http://www.central-railway.co.uk/


Whatever happened to this planned project of through international
eurostar-type trains travelling from Dover via Kensington Olympia to
Manchester and Liverpool? The website is still there but could this
really happen? Can't imagine the chiltern lines handling such traffic!

"GreatWesternSean"  wrote in message
news:1126696663.104597.189350@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> http://www.central-railway.co.uk/
>
>
> Whatever happened to this planned project of through international
> eurostar-type trains travelling from Dover via Kensington Olympia to
> Manchester and Liverpool? The website is still there but could this
> really happen? Can't imagine the chiltern lines handling such traffic!
>

The Central Railway proposals were primarily for freight, and in particular
with a loading gauge suitable for lorries on trains. It would have involved
quadrupling the Chiltern Line between Denham and Ashendon Junction, hence
the Tesco Tunnel has been built (sic) with space for a 4-track railway.
Although it is a private enterprise proposal, the Government won't allow
parliamentary time for the necessary legislation, on the grounds that if
Central Railway went bust with the line half-built the Government would be
left having to pick up the pieces.

The North of London Eurostar proposals were a quite separate scheme, built
into the original Channel Tunnel legislation. Although the trains (and a
depot at Longsight) have been built (some of them are currently running on
GNER between Kings Cross and Leeds) the plan has been scrapped as there is
no business case to justify it. If it had come about the trains would have
run on the WCML (and on the ECML to Edinburgh), not on the Chiltern Line.

Of course, in the 19th Century Sir Edward Watkin had ideas for through
trains from Manchester to Paris, via the Great Central, presumably crossing
London via the Metropolitan and East London Railways, joining the South
Eastern at New Cross (NB, presumably not via the Widened Lines and Snow
Hill, because this would have involved using the LCDR at least between
Farringdon and Blackfriars, and in the Watkin era the SER and LCDR rarely
co-operated over anything).

Peter

Peter Masson wrote:


> The North of London Eurostar proposals were a quite separate scheme, built
> into the original Channel Tunnel legislation. Although the trains (and a
> depot at Longsight) have been built (some of them are currently running on
> GNER between Kings Cross and Leeds) the plan has been scrapped as there is
> no business case to justify it. If it had come about the trains would have
> run on the WCML (and on the ECML to Edinburgh), not on the Chiltern Line.
>
> Peter


What was the fiasco about Channel Tunnel sleepers all about. I gather
coaches were built and stored for a long time and then disposed of in
some way.

Kevin

wrote

>
> What was the fiasco about Channel Tunnel sleepers all about. I gather
> coaches were built and stored for a long time and then disposed of in
> some way.
>

Even less of a business case. Some, at least,  of the sleepers are now
running in Canada.

Peter

Peter Masson wrote:

>  wrote
> >
> > What was the fiasco about Channel Tunnel sleepers all about. I gather
> > coaches were built and stored for a long time and then disposed of in
> > some way.
> >
> Even less of a business case. Some, at least,  of the sleepers are now
> running in Canada.
>
> Peter

How on earth did they get to build them, and who paid, if there was no
business case. How did the media miss that one? It must have coincided
with an even bigger f**k-up somewhere else.

Kevin

wrote in message
news:1126700010.755590.131810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>
> Peter Masson wrote:
> >  wrote
> > >
> > > What was the fiasco about Channel Tunnel sleepers all about. I gather
> > > coaches were built and stored for a long time and then disposed of in
> > > some way.
> > >
> > Even less of a business case. Some, at least,  of the sleepers are now
> > running in Canada.
> >
> > Peter
> How on earth did they get to build them, and who paid, if there was no
> business case. How did the media miss that one? It must have coincided
> with an even bigger f**k-up somewhere else.
>

Slipped into the Channel Tunnel legislation, to try to keep the 'regions' on
side. They were ordered during rail privatisation (so you're right about an
even bigger f-u).

Peter

kajr@mwfree.net wrote:

> What was the fiasco about Channel Tunnel sleepers all about. I gather
> coaches were built and stored for a long time and then disposed of in
> some way.
> 


The Nightstar sleepers are in Canada now, and the 37s that were going to
haul them where the wires didn't go were used for other things.

pete
-- 
pete@fenelon.com "Obviously crime pays, or there'd be no crime"-G Gordon Liddy

Not only sleepers, but "day" coaches (2-1 seating configuration),
lounges and restaurants are used in Eastern Canada (Branded by Via Rail
as "Renaissance").  Sleepers are used primarily from Montreal to
Halifax (20 hrs) and Gaspé.  Day coaches are used primarily between
Ottawa - Montreal - Quebec City.  The sleepers initially came in for
some criticism over poor accessibility for wheelchair passengers (and
that doors were often frozen shut in winter!), but ride comfort in all
these vehicles is much appreciated.  There are also "intermediate"
vehicles with E* coupling at one end and North American coupling at the
other to allow for mixed consists.
briann

"Peter Masson"  wrote in message 
news:dg97lr$j4g$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>
>  wrote in message
> news:1126700010.755590.131810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Peter Masson wrote:
>> >  wrote
>> > >
>> > > What was the fiasco about Channel Tunnel sleepers all about. I gather
>> > > coaches were built and stored for a long time and then disposed of in
>> > > some way.
>> > >
>> > Even less of a business case. Some, at least,  of the sleepers are now
>> > running in Canada.
>> >
>> > Peter
>> How on earth did they get to build them, and who paid, if there was no
>> business case. How did the media miss that one? It must have coincided
>> with an even bigger f**k-up somewhere else.
>>
> Slipped into the Channel Tunnel legislation, to try to keep the 'regions' 
> on
> side. They were ordered during rail privatisation (so you're right about 
> an
> even bigger f-u).
>
> Peter
>
>

To be fair, the business case for sleeper trains changed very rapidly 
between the issuing of the specifications and the final delivery of the 
stock. Due to more rapid day-time services, and other changes (such as the 
sharing of costs between postal/parcel services and sleepers), a lot of the 
sleeper services in mainland Europe (as well as domestic UK ones) have 
ceased. Most of those remaining have been kept under political pressure from 
regions such as the Scottish Highlands. I note from today's Guardian that 
the GW sleeper service is again under threat.
Brian

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:44:24 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
 wrote:


>Of course, in the 19th Century Sir Edward Watkin had ideas for through
>trains from Manchester to Paris, via the Great Central, presumably crossing
>London via the Metropolitan and East London Railways, joining the South
>Eastern at New Cross (NB, presumably not via the Widened Lines and Snow
>Hill, because this would have involved using the LCDR at least between
>Farringdon and Blackfriars, and in the Watkin era the SER and LCDR rarely
>co-operated over anything).
>
>Peter
>

Watkin's ambition to reach Paris through a tunnel has often been
suggested but although he was chairman of the tunnel company, the
initial works had been abandoned before the London Extension was
built.  In fact, Watkin put much successful effort into improving the
cross-channel ferry services whilst chairman of SER and even he
presumaby recognised that a channel tunnel at that time was
impractical - although he could and did hold dinner parties in it!

Guy Gorton

The Channel Tunnel legislation  which, as noted before, included provision
for North of London services and sleeper services to all parts is another
example of politicians of all parties having no understanding of  the
railways and public transport in general. Anyone with half a brain could
have foreseen that fare levels would have killed the scheme unless they were
heavily subsidised. But the final nail in the coffin was the advent of low
cost airlines. The latter not only win on cheapness but also on reduced
journey times. The only aspect of travel where rail has an advantage is that
trains actually go to the heart of a city which is probably where most
passengers want to be when they make a journey.

MJW

"M.J.Whitson"  writes:


> The only aspect of travel where rail has an advantage is that trains
> actually go to the heart of a city which is probably where most
> passengers want to be when they make a journey.


Hence the thrust of the current E* TV adverts

M.J.Whitson wrote:

> The Channel Tunnel legislation  which, as noted before, included provision
> for North of London services and sleeper services to all parts is another
> example of politicians of all parties having no understanding of  the
> railways and public transport in general. Anyone with half a brain could
> have foreseen that fare levels would have killed the scheme unless they were
> heavily subsidised. But the final nail in the coffin was the advent of low
> cost airlines. The latter not only win on cheapness but also on reduced
> journey times. The only aspect of travel where rail has an advantage is that
> trains actually go to the heart of a city which is probably where most
> passengers want to be when they make a journey.
>
> MJW


Of course government did not help by insisting that these trains could
only carry through passengers to the continent and not domestic ones.
The economics then became hopeless.
George