Railroad Forums
Moderators: Komachi, David Benton
David Benton wrote:They were working on connecting branchlines up,to create a "Oxbridge" service, when i was there early 90's. Wasn't going to be high speed though.Yes, the goal of recreating an east-west Cambridge to Oxford line has been talked about for years. Apart from the advantages for passengers, it would also be useful as a new route for goods traffic from the east coast ports such as Felixstowe.
johnthefireman wrote:Reinstating a through line is quite reasonable, and it is a mystery why it was severed in the first place. But the question is why the government are proposing this novel ownership. Is it a sign of their thinking for future policy? Will they be fragmenting the ownership of the whole system?David Benton wrote:They were working on connecting branchlines up,to create a "Oxbridge" service, when i was there early 90's. Wasn't going to be high speed though.Yes, the goal of recreating an east-west Cambridge to Oxford line has been talked about for years. Apart from the advantages for passengers, it would also be useful as a new route for goods traffic from the east coast ports such as Felixstowe.
johnthefireman wrote:I had already posted a few random news articles about the matter at http://friendsoftherail.com/forum/viewt ... 7daf5a7594" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;I dislike Tory government in general but I don't understand what they are up to in this case. A single franchisee is not likely to own the resources to maintain the track and other functions formerly undertaken by Network Rail, inherited from the former British Rail. How is the operating company to assemble these facilities? Will they have to hire them from - Network Rail, the only current supplier?
george matthews wrote:How is the operating company to assemble these facilities? Will they have to hire them from - Network Rail, the only current supplier?Presumably they will have to hire them in, which is worrying because Network Rail is not the only potential supplier. Companies such as SERCO, which used to provide these services to Network Rail before NR took maintenance in-house, would presumably be happy to trouser some cash for maintenance services again, which is very worrying as the reason NR took maintenance in-house in the first place was because of the inefficiency and indeed danger which occurred when companies such as SERCO were doing it for them.
johnthefireman wrote:I would be wary of trusting SERCO. Perhaps I would have to research any route to see if SERCO is responsible - and avoid it.george matthews wrote:How is the operating company to assemble these facilities? Will they have to hire them from - Network Rail, the only current supplier?Presumably they will have to hire them in, which is worrying because Network Rail is not the only potential supplier. Companies such as SERCO, which used to provide these services to Network Rail before NR took maintenance in-house, would presumably be happy to trouser some cash for maintenance services again, which is very worrying as the reason NR took maintenance in-house in the first place was because of the inefficiency and indeed danger which occurred when companies such as SERCO were doing it for them.
george matthews wrote: I dislike Tory government in generalHow about this example of the Tories and railways?
johnthefireman wrote:I have always disliked Grayling. I don't know whether control by the London Mayor is a good idea or not. There are certainly some lines which might benefit from being closer to Underground lines, administratively.george matthews wrote: I dislike Tory government in generalHow about this example of the Tories and railways?
Chris Grayling urged to resign over leaked rail letter
