all i know is that voyagers have only been around for less than six months and already they are causing trouble (stafford etc)
86's 87's etc have been around for donkey's years and still going strong
these plastic bottles ain't gonna last five mins.
Voyager out...Come back loco hauled trains all is forgiven!
Moderator: Moderators
-
AlanP46
- Well Established Forum Member
- Posts: 680
- Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2002 12:00 am
- Location: Warwickshire
- Contact:
I never said give them hand me downs - they should have taken the other option for push-pull locos that bombardier offered, but no-one seems to look much past the next year anymore. FNW have already been denied paths into Brum because VT have take so many with all these extra voyagers.crosscountry wrote:MK3's are over 20 years old. The last thing Cross Country wanted was hand me downs.
The day when a voyager gets involved in a major accident and people are mericlessly crushed between the seats because it's so part.crosscountry wrote: whats the worse that can happen?
The other bad thing will be this time in 20 years - when your beloved voyagers are on minimum maintainance before being replaced... A/c will be knackered, ride appauling, lights flickering, and very very noisy inside.
Quite the reverse... thinking of the consequences...crosscountry wrote:backwards thinking .!
It's not different. It's the sprinter revolution all over again...and we all know how well that worked.crosscountry wrote: I'm sorry, but I hate it when people reject something outright just 'cos its different, or not what they would have done, or they don't like it.
- It's not cheaper, older things cost more money to maintain, as you have to aquire parts...many aren't in full scale production anymore.crosscountry wrote:then try and squeeze an extra 20 years of life out of it, 'cos its cheeper and won't upset a few enthusiasts.
- nothing on the railway is done to please enthusiasts. It's done for operational reasons.
Alan
-
AlanP46
- Well Established Forum Member
- Posts: 680
- Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2002 12:00 am
- Location: Warwickshire
- Contact:
Thats your opinion. I noticed it all the time, as I do everytime I take a MU train. I also noticed that voyagers have incredibly squeaky disc brakes.crosscountry wrote:To be honest, you don't notice the engine that much on the 220 except when pulling away, like on the 175 most of the noise is the Air Con and the fancy brakes .
Extra carriage accounts for the extra HP.crosscountry wrote:The 221 has more horsepower so is slightly more intrusive but still notthing like a 158.
The 2 things don't go hand in hand for XC operations, because:crosscountry wrote:As I said before the thing with Virgin's plan is designed to introduce frequency and punctuality.
- No constant stream of pax
- network full
which are inevidtable because of the greater number of trains on this already outstreatched network...crosscountry wrote: The advantage of 4, 5 or ever 6 car Voyagers is that they accelerate quicker than either LHCS or Push/Pull so can be operated more frequently and make up time quicker after delays.
Put a loco with a similar power to a voyager on a train the same length, and we're told we're wasting power...
Thats hardly suprising when you do the mathematics...crosscountry wrote:I have been on a 4 car 220 which did Newcastle- Durham in 9 and a half minutes, (12 behind a '91).
Voyager 750hp PER CAR
91 + 10MK IV = 630HP per car...
120HP makes a lot of difference, well per car it does.
I will... on August the 19th.crosscountry wrote: and maybe Alan might shut up
I also took a mate on one from bolton - pic. He prefered the 47+coaches... and he's not affiliated with the railway at all.crosscountry wrote:As my mate said of Voyager "they're really good, man I haven't been that comfy from Stoke to Manchester in ages, even the loos are huge so that we can all skip the fare!!!!"
...you mean the one caused by the mass influx of short trains...crosscountry wrote:big signalling failure in the sky.
Alan
-
crosscountry
- Well Established Forum Member
- Posts: 539
- Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 12:00 am
Its just a matter of opinion.
My mate doesn't know about trains and likes Voyagers
Network capacity can be increased through acceleration performance, and I suspect that is at the heart of operation princess.
Anyhow, I'm putting this arguament to bed because its obvious that you're biased against any kind of DMU.
I won't respond any more Alan, I can't be arsed.
My mate doesn't know about trains and likes Voyagers
Network capacity can be increased through acceleration performance, and I suspect that is at the heart of operation princess.
Anyhow, I'm putting this arguament to bed because its obvious that you're biased against any kind of DMU.
I won't respond any more Alan, I can't be arsed.
This post is worth what you paid for it.
-
Goingnorth
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 12:00 am
Erm no, Network capacity is severely reduced thanks the Voyager's speed and acceleration. Capacity is maximised when the speed profiles are the same. Not only that you're running double the number of trains with the same seats...hardly efficient is it? In fact if the SRA had been about with more teeth years ago they would have stopped Voyager in its tracks.
And the acceleration helping delays is bunkum too. Essentially the timetable is constructed to allow for this. There would be no more gain than with a conventional train due to the timing points being specifically aligned to voyager timing loads.
I've had a number of discussions with various senior Railtrack people about these issues and the ones that know anything about operations generally think the effective sprinterisation of the cross-country network is very bad news. It's certainly going to stop a lot of freight growth. We now have severe capacity problems at:
Southampton area, Reading, Didcot, Oxford, Coventry, Birmingham New St, Sheffield, Manchester, Doncaster,Stafford, Crewe.
The worst line of all is Didcot to Leamington Spa. Which is severely limited until the Cherwell valley resignalling is finished in two years. Even then south of Wolvercot to Didcot and Reading is full. You just cannot run any more trains.
Talking of expansion, the best route for a new LGV would probably be following the M1/A1/M6 roughly with tunnelling in certain areas (say around Luton). Maybe relaying some of the GC line. So starting at London Gateway services a new line could be cut following the alignment of the M1 (with diversions at places like Luton/Sheffied/Leeds).
Scratchwood-Luton Airport-Milton keynes-Northampton-
Junction for Birmingham and new line to Coleshill, joining a four tracked WCML at Birmingham international/Birmingham Airport.
Then Going north, Leicester-East midlands Airport
Connects to the Midland main line for Nottingham/Derby
then Sheffield, Connection to Wakefield and re-lay Woodhead line into Manchester and upgrade TP links to Liverpool
-Wakefield-Leeds- then following the A1
Station on the A66 between Darlington and Teeside
join the Leamside alignment into Tyneside
also go for a reconstructed ECML around Morpeth as in the Virgin plans.
Many of the Stations would be ‘Parkway’ type station will good motorway connections. Milton Keynes, Northampton would be examples also Leeds.
Gradients/construction shouldn’t be a big deal apart from maybe Coventry-Birmingham./Leicester-Nottingham and around Sheffield. Where there is quite a bit of dropping of the motorway. Sheffield is problematic. New viaduct at Rotherham near the current M1 viaduct would probably be needed.
Then go for the following Service:
Birmingham - London St Pancras International every 30 mins
Nottingham - London every hour
Sheffield - London every Hour
Liverpool - London every Hour
Manchester - London every Hour (so effectively Manchester gets a 1/2 hour service)
Newcastle - London every Hour
Edinburgh/Glasgow - London every Hour (so effectively Newcastle and Leeds get a 1/2 hour service)
Some services would go through to Paris/Lyon/Germany/Belgium via the new CTRL.
I would guess 3 or 4 per day from Birmingham and 2 from Edinburgh.
Design speed of 186mph maybe 220mph. 9 car TGV derivative. All signalling/Rolling stock 'bought off the shelf' from Europe.
8 trains per hour in either direction, which is more than possible.
Then you can reduce the service on the 'classic' lines allowing freight to run.
The cost would be £10-16 Bn I would guess, but that would be a 'ball-park' figure.
It would certainly make a better alternative to building new motorways, simply because you are using far less land and go three times as quick. No freight and night maintenance. Should be ultra-reliable. Similar lines in Europe have a 97-100% punctuality rating. In fact the Spanish give you a re-fund is the trains slightly late!
And the acceleration helping delays is bunkum too. Essentially the timetable is constructed to allow for this. There would be no more gain than with a conventional train due to the timing points being specifically aligned to voyager timing loads.
I've had a number of discussions with various senior Railtrack people about these issues and the ones that know anything about operations generally think the effective sprinterisation of the cross-country network is very bad news. It's certainly going to stop a lot of freight growth. We now have severe capacity problems at:
Southampton area, Reading, Didcot, Oxford, Coventry, Birmingham New St, Sheffield, Manchester, Doncaster,Stafford, Crewe.
The worst line of all is Didcot to Leamington Spa. Which is severely limited until the Cherwell valley resignalling is finished in two years. Even then south of Wolvercot to Didcot and Reading is full. You just cannot run any more trains.
Talking of expansion, the best route for a new LGV would probably be following the M1/A1/M6 roughly with tunnelling in certain areas (say around Luton). Maybe relaying some of the GC line. So starting at London Gateway services a new line could be cut following the alignment of the M1 (with diversions at places like Luton/Sheffied/Leeds).
Scratchwood-Luton Airport-Milton keynes-Northampton-
Junction for Birmingham and new line to Coleshill, joining a four tracked WCML at Birmingham international/Birmingham Airport.
Then Going north, Leicester-East midlands Airport
Connects to the Midland main line for Nottingham/Derby
then Sheffield, Connection to Wakefield and re-lay Woodhead line into Manchester and upgrade TP links to Liverpool
-Wakefield-Leeds- then following the A1
Station on the A66 between Darlington and Teeside
join the Leamside alignment into Tyneside
also go for a reconstructed ECML around Morpeth as in the Virgin plans.
Many of the Stations would be ‘Parkway’ type station will good motorway connections. Milton Keynes, Northampton would be examples also Leeds.
Gradients/construction shouldn’t be a big deal apart from maybe Coventry-Birmingham./Leicester-Nottingham and around Sheffield. Where there is quite a bit of dropping of the motorway. Sheffield is problematic. New viaduct at Rotherham near the current M1 viaduct would probably be needed.
Then go for the following Service:
Birmingham - London St Pancras International every 30 mins
Nottingham - London every hour
Sheffield - London every Hour
Liverpool - London every Hour
Manchester - London every Hour (so effectively Manchester gets a 1/2 hour service)
Newcastle - London every Hour
Edinburgh/Glasgow - London every Hour (so effectively Newcastle and Leeds get a 1/2 hour service)
Some services would go through to Paris/Lyon/Germany/Belgium via the new CTRL.
I would guess 3 or 4 per day from Birmingham and 2 from Edinburgh.
Design speed of 186mph maybe 220mph. 9 car TGV derivative. All signalling/Rolling stock 'bought off the shelf' from Europe.
8 trains per hour in either direction, which is more than possible.
Then you can reduce the service on the 'classic' lines allowing freight to run.
The cost would be £10-16 Bn I would guess, but that would be a 'ball-park' figure.
It would certainly make a better alternative to building new motorways, simply because you are using far less land and go three times as quick. No freight and night maintenance. Should be ultra-reliable. Similar lines in Europe have a 97-100% punctuality rating. In fact the Spanish give you a re-fund is the trains slightly late!
Last edited by Goingnorth on Sat Jul 27, 2002 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
basildd
- UKTS Loco Painter & Decorator
- Posts: 7309
- Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: Moving ever northwards...
The fare paying public - who wouldn't want to be sat waiting for something to arrive to haul the dead log away!FuNky2k wrote:Pushpull is the future, bring back class 50's
Dale / BasilDD
Works Overhaul Stats - 23/04/02-29/02/04
Output - 348 (Stock / Locomotives) Customers - 156,677 downloads!!!
Works Overhaul Stats - 23/04/02-29/02/04
Output - 348 (Stock / Locomotives) Customers - 156,677 downloads!!!
-
AlanP46
- Well Established Forum Member
- Posts: 680
- Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2002 12:00 am
- Location: Warwickshire
- Contact:
Hit it in one.crosscountry wrote:Its just a matter of opinion.
I'm not biased against any kind of DMU. I think DMUs working Local, and Inter-Regional [e.g. TPE] are a good idea. Passenger loadings are suited to a DMU, the short distance between stops requires accelleration not a huge top speed.crosscountry wrote: Anyhow, I'm putting this arguament to bed because its obvious that you're biased against any kind of DMU.
LGV Trains - top 'n' tail locos, in perm. formations have their uses too - LGV lines, none of which are currently open in the UK.
If you look at my statements the majority are factual, obviously things about the seat design is subjective to ones own opinion...
Lets do an example - vibration. I can pick that up very easily - I'm a musician, i could probably tell you the engine note if i wanted to (or had been arsed to identify it).
You've bought the bearded hippies promo .! I already know of 2 cases where VTs operation has squeezed out local operators - in one case, stopped them providing something in their original service contract.
Alan
-
37714
- Mr. 37
- Posts: 675
- Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: That place, next to that Tree.. Newport
Long distance DMU's are a very bad idea. As i've mentioned somewhere before, i'm quite sick of being stood crammed into a two coach 158 travelling a hundred miles or more.
I don't mind the sounds of the cummins engines on the 158's, to me its all part of the ride.
I travelled between Cardiff and Newport on Friday, on a HST set. The lack of noise is luxurious, the only main problem was being bounced up and down for some reason. Felt like one of the wheels was off center.
I'd like to see more Loco hauled trains for long distances, and i'd like to keep the 158/9's for shorter distances.
I don't mind the sounds of the cummins engines on the 158's, to me its all part of the ride.
I travelled between Cardiff and Newport on Friday, on a HST set. The lack of noise is luxurious, the only main problem was being bounced up and down for some reason. Felt like one of the wheels was off center.
I'd like to see more Loco hauled trains for long distances, and i'd like to keep the 158/9's for shorter distances.
Cheers,
37714
37714
-
Goingnorth
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 12:00 am
For me, it's not that I dislike DMUs, it's more that the damn things are too short for that sort of train in my view. Why double the service with half the seats? You get no more seating plus you need twice the staff! doh!
It's not a commuter railway is a long-haul railway where people turn up once or twice a year to visit friends and relatives. As long as they get a seat and the thing runs to time they don't care if there's another one in half an hour because the journey is well-planned!
I know Chris Green is very pro-sprinter, but really I think he's got it wrong. If the fairs were cheap and the trains ran on time people would use inter-regional trains. DMUs/EMUs should only be used around cities where you just what to turn-up and get on. And of-course on branch lines, because you don't need the seating.
People say we haven't the capacity on the network, but that's because were running two/three car trains twice as much as six or seven coach trains.
It should have been push-pull on Virgin and on other routes:
High power diesel-electric+first trailer+shop and cafe area+standard trailerx5 or even 6+DVT with bike carrying area with luggage/Traincrew area...Max speed 125mph with tilt. I think the manufacturer proposed this in the first place. With today's technology you could easily pack all the necessary horsepower into one unit.
Maybe have extra trains in the core area with DMUs on XC
Really you don't want straight loco hauled trains on today's railway, there are very inefficient in terms of stock utilisation, track capacity and staff. Most of the time you can't turn them around quick enough at the end of the journey either.
Anyway looks like voyager is loosing the vote. he he
People like the 'turn-up-and go aspect' with walk on fairs and a timetable to match, buit in my view we should really be going for pre-book (cheap) tickets where possible and longer trains and free-up some of the capacity. Then we wouldn't have to spend quite so much putting it back in!
So come on then Alan, what would you do? Looks like cross country has given up!
It's not a commuter railway is a long-haul railway where people turn up once or twice a year to visit friends and relatives. As long as they get a seat and the thing runs to time they don't care if there's another one in half an hour because the journey is well-planned!
I know Chris Green is very pro-sprinter, but really I think he's got it wrong. If the fairs were cheap and the trains ran on time people would use inter-regional trains. DMUs/EMUs should only be used around cities where you just what to turn-up and get on. And of-course on branch lines, because you don't need the seating.
People say we haven't the capacity on the network, but that's because were running two/three car trains twice as much as six or seven coach trains.
It should have been push-pull on Virgin and on other routes:
High power diesel-electric+first trailer+shop and cafe area+standard trailerx5 or even 6+DVT with bike carrying area with luggage/Traincrew area...Max speed 125mph with tilt. I think the manufacturer proposed this in the first place. With today's technology you could easily pack all the necessary horsepower into one unit.
Maybe have extra trains in the core area with DMUs on XC
Really you don't want straight loco hauled trains on today's railway, there are very inefficient in terms of stock utilisation, track capacity and staff. Most of the time you can't turn them around quick enough at the end of the journey either.
Anyway looks like voyager is loosing the vote. he he
People like the 'turn-up-and go aspect' with walk on fairs and a timetable to match, buit in my view we should really be going for pre-book (cheap) tickets where possible and longer trains and free-up some of the capacity. Then we wouldn't have to spend quite so much putting it back in!
So come on then Alan, what would you do? Looks like cross country has given up!
-
AlanP46
- Well Established Forum Member
- Posts: 680
- Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2002 12:00 am
- Location: Warwickshire
- Contact:
I think XC has realised his arguement is flawed, hence his departure from this topic...
I think the only viable option is push-pull operations nowadays, because the nessesary straight LHCS infrastructure has been removed.
I think that in some places the freight & passenger traffic should combine again - the highlands of scotland. If Scotrail bought themselves from nice new 66s (or other equiv.) with ETH fitted, they could use them on trains to Wick / Thurso where the kit still exists. Using brand new stock too, they'd improve the service offering the people of the north a decent journey. In addition, they could take the freight from inverness - georgemass at the same time, eliminating any capacity problems allowing the growth of traffic. The Kyle route would benefit greatly - especially if they were to purchase a panoramic coach as seen in Switzerland.
If anyone uses POP3 e-mail, and has access to the UK.Railway newsgroups, then virgin voyagers / pendolinos is a good topic to read - contains some very good arguements for and against.
Alan
I think the only viable option is push-pull operations nowadays, because the nessesary straight LHCS infrastructure has been removed.
I think that in some places the freight & passenger traffic should combine again - the highlands of scotland. If Scotrail bought themselves from nice new 66s (or other equiv.) with ETH fitted, they could use them on trains to Wick / Thurso where the kit still exists. Using brand new stock too, they'd improve the service offering the people of the north a decent journey. In addition, they could take the freight from inverness - georgemass at the same time, eliminating any capacity problems allowing the growth of traffic. The Kyle route would benefit greatly - especially if they were to purchase a panoramic coach as seen in Switzerland.
If anyone uses POP3 e-mail, and has access to the UK.Railway newsgroups, then virgin voyagers / pendolinos is a good topic to read - contains some very good arguements for and against.
Alan
-
megatron
- Well Established Forum Member
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 12:00 am
- Location: Cybertron, well Chorley Lancashire :)
Well ive travelled on voyagers a few times now and i happily travel Preston to Brum as i do and id be more than happy to not change at brum (if i could find a cheap non stop one!) and carry on to Bristol on a voyager. Ive no problem at all with them.
Ive gone from Picaddily to Trowbridge (Through Temple Meads and on the way to Westbury (if u dont no were it is) with Wales and West on a 158 (about 4hours) and the only problem i had was that being a big lad it was a bit squashed on mi knees!!! I simply dont mind the noise coz as some1 said before its all part of the experiance!
However thats my opinion!
The mk3's for me are far too bouncy (especially from Brum to Cheltenham. God that is appauling. Thank God they're doing track work there soon!!!) and i was nearly sick last time i got seating over the bogie!!!
I agree though that probably the push pull HST2 option would be the best although im no economist (yet!doing it at uni)
This agrument is all about personal preferences so we'll never come to a unified solution (if thats what we want!)
The 175s are IMO brilliant, smooth and quiet i absolutely love um!!!
Id go XC on one of them anyday!!!
Ive gone from Picaddily to Trowbridge (Through Temple Meads and on the way to Westbury (if u dont no were it is) with Wales and West on a 158 (about 4hours) and the only problem i had was that being a big lad it was a bit squashed on mi knees!!! I simply dont mind the noise coz as some1 said before its all part of the experiance!
However thats my opinion!
The mk3's for me are far too bouncy (especially from Brum to Cheltenham. God that is appauling. Thank God they're doing track work there soon!!!) and i was nearly sick last time i got seating over the bogie!!!
I agree though that probably the push pull HST2 option would be the best although im no economist (yet!doing it at uni
)This agrument is all about personal preferences so we'll never come to a unified solution (if thats what we want!)
The 175s are IMO brilliant, smooth and quiet i absolutely love um!!!
Id go XC on one of them anyday!!!
-
Goingnorth
- Very Active Forum Member
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 12:00 am
I'm not sure what the economics is, not being a rolling stock engineer.
My understanding was if you go over 4 or 5 coaches then loco-hauled becomes the cheaper alternative...
However, I would have thought that with all those diesel engines on each coach (high-revving too) plus traction motors in voyagers case, it can't be very economical to run or maintain.
Here's what I would have done with the industry given a choice:
1. Regional companies, but with standardised equipment set by the SRA in conjunction with suppliers. Any new line builds (such as the CTRL, N-S LGV) I would have gone for a public/private partnership and let single entities run it.
2. Electrified many secondary (esp inter-regional routes) and resignalled them with two-aspect signalling and axle-counters. Develop PC based interlocking, which are already used in many parts of the world and on metro systems. On many routes you could get away with signals 5 or 10 miles apart and still run a 10 minute headway. Obviously you can't justify electrification on many lines, but nevertheless re-signalling would have been a big priority. Government grants to cover this. Signalling on PC.
Bi-directional where possible.
3. Main lines develop a cheaper version of SSI with PC based interfaces and a standardized NX panel type. WCML/ECML/MML/XC/TPX routes 3 and four aspect signalling. Signalling on NX panel/PC hybrid. All would max out at 125mph.
4. Develop a North-South 'super-railway' in conjunction with central railway and have LGV ops (speeds up to 220mph) and truck carrying ops (up to 75mph) along the m1/m6/a1 corridors as described. 4 track the core area with HGV/Passenger terminals at strategic points and through links to the channel tunnel and Europe. Standard 'off-the shelf' Euro equipment. I think this is going to be proposed anyway....watch this space...
5. DMUs/EMUs on secondary/city/branch line routes. Inter-regional push-pull with 7/8/9 coaches at hourly intervals. Half-hourly or more in core areas. Example would be Edinburgh-Glasgow or Trans-pennine. High powered diesel, or where possible electric head-end traction.
Tilt on XC and WCML...speeds upto 125mph.
6. Structure:
SRA to set equipment/design standards/Approve timetabling. Public body.
4 Regional companies to run services day-to-day. Employ drivers, signallers, controllers, station staff, other staff. Set timetable, although approval by SRA. A number of 'Q' paths for extra freight set at 3 monthly intervals - This would allow companies to run freight 'on demand'. Maintenance in-house. Large jobs to be sub-contracted. Upgrade TOPS to PC based windows system. Introduce satellite tracking for freight. Private
Keep rolling-stock leasing companies. Private
Accident investigation board. (Rail Industry Accident Investigation Board RAIB) To investigate large and smaller incidents. All information to be kept on a central database and all industry companies have access. Law/H&S enforcement powers. Set-up public inquires into larger accidents. Public Body.
7. Investment. Public and Private as above also allow sponsorship of lines by companies to raise money. Basically they would be able to place adverts on Billboards, On/in Trains, Stations and tickets along certain routes for fixed periods - say 6 months or 1 year.
8. Fares. National ticket reduction card, further reductions for students/young/pensioners/group travel and families as now. Loyalty scheme. Inter-regional tickets pre-book where possible. Cheap and Very expensive option as on Virgin. Internet booking and timetable checking along with train running information. Through fare via other public transport. Conurbations would have doorstep-doorstop ticketing via zones via all public transport (Rail/Bus/Tram/Metro).
Most of the above is very standard in Europe....
My understanding was if you go over 4 or 5 coaches then loco-hauled becomes the cheaper alternative...
However, I would have thought that with all those diesel engines on each coach (high-revving too) plus traction motors in voyagers case, it can't be very economical to run or maintain.
Here's what I would have done with the industry given a choice:
1. Regional companies, but with standardised equipment set by the SRA in conjunction with suppliers. Any new line builds (such as the CTRL, N-S LGV) I would have gone for a public/private partnership and let single entities run it.
2. Electrified many secondary (esp inter-regional routes) and resignalled them with two-aspect signalling and axle-counters. Develop PC based interlocking, which are already used in many parts of the world and on metro systems. On many routes you could get away with signals 5 or 10 miles apart and still run a 10 minute headway. Obviously you can't justify electrification on many lines, but nevertheless re-signalling would have been a big priority. Government grants to cover this. Signalling on PC.
Bi-directional where possible.
3. Main lines develop a cheaper version of SSI with PC based interfaces and a standardized NX panel type. WCML/ECML/MML/XC/TPX routes 3 and four aspect signalling. Signalling on NX panel/PC hybrid. All would max out at 125mph.
4. Develop a North-South 'super-railway' in conjunction with central railway and have LGV ops (speeds up to 220mph) and truck carrying ops (up to 75mph) along the m1/m6/a1 corridors as described. 4 track the core area with HGV/Passenger terminals at strategic points and through links to the channel tunnel and Europe. Standard 'off-the shelf' Euro equipment. I think this is going to be proposed anyway....watch this space...
5. DMUs/EMUs on secondary/city/branch line routes. Inter-regional push-pull with 7/8/9 coaches at hourly intervals. Half-hourly or more in core areas. Example would be Edinburgh-Glasgow or Trans-pennine. High powered diesel, or where possible electric head-end traction.
Tilt on XC and WCML...speeds upto 125mph.
6. Structure:
SRA to set equipment/design standards/Approve timetabling. Public body.
4 Regional companies to run services day-to-day. Employ drivers, signallers, controllers, station staff, other staff. Set timetable, although approval by SRA. A number of 'Q' paths for extra freight set at 3 monthly intervals - This would allow companies to run freight 'on demand'. Maintenance in-house. Large jobs to be sub-contracted. Upgrade TOPS to PC based windows system. Introduce satellite tracking for freight. Private
Keep rolling-stock leasing companies. Private
Accident investigation board. (Rail Industry Accident Investigation Board RAIB) To investigate large and smaller incidents. All information to be kept on a central database and all industry companies have access. Law/H&S enforcement powers. Set-up public inquires into larger accidents. Public Body.
7. Investment. Public and Private as above also allow sponsorship of lines by companies to raise money. Basically they would be able to place adverts on Billboards, On/in Trains, Stations and tickets along certain routes for fixed periods - say 6 months or 1 year.
8. Fares. National ticket reduction card, further reductions for students/young/pensioners/group travel and families as now. Loyalty scheme. Inter-regional tickets pre-book where possible. Cheap and Very expensive option as on Virgin. Internet booking and timetable checking along with train running information. Through fare via other public transport. Conurbations would have doorstep-doorstop ticketing via zones via all public transport (Rail/Bus/Tram/Metro).
Most of the above is very standard in Europe....