As you are obviously a fan of diesels and strongly dislike electrics I think I am wasting my time but here goes:-

Even allowing for Network Rails upgrading fiasco the train service on the WCML is faster, more frequent and cleaner than it was in steam/diesel days. I don't have much experience of the ECML but I would imagine that the same applies.
Agreed, but now they are coming to the end of their working lives and the opportunity is there to replace them with something better........Lighter, cleaner, more efficient electrics!!
Most major countries in Europe seem to think so. If you want a frequent, fast, efficient service it's the best option. As lines become more congested the superior acceleration of electric trains is the best way to increase line capacity.
I agree that cheaper fares are important but until we change the way our railways are run you are unlikely to get them even if we were to stick with diesel traction. I see that FGW have increased many of their fares today despite being one of the biggest users of HST's.

Really It is not the railways that need worrying about.
Trains can carry many many more people and so when you do the sums, you are being cleaner than road transport anyway you put it, even with steam.
You are right about the mid cheshire line, I have read up on it some more.

There is no doubt that electrification of both the WCML and ECML have made a vast improvement to services on both routes and all other routes that have been electrified. So much so that we talk about "The Sparks Effect!" Increased passenger numbers always seem to follow recent electrification of routes.

The HST must rank as one of the Great Railway Classics. They are great to ride in and they have served the railways well but they are now over 25 years old and have covered 10's of millions of miles. They cannot go on forever, although I do hope one is preserved for use on the mainline!

You have to replace equipment, preferably before it passes it's sell by date!!

Best wishes,

John H-T.

Trains and Railways are part of the whole. You cannot separate them.

The next Golden Age of the Railways should be ahead of us but the present network cannot cope with projected passenger numbers. Capacity needs to be increased. Steam cannot provide the service on a railway in the 21st century. Think of the leap in technology required to develope steam multi units that can run reliably at 200mph. That is what is needed for the future!

Best wishes,

John H-T.

To reply to Swisstrains; i am a diesel loco fan, but have an interest in all railway traction.

You are not wasting your time your point has been made well. I agree that society equates progress with faster journey times and that electric trains are best placed to achieve this.

But as a 'rail enthusiast' and 'a grumpy old man' progress has to be seroiusly questioned.

- The simplistic character of the railway is lost with unsightly wires and gantries.

- You get newer trains with newer technology, but the pollution is hidden. Do we really get cleaner trains ?

- I find the idea of very fast electric trains scary. TGV's or Bullet Trains in the densely populated UK ? (perhaps i'm being irrational here )

- I just feel more comfortable that the motive power on a train should be produced on board (Again more simplistic, with less issues concerning the ever complicated politics of generating electricity)

- Talking of politics we have had patchy electrification giving some cities a so called economic advantage and status over others. Although i'm sure (diesel Sheffield) manages just as well as (electrified Leeds).

We as a society are obsessed with squeezing more and more out of life, i don't think this is necessarilly a good thing.



Railways in the UK should rebel against progress. Which company would you choose if travelling from Birmirmingham to London at 9.00am ?


Scenario 1 Chiltern trains DMU 165 2x 350 hp Perkins engines, top speed 75mph, journey time 2h 18m, return ticket £26.90.

or

scenario 2 Virgin trains EMU 390 Pedolino 5.1 MW output, top speed 140mph (restricted to 125mph), journey time 1h 24m, return ticket £61.00.


AS HUMAN BEINGS WE DON"T NEED FASTER TRAINS, BUT AS PAWNS IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY WE SURELY DO !

It would very much depend on what I was going to do in London when I got there. If I was going for a meeting I would go Virgin. I probably would n't be paying for the ticket anyway!

However if it was for a day out I would probably go Chiltern!

To take high speed trains to the current limit: Maglev. I would rather travel from Shanhai to the Airport in 15 minutes at speeds up to 400kph than spend 2 hours in Shanghai Traffic. Have tried both!

Best wishes,

John H-T.

It's true that faster journey times can result from electrification but there are far more benefits than just being able to speed from A to B in the shortest possible time. I see that you have chosen to ignore such things as increased line capacity, the potential for reduced pollution and lower operating costs.

I'm afraid I can't suggest any cure for your paranoia.

There is also a third scenario?

London Midland Trains EMU 350, top speed 100mph, journey time 2h 25m, return ticket £24.

Now THAT's the one I would choose.(But not on a Sunday:))

The thing is steam has been developed since, but thats a different subject.
I will come back to that at another time.
The fact is that the roads that replaced the railways had a maximum traffic allowence much less than the railways, even though it was clear that the population was becoming astronomical.
Why oh why then did they not realise this.
In may cases now we need both.
Some examples are the waverly route and some parts of the Great central.

You have now totally lost me Steam for Ever. I have lost whatever thread of logic there might have been in your argument.

Best wishes,

John H-T.

Squeaky88, do you realise that diesel fumes are carcinogenic?