You'd be mad to renationalise the railways ...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Seriously, re msg 57, how do trains get to Hull? I know relatively little about distances along railway tracks. It seems to me that the difference between different routes might be 20 miles at most, though clearly looking at a map if there are viable routes which cross the river by rail they would be shorter. I don't think we're going to see anything like the rail equivalent of the Humber bridge which would make the journey considerably shorter.

Economically it may still be better to go via Selby if there are problems with electrifying the route via Goole and over that bridge.

Hull-London trains have been timetabled via Selby for as long as I can remember. Just why this is I do not not know. They travel via Goole only during engineering work, and from there, bus people to and from Howden and Selby.

[Dave2002]

Hull-London trains have been timetabled via Selby for as long as I can remember. Just why this is I do not not know. They travel via Goole only during engineering work, and from there, bus people to and from Howden and Selby.

So which trains use the Goole route? Trains from London can travel at high speed over the ECML in that area - I think it was around there that I noticed we touched 125 mph the other day, so perhaps the issue is one of speed and similar operating factors.

A further thought re getting trains across that bridge. Electric trains could perhaps be constructed using the same kind of battery technology which is used for some cars. This would probably be simpler than some other possibilities. Regenerative braking could be used to charge up the batteries as a first priority, rather than trying to return current back to the source through the supply cables.

Re pantograph operation - are there any lines in the world where pantographs are "dropped" and "picked up" again while the trains are moving?

Again, I wouldn't have thought that would be an insurmountable problem nowadays. That would be useful for short gaps at least, such as crossing a short bridge.

[Flosshilde]

Would a third rail approach work?

We had enough of the 'Third Way' with New Labour.

Would a rail tunnel improve matters? or perhaps a train ferry?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

So which trains use the Goole route? Trains from London can travel at high speed over the ECML in that area - I think it was around there that I noticed we touched 125 mph the other day, so perhaps the issue is one of speed and similar operating factors.

Goole is served by Hull - Sheffield trains, most of which stop at intermediate stations. As for speed limits, the straight nature of both of these lines means that trains can get a move on.

[aeolium]

Here's a succinct account about why the rail privatisation has not really been a privatisation at all, but a continuation of state subsidy by which private companies profit:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/01/great-british-railway-rake-off-rolls-on

[P. G. Tipps]

Here's a succinct account about why the rail privatisation has not really been a privatisation at all ... [/URL]

Thank goodness somebody else has noticed despite all the hype to the contrary!!

[Flosshilde]

I'm not sure what point you're making? The article only says what I, & many others, have been saying all along - the private companies running rail services are in fact heavily subsidised by us. The ONS is simply formally recognising what has been obvious all along.

They are still privatised in the sense that they are not managed by public bodies, and profits (which are made on the back of public subsidy) benefit private shareholders, not the taxpayer.

[P. G. Tipps]

I'm not sure what point you're making? The article only says what I, & many others, have been saying all along - the private companies running rail services are in fact heavily subsidised by us. The ONS is simply formally recognising what has been obvious all along.

They are still privatised in the sense that they are not managed by public bodies, and profits (which are made on the back of public subsidy) benefit private shareholders, not the taxpayer.

I'd have thought the point is clear, Flosshilde.

The UK railways are run by a public body and are, therefore, in reality still nationalised.

This public body contracts out companies (both public and private) to run services.

The notion that we have a privatised rail system is completely false.

As I indicated before it is a mixture of both public and private with the 'public' very much in ultimate control.

The old British Rail without additional private capital didn't benefit the taxpayer (or the strike-ridden passenger) very much did it ... ?

[Flosshilde]

I'd have thought the point is clear, Flosshilde.

The UK railways are run by a public body and are, therefore, in reality still nationalised.

This public body contracts out companies (both public and private) to run services.

ie the Government manages the franchise bidding process - they don't 'run the railways'. The companies decide what services they are going to run, & set fares (within very broad parameters).
(there is only one public company running rail services at the moment, & that was more or less an accident'

The notion that we have a privatised rail system is completely false.

Nonsense.

But there never was much point in trying to have any sort of discussion with you, Scotty. You wriggle & twist your way out of it.

[amateur51]

The notion that we have a privatised rail system is completely false.

Really?

Cross-posted with Flossie

[MrGongGong]

But there never was much point in trying to have any sort of discussion with you, Scotty. You wriggle & twist your way out of it.

You've been outed singe garçon

[P. G. Tipps]

Nonsense.

But there never was much point in trying to have any sort of discussion with you, Scotty. You wriggle & twist your way out of it.

Not only do you claim I live in Manchester but, for some reason, you also call me 'Scotty'! How strange.

I'm only agreeing with the Guardian contributor who states the rather obvious that our railway system is not truly privatised.

If you are unhappy with what you read in that famously august organ, maybe you might try the Telegraph instead, Flosshilde ... ?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Economically it may still be better to go via Selby if there are problems with electrifying the route via Goole and over that bridge.

Apparently there is a swing bridge at Selby too. But there is a way to electrify it. I think there's something of the kind at Norwich.

The wires terminate at either end of the bridge. On the swing bridge itself a metal bar/rail, at the same height of the wires, allows the pantograph to remain stable as the bridge is crossed - without such a bar there would be a strong likelihood of the wires being ripped off by the pantograph after crossing the bridge.. I don't know whether the overhead rail is electrified. The train could simple coast across.

[Dave2002]

(there is only one public company running rail services at the moment, & that was more or less an accident'

Indeed, though it seems to be doing rather well, and passengers, including me, seem to like it. That's probably also "more or less an accident".

[Serial_Apologist]

Apparently there is a swing bridge at Selby too. But there is a way to electrify it. I think there's something of the kind at Norwich.

The wires terminate at either end of the bridge. On the swing bridge itself a metal bar/rail, at the same height of the wires, allows the pantograph to remain stable as the bridge is crossed - without such a bar there would be a strong likelihood of the wires being ripped off by the pantograph after crossing the bridge.. I don't know whether the overhead rail is electrified. The train could simple coast across.

Except that, as I mentioned above, surely the emergency brakes would automatically apply, as soon as the current was cut off?