18, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <f1caf762-e2f5-4617-8f21-
> ***@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com
> says...
>
> > On 3 Jun, 14:06, Jim Mason <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <d9543ab9-8a10-4dcd-9ab0-6fc9770d00a7@
> > > 25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...
>
> > > > IIRC, all the Glasgow-Euston services will stop at Carlisle, Preston,
> > > > Wigan and Rugby for definite, with alternative trains stopping at
> > > > either Motherwell, Lockerbie, Penrith, Oxenholme and Lancaster
>
> > > Thanks for that Graham.
>
> > > Which is nearer for you - Lockerbie, Carlisle or Penrith?
>
> > Carlisle, 45 mins on the bus or 20 mins on the train from Annan.
> > Lockerbie involves a change of bus in Annan or Dumfries.
>
> A very much viable alternative to flying then?

Yup. At the present time, there's a few trains from Carlisle to
London, with only the 1 stop at Preston. Takes around 3 hrs 20 mins or
so.

Or, it;'s just over an hours drive to NCL
B
2008-06-03 19:46:00 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 3, 8:39 pm, "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:***@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:26:42 +0100, Jim Mason
> > <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> > Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve times
> > >> > on Kings X - Edinburgh?
>
> > >> And it will never happen.  It's far too expensive - if they are going
> > >> to spend mega-bucks on the ECML there are plenty of more worthy
> > >> candidates, such as the Welwyn viaduct.
>
> > >The ECML is as fast as it is likely to get IMO. The speed gains are more
> > >likely to happen on the WCML.
>
> > A matter of opinion surely? The ECML does not have the geographical
> > challenges of the WCML.?
>
> The best way of reducing journey times on the ECML would be to increase the
> permitted speed to 140 or even 155 mph where possible south of Darlington.
> This would benefit London to Leeds and Newcastle passengers, as well as
> those travelling through to Scotland. Increasing permitted speeds north of
> Newcastle would benefit far fewer passengers.

Except those heading for Glasgow, the terminus, Waverley being just an
intermediate stop en-route to Scotlands busiest main line station.
Callum Johnstone
2008-06-03 21:29:37 UTC
Permalink
"B" <***@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:e7b82e09-29c8-4fcd-ac09-***@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 3, 8:39 pm, "Peter Masson" <***@privacy.net> wrote:
> "Joe Curry" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:***@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:26:42 +0100, Jim Mason
> > <***@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> > Straightening out the curves North of Newcastle will improve times
> > >> > on Kings X - Edinburgh?
>
> > >> And it will never happen. It's far too expensive - if they are going
> > >> to spend mega-bucks on the ECML there are plenty of more worthy
> > >> candidates, such as the Welwyn viaduct.
>
> > >The ECML is as fast as it is likely to get IMO. The speed gains are
> > >more
> > >likely to happen on the WCML.
>
> > A matter of opinion surely? The ECML does not have the geographical
> > challenges of the WCML.?
>
> The best way of reducing journey times on the ECML would be to increase
> the
> permitted speed to 140 or even 155 mph where possible south of Darlington.
> This would benefit London to Leeds and Newcastle passengers, as well as
> those travelling through to Scotland. Increasing permitted speeds north of
> Newcastle would benefit far fewer passengers.

>Except those heading for Glasgow, the terminus, Waverley being just an
>intermediate stop en-route to Scotlands busiest main line station.

But not Scotland's busiest InterCity station ... I believe we had that
conversation a few years back? ;-)
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...