Recent content by The Planner

Still would take the same time as you trundle along to keep the timetable.

Right, so it not really OOC to Brighton then.

Power supply is computer modelled by the principal route engineer (PRE)

How would you do that? There is no connection to the WLL

Struggled enough to get Bromsgrove Westerleigh to what it is now. Level crossings still causing the problems.

807s are more power hungry, also factor in that NR are now probably at a point where they don't want to get perilously close to the limits.

Thats a permanent solution, it looks like the viaducts sit on the existing road.

Its 100 HST from Bicester to Bletchley, id be amazed if that got dropped at this point when its effectively built. There is very little saving in it.

That has the potential to bork the timetable then as you could only run 168s and a 196 will be quicker off the blocks.

Its the other way around, TfL wouldn't want it themselves. They didnt want to pay for the proposed extension to Tring, which would have knackered the slow lines on the WCML.

I will be. They certainly aren't running past Oxford in the short term.

3 minute headways all over the place on the network. Its as low as 2 between Paddington and Reading in specific circumstances.

How are you getting them to Paddington? There isn't any room on the reliefs.

Bear in mind that declaring congested infrastructure, that NR needs a plan to resolve it. Whether thats tinkering at the edges, a timetable change or reduction or new infrastructure. Normally its not a cheap process. You don't just declare it and say oh well.

I dont believe that is happening in my opinion, the PMO only appears to worry about whether a timetable can be delivered by system operator.