Good suggestions, Sam - but constructing new routes through built up urban areas is a very disruptive and expensive.
Much of the Bakerloo line extension proposal is simply using existing surface lines - as far as I know, some of the existing underused lines and disused track beds/railway land may be still in place to connect Elephant with Lewisham.
The idea is to extend from Elephant to Lewisham (in tunnel I assume) serving new areas between these areas, then to take over an existing NR line (the Hayes line) as this will free up capacity on the NR lines into London Bridge.
If you're on the Hayes line then how do you get to London Bridge/Cannon Street? Looks like you'll have to change at Lewisham which would be an inconvenience.
In the Newshopper this week there's a campaign to get trains running direct from Bromley North to London rather than passengers having to change at Grove Park as its an inconvenience.
If you're on the Hayes line then how do you get to London Bridge/Cannon Street? Looks like you'll have to change at Lewisham which would be an inconvenience.
In the Newshopper this week there's a campaign to get trains running direct from Bromley North to London rather than passengers having to change at Grove Park as its an inconvenience.
I used to commute from Bromley North to Cannon St/Charing X during the 70s - always a number of direct trains at peak times, without changing at Grove Park.
Off peak of course, you had to change at Grove Park.
Labour are not committed to kicking Virgin, stagecoach and Deutschbahn etc. off despite pressure from some. They do wish to allow state owned companies to tender. I've seen reference to linking tracks and trains so logically they sell or lease the tracks and stations - raise money, link it up and retain regulatory control / the power to terminate a franchise. But that might be a policy idea not yet adopted? The main public announcement on network rail is that it will be merged with a new strategic body accountable to parliament - that's a coded way of stating that network rail is accountable to nobody right now! Tories don't have any policy announcement on railways since 2006 according to Google!
Honestly, which party would be more likely to have a policy which seeks a mystical return to the 1920's and Isambard Kingdom Brunel?
1920s? ........ Brunel died in 1859, Prague.
;o)
Yes ,clumsy combo there, but I meant to illustrate that the Tories love the Golden Age of railways with the country divided up into 4 private companies, and Brunel as the iconic British engineer.
They look for inspiration to Britain's past, rather than Germany's present.
During Brunel's time and right up to the grouping of 1923 before the Big 4 companies were formed, there were a myriad of independant railway lines throughout Britain. Several were in direct competition with each other and the rivalry intense.
There were big profits made but some of the lines lost money as soon as they were in operation. Perhaps it's this scenario that present Government wishes to emulate?
The grouping of the Big 4 companies was as a direct result of the economic aftermath of the First World War, when the independant railways were run into the ground to sustain the war effort.
Similarly in 1948, the Big 4 companies were nationalised as the Second World War effort had virtually bankrupted them.
Today privatised railways make a profit only because they receive Government investment and subsidy - taxpayers money pays the dividend and interest to passive investors.
Labour are not committed to kicking Virgin, stagecoach and Deutschbahn etc. off despite pressure from some. They do wish to allow state owned companies to tender. I've seen reference to linking tracks and trains so logically they sell or lease the tracks and stations - raise money, link it up and retain regulatory control / the power to terminate a franchise. But that might be a policy idea not yet adopted? The main public announcement on network rail is that it will be merged with a new strategic body accountable to parliament - that's a coded way of stating that network rail is accountable to nobody right now! Tories don't have any policy announcement on railways since 2006 according to Google!
Honestly, which party would be more likely to have a policy which seeks a mystical return to the 1920's and Isambard Kingdom Brunel?
1920s? ........ Brunel died in 1859, Prague.
;o)
Yes ,clumsy combo there, but I meant to illustrate that the Tories love the Golden Age of railways with the country divided up into 4 private companies, and Brunel as the iconic British engineer.
They look for inspiration to Britain's past, rather than Germany's present.
During Brunel's time and right up to the grouping of 1923 before the Big 4 companies were formed, there were a myriad of independant railway lines throughout Britain. Several were in direct competition with each other and the rivalry intense.
There were big profits made but some of the lines lost money as soon as they were in operation. Perhaps it's this scenario that present Government wishes to emulate?
The grouping of the Big 4 companies was as a direct result of the economic aftermath of the First World War, when the independant railways were run into the ground to sustain the war effort.
Similarly in 1948, the Big 4 companies were nationalised as the Second World War effort had virtually bankrupted them.
Today privatised railways make a profit only because they receive Government investment and subsidy - taxpayers money pays the dividend and interest to passive investors.
Labour are not committed to kicking Virgin, stagecoach and Deutschbahn etc. off despite pressure from some. They do wish to allow state owned companies to tender. I've seen reference to linking tracks and trains so logically they sell or lease the tracks and stations - raise money, link it up and retain regulatory control / the power to terminate a franchise. But that might be a policy idea not yet adopted? The main public announcement on network rail is that it will be merged with a new strategic body accountable to parliament - that's a coded way of stating that network rail is accountable to nobody right now! Tories don't have any policy announcement on railways since 2006 according to Google!
Honestly, which party would be more likely to have a policy which seeks a mystical return to the 1920's and Isambard Kingdom Brunel?
1920s? ........ Brunel died in 1859, Prague.
;o)
Yes ,clumsy combo there, but I meant to illustrate that the Tories love the Golden Age of railways with the country divided up into 4 private companies, and Brunel as the iconic British engineer.
They look for inspiration to Britain's past, rather than Germany's present.
During Brunel's time and right up to the grouping of 1923 before the Big 4 companies were formed, there were a myriad of independant railway lines throughout Britain. Several were in direct competition with each other and the rivalry intense.
There were big profits made but some of the lines lost money as soon as they were in operation. Perhaps it's this scenario that present Government wishes to emulate?
The grouping of the Big 4 companies was as a direct result of the economic aftermath of the First World War, when the independant railways were run into the ground to sustain the war effort.
Similarly in 1948, the Big 4 companies were nationalised as the Second World War effort had virtually bankrupted them.
Today privatised railways make a profit only because they receive Government investment and subsidy - taxpayers money pays the dividend and interest to passive investors.
Comments
Much of the Bakerloo line extension proposal is simply using existing surface lines - as far as I know, some of the existing underused lines and disused track beds/railway land may be still in place to connect Elephant with Lewisham.
In the Newshopper this week there's a campaign to get trains running direct from Bromley North to London rather than passengers having to change at Grove Park as its an inconvenience.
Off peak of course, you had to change at Grove Park.
There were big profits made but some of the lines lost money as soon as they were in operation. Perhaps it's this scenario that present Government wishes to emulate?
The grouping of the Big 4 companies was as a direct result of the economic aftermath of the First World War, when the independant railways were run into the ground to sustain the war effort.
Similarly in 1948, the Big 4 companies were nationalised as the Second World War effort had virtually bankrupted them.
Today privatised railways make a profit only because they receive Government investment and subsidy - taxpayers money pays the dividend and interest to passive investors.
;o)