The Highland Sleeper route makes no sense.

The Caledonian Sleeper is one of my favourite ways to get to London. You can sleep while you travel overnight, so you don't waste time during the day. There are, in fact, two Caledonian Sleeper trains, each with multiple portions. The Lowland Sleeper serves Glasgow and Edinburgh, splitting and joining at Carstairs. Sensible enough. But then there's the Highland Sleeper, which serves Fort William, Inverness and Aberdeen, but it splits and joins at Edinburgh. Why Edinburgh and not Carstairs? OK, for the Aberdeen portion, Edinburgh isn't much of a diversion, but for the Fort William portion, it seems rather inefficient to drag the portion to Edinburgh, to have to take it all the way back to Glasgow to get to the West Highland Line. Plus it runs for a fair old distance on diesel power under the wires. 

Which brings me to the other issue: traction choice. Back when DB Schenker were providing the traction, the sleeper was hauled by Class 90s for the electric part of the journey down the West Coast Main Line, and by Class 67s (which replaced Class 37s) north of the central belt. Sensible enough. However, when GBRF took over the contract, they switched to Class 92s for the electric-hauled part of the journey (still sensible enough), but for the diesel-powered part of the trip, they chose... Class 73s. What? These were electro-diesels built for the Southern Region of British Railways, primarily for routes that were electrified by DC 3rd rail in the south-East of England, with a diesel engine for bits of track where 3rd rail power was unavailable. They were certainly not built for dragging sleeper trains over the mountainous West Highland Line. Anyway, GBRF overhauled them, installed new engines, and had them double-head with Class 66s when more power was required.

Now let's be honest, the Sleeper doesn't need to be fast. It's a sleeper train; people expect it to take 8 hours or more so they can get a good night's sleep. However, routing the Fort William and Inverness portions via Edinburgh does seem highly inefficient from a fuel use standpoint if nothing else. So, how would I improve its efficiency? First of all, forget Edinburgh. Route the Highland Sleeper through Motherwell instead. Take off the Fort William portion there and send it via Whifflet and Gartcosh to join its current route via Queen Street low level. The Aberdeen portion can take the Falkirk Grahamston route to the Forth Bridge and Fife to join its present route, and the Inverness portion can carry on to Stirling, Perth and Inverness. Alternatively, if we take Fife off the Highland Sleeper's itinerary, the two portions could split at Perth, however this would still require changing to diesel traction at Stirling. As an alternative, Fife could be served by extending the Edinburgh portion of the lowland sleeper to Dundee via the Forth and Tay bridges.

As for traction, GBRF is planning to replace its current locomotives with bi-mode Class 99s, so that problem is likely to solve itself fairly soon.

Upgrades to Stranraer needed.

While central Scotland has been doing quite well recently with railway reopenings and electrifications galore, the South West has seen a severe lack of investment. Stena Line's relocation from Stranraer to Cairnryan in 2011 left Stranraer's railway station (built on a pier to serve the ferry) rather isolated and lacking in passengers. The new ferry terminal has no rail connection and is instead served by a road coach from Ayr! Things got even worse in September 2023 when a fire in the abandoned Ayr Station Hotel caused trains south of Ayr to be cancelled for months while the hotel was made safe. Surprisingly, the South West Scotland Community Rail Partnership has been completely silent on this issue, and their website hasn't been updated since 2019.

Mutterings from local politicians about relocating Stranraer station closer to the town centre have fallen on deaf ears. Having the station closer to the town would eliminate a long walk out to the windswept pier to catch the train, making it a more convenient option for residents and visitors. It wouldn't even take much effort; simply slew the track round to the south of the old car park and build a travel interchange at the Ulsterbus Garage on Port Rodie (see map below).

I have seen some enthusiasts online suggest that the old Stranraer Town station could be reopened as an alternative, but that station, which was on the former line to Portpatrick, is on the edge of the town and just as much of a walk from the town centre as the harbour, although it might be more convenient for residents living in that area.

Meanwhile the ferry ports at Cairnryan still have no rail service. I have previously suggested reopening the old Cairnryan Military Railway from Dunragit to serve both P&O and Stena ferry terminals. The A77 road (which carries the bus from Ayr) is dangerous and prone to closures, so having a railway would be a more reliable means of getting foot passengers to the ferries. There is untapped potential for freight in the area as well. Perhaps the former ferry terminal at Stranraer could be repurposed as a rail-connected freight terminal for smaller container vessels, timber carriers or even tankers?

As Dumfries and Galloway Council run a consultation on the redevelopment of Stranraer seafront, they should consider options for the railway.

Cycling infrastructure needs joined-up thinking.

 Cycling is one of the greenest and healthiest modes of transport. Whether it's making short trips around town for shopping or commuting, or longer bikepacking adventures, cycling is carbon neutral, cheap, and provides exercise as you go. However, it's also dangerous. Cyclists are of course highly vulnerable when sharing the road with motor vehicles, which puts off a lot of people from cycling. There's also an anti-bicycle mindset among many motorists, with many reports in the press of road rage incidents against cyclists from motorists who consider the road to be theirs and theirs alone (despite the fact that bicycles, and horses before them were there before the motor car was invented). Except for designated multi-use paths, cycling on the footpath is illegal, slow and often difficult. The solution is obviously properly segregated bike paths. However, cycle path provision in the UK is patchy, to say the least. 

While some councils have made good effort to provide well-engineered cycle routes that connect places, many paths are isolated, inconvenient and often downright unusable. You get the impression in some areas that paths were provided merely where space and funding was available, with little thought to where the paths were going to and from, and who was going to use them. Warrington Cycle campaign used to have a Facility of the Month page (last updated in 2019), which named and shamed some of the worst examples. Many of these went into a book called "crap cycle lanes", which ridiculed these unusable, confusing, and even dangerous token attempts at providing bike paths. 

To campaign for better, safer cycle routes that actually go from somewhere to somewhere, campaigners in Scotland started a not-quite-annual pedal on parliament to take their concerns straight to the Scottish Government.

Simply put, cyclists want routes that actually connect places, and are safe and convenient to ride.

Photographed below are some examples of bad and good practice:

    Bad practice: Bridge Street Cambuslang at the junction of sustrans routes 74 and 75. Access to the bridge is down the overgrown path to the left. The path across the road is multi-use, but there's only a small sign on a lamppost to indicate this and there's no obvious transition on and off the path. Getting down to and across the bridge requires kerb-hopping, and then there's a fence across the road at the other end of the bridge. These things are all fixable with a bit of thought.

    Good practice: East Kilbride, on sustrans route 756. Well-marked and signposted, fully segregated bike path. Where the cycle route joins the road there are drop-kerbs and white lines to indicate this, providing a smooth ride with no kerb-hopping. 

Could EMALS be fitted to UK Aircraft Carriers?

One of the most controversial design choices of the UK's new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers is that, despite their size, they are designed around the VSTOL variant of the F-35 L:ightning II Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35 B, meaning the ships are fitted with ski-jumps for short take-offs and no arrester gear because the aircraft can land vertically. The USA with its nuclear powered Nimitz class ships operate the  F-35C CATOBAR aircraft, but (and here's the important bit) can also operate a wider range of fixed wing aircraft using catapults and arrester gear. However, such systems are expensive to maintain, take up space in the ship, and require a source of steam to operate. There's no shortage of steam on a nuclear vessel of course, but the Queen Elizabeth Class are powered by diesel and gas turbine engines, not steam or nuclear. A steam boiler would need to be added to create steam to power a catapult.

However, a new technology means that it's now possible to power a catapult with electricity rather than steam: EMALS, or Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System. This new form of catapult uses a linear induction motor, rather than a steam piston, to launch aircraft. The system first saw use on the latest US Aircraft Carrier, USS Gerald R Ford, and is now being introduced on China's newest aircraft carrier, the Fujiyan. Like any new system, EMALS has gone through significant development and testing by the US Navy, hitting many bumps along the road, but the design definitely shows promise, with many notable advantages over steam catapults, including smoother acceleration of aircraft, more precise adjustment for weight of aircraft, and taking up less space below decks. But one of the most obvious advantages is that it doesn't need a source of steam (although Gerald Ford still has that, being nuclear powered). There are conflicting reports on the Fujiyan's power plant, with Wikipedia (not the most reliable source) suggesting it may use steam turbines, like earlier carrier designs, or Integrated Electric Propulsion, like the Queen Elizabeth class. More up-to-date videos on youtube imply the latter.

Which brings us back to the Queen Elizabeth Class. Could the British carriers be retrofitted with EMALS and arrester gear? Certainly in the initial design of the carriers consideration was given to using a CATOBAR design, but this was dropped due to the cost of such a system. EMALS is still a new, expensive, and untested technology, but it should be technically possible to retrofit the ships. The question then becomes one of funding, as well as purchasing additional CATOBAR aircraft to take full advantage of the facility, plus additional pilot training. One thing never mentioned in these debates is that CATOBAR is less safe than VSTOL, with aircraft landing at speed and having to catch an arrester wire to stop, which is a difficult method of landing requiring precision flying from the pilots. With a vertical landing, the plane comes to a hover before landing, eliminating the old risk of missing the wires and having to go around again. 

In summary, VSTOL is safer and cheaper than CATOBAR, but CATOBAR offers the possibility of longer-range fixed wing aircraft with a wider choice of fixed-wing aircraft. While it's fun to speculate about the possibilities, the current finances of the UK will probably preclude the adoption of EMALS for the foreseeable future.

Where next for high speed diesel units?

Electrification and introduction of bi-mode trains is bringing about the withdrawal of many high speed diesel trains in the UK. The nomadic and unreliable Class 180s were withdrawn by Hull trains in favour of Class 802s in 2019, and were transferred to EMR to replace older HSTs, but electrification of the Midland Main Line as far as Corby and the introduction of Class 360 EMUs on the route have once again made the Class 180s surplus to requirements and they have been withdrawn along with EMR's final remaining HSTs. Furthermore, the introduction of bi-mode Class 810 Aurora trains will result in the withdrawal of EMR's Class 222 fleet. The 40+ year-old HSTs were life-expired and due for scrapping, but what of the Class 180s and 222s? Surely these modern trains could find further use? One possible user for the Class 180s is open-access operator Grand Central, which is the only other operator of the type. Where the Class 222s could go is less clear.

Meanwhile on the West Coast Main Line, Avanti Trains is to replace its Class 221 Voyager units with Class 805 and 807 bi-mode trains. In September it was announced that seven Class 221s would be transferred to Cross Country Trains to allow the withdrawal of HSTs.

A surprising announcement towards the end of last year was that Transpennine Express would be withdrawing its four year old fleet of Nova 3 Class 68 locomotives and Mk5 carriages. Their Class 185 DMUs will be fully retained to cover the loss. While the Class 68s could potentially be cascaded to Direct Rail Services for freight use, there isn't much demand for push-pull carriages. Perhaps Scotrail might consider them to replace HSTs on Inter7City services? 

New Zealand needs Inter-City trains.

 

So I recently returned from a month-long holiday in New Zealand, and in terms of trains it was certainly an eye-opening trip. In the UK we are used to being able to take a train anywhere in the country any time we want and if we miss it there will be another one along in a few minutes, or a few hours at the most. In New Zealand, this simply isn’t the case. The suburban commuter networks around Wellington and Auckland are modern and frequent, but if you want to travel between the two cities, well… you can’t. The only passenger train between new Zealand’s two biggest cities is Kiwirail’s “Northern Explorer”, which is a scenic tourist train that runs once every other day.  It goes north one day and returns south the next day.  If you want to go to Auckland from Wellington on the day it’s going from Wellington to Auckland, too bad. You’re going to have to fly instead. Forcing people to fly when there is a railway there is frankly disgraceful when there is a climate emergency on. The less populous South island is even worse off for passenger trains. There are no commuter trains at all connecting any towns in the South island, just the once-a-day tourist trains, the “Coastal Pacific”, which connects Christchurch with the ferry port of Picton, and the "TranzAlpine", which connects Christchurch with Greymouth on the West Coast. The city of Dunedin to the south of Christchurch has no regular train link to Christchurch, just a few tourist lines that run a couple of times a month.

Some of the problems New Zealand has stem from its low population density. With just 49 people per square mile (compared to 715 in the UK or 1346 in the Netherlands), New Zealand doesn’t have enough customers for the kind of frequency we’re used to in more populous countries. Also, the track gauge of 3’6” used in New Zealand prohibits the kind of high speeds we see in countries with standard or broad gauge railways. That’s not to say a daily Picton-Christchurch-Dunedin or Auckland-Wellington service wouldn’t work. Certainly Air New Zealand has enough customers on these routes, but of course the plane can do the trip a lot faster. But as the world seeks to cut down on air pollution, reviving these trains would give citizens and tourists in New Zealand a greener choice. Campaign group "Save our trains" is putting pressure on the New Zealand government to restore Inter-city rail travel in Aotearoa.

The car lobby's culture war is insane and dangerous.

 The accompanying image was modified by me from a popular meme that characterises well-known environmental activist Greta Thunberg as demanding electric cars. I have turned Greta here into a straw man, because that's exactly what this meme is. It completely misrepresents the green movement and what it wants to achieve. And that is the point. The car lobby, and the political right in general has declared a culture war on anti-car environmentalists, and this is a big problem. Make no bones about it, the world needs fewer cars, and the ones it has need to be smaller and more efficient. yes, electric cars are part of the solution, but they aren't a silver bullet that's going to fix climate change. And that brings us to the latest insanity from the right. 15 minute cities are a town planning concept that states that most city dwellers should be no more than a 15 minute walk or bike ride from the shops, churches, schools, pubs, libraries and places of employment that they need to go about their business. It makes perfect sense in theory. However, far right conspiracy theorists have conflated ultra-low emission zones (which are intended to keep cars out of city centres) with some sort of attack on freedom of movement. Let's be clear, 15 minute cities and low emission zones are not going to be some sort of "Hunger Games"-style districts that you are locked into with no escape. They are simply a means of reducing car use. If you want to cross town, over a distance more than a 15 minute walk away, there should be a public transport option to take you there. Nobody is banning you from leaving your 15 minute zone.

The absolutism of the right (who like to attack Greenpeace for using diesel boats, while claiming that restrictions on cars will stop tradesmen in white vans from going about thier jobs) is absurd. Yes, car use should be eliminated where practicable. This of course will be easier for city-dwelling commuters than for farmers and tradesmen in the country. Where a car, van or truck cannot be eliminated it should be made as efficient as possible, by downsizing and electrification. Why buy a giant SUV if you only need a mini? And public transport needs to be electrified. As I have discussed in other blog posts, wiring up the railways is the easiest and fastest way the powers that be can eliminate diesel emissions. 

Low Carbon Logistics

Away from the “blah, blah, blah” of the main COP26 events in Glasgow, the Low Carbon Logistics conference at Mossend (held on the 8^th, 9^th and 10^th of November) showcased some of the solutions the transport industry is coming up with to reduce its carbon footprint.

Exhibitors in attendance included Network Rail, DB Cargo UK, Nuclear Transport Solutions (owner of DRS), Peel Ports, and of course the hosts for the event, P&D Stirling, whose Mossend International Railfreight Park (MIRP) provided the venue for the conference. MIRP is a controversial development locally, with objections raised over building on “green belt” land, but the construction of MIRP will allow more freight on rail and fewer trucks using local roads through Bellshill.

The three day conference had a different theme each day, with speakers discussing the relevant topics. Monday’s theme was “let’s talk about rail freight”. Speakers included Morwen Mands, Head of Sustainability at Highland Spring Group, who are building a railfreight siding adjacent to the group’s main bottling plant in Blackford, and Chris Swan, Head of Rail at Tarmac, who own the rail-served cement terminal at Uddingston.  Tuesday’s theme was “Driving rail Innovations” with an emphasis on decarbonising rail. I attended on Wednesday, which had the theme of "skills and opportunity" with speakers from the National Skills Academy for Rail, Glasgow Caledonian University and SWGR talking about how the amount of electrification going on (plus maintenance, plus building HS2 and reopenings) requires a lot of manpower and skills and how best to retain these skills as older engineers retire and (post Brexit) European workers move back to Europe. The main message here was the need to train up a new generation of engineers, particularly civil and electrical engineers, and technicians.

Before all the speeches started, there was a chance to speak to the exhibitors, which resulted in several interesting conversations. One exhibitor from Network Rail mentioned somebody at the Q&A the day before (possibly one of our members) asking about electrifying a certain line in Glasgow and the answer was that it would simply cost too much. The main concerns were over alterations to listed buildings and closing the line for 18 months. In a so-called "climate emergency" how much are we as a country willing to spend cutting CO2 emissions? It was reported recently that Freightliner were taking their electric locos off the rails and replacing them with diesels because the price of electricity had shot up. This was due to the rising price of gas, upon which (apparently) much of our generating capacity is still dependant. Clearly decarbonising the grid must go hand-in-hand with electrifying transport otherwise putting up wires is simply moving the emissions around. The same of course goes for battery and hydrogen power. Yes, the vehicles themselves don't pollute, but the production of hydrogen is very energy intensive, and batteries contain rare earth elements that come from iffy mines in the Congo. I had another interesting conversation with a man from Peel Ports about the developments at Hunterston, as well as getting the railway to Greenock Ocean Terminal reopened, and the Mossend-Liverpool container train. Obviously Peel Ports are keen on using rail and they need to be encouraged in this endeavour.

Each day culminated in a locomotive naming ceremony, with GBRF naming 92020 “Billy Stirling” on Monday, DB Cargo naming 90039 “The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport” on Tuesday and DRS naming 68006 “Pride of the North”  on Wednesday.

Truck driver shortage is an opportunity for modal shift.

 Recent days have seen reports of panic buying of fuel as the media have suggested a fuel shortage due to a lack of truck drivers to deliver to petrol stations. This brings up two issues:

1. A shortage of truck drivers.

2. Car dependency.

Let's deal with the driver shortage first. Brexit has resulted in many European drivers quitting the UK, and the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a backlog of trainee drivers needing to be tested. This has created the perfect storm of a driver shortage, which will affect deliveries of all manner of products. Fuel tanker drivers need additional hazardous goods training, which exacerbates the problem for that particular trade.

To cut down on the number of lorries on the road (all of which need drivers), industry must look to getting more freight on the railways. Of course trucks are still needed to deliver to petrol stations, supermarkets, and high street shops. However longer distance trunking routes between suppliers and regional distribution centres should be moved onto the railways, freeing up truck drivers for local deliveries as well as reducing pollution. Bulk movements of commodities such as timber, cement, grain, etc. are obvious targets for modal shift. With the rise of online shopping and home deliveries, parcels traffic should return to the railways as well. 

Panic buying is a symptom of wider cultural issues, but car dependency is one problem that can be easily solved. Cars themselves are a very inefficient way of moving people around, particularly for commuting and short journeys. Investment in active travel and public transport should provide the public with car-free alternatives that pollute less and aren't dependent on a finite and fickle resource for fuel. Electric cars will also help in this area, but should not be relied upon as a solution to problems such as pollution and congestion. since an electric car takes up the same amount of space on the road as an internal combustion-engined car, and also consumes the same amount of material to build. Petrol shortages have happened before, yet every time queues form outside petrol stations, nobody stops to ask "can we get by without the car?" It's time to stop relying on the car and look for alternatives.

Undoing Beeching could wipe out heritage operations.

Back in the 1960s, when British Railways were closing "unremunerative" branch lines left, right and centre, plucky bands of volunteers stepped in to save scenic branch lines and the steam trains that ran on them up and down the country. Over the subsequent decades, the heritage railway sector has become a massive part of Britain's tourist industry, as well as saving some pretty important historical trains, stations and other infrastructure. Volunteers have spent decades carefully curating their railways to present an idealised image of a bygone era. There's only one problem. Now the government want to rebuild some of the lines that previous generations closed and these steam railways are standing in the way. The Rossendale to Manchester route for instance could be a strategic commuter route for local residents. however, the East Lancashire Railway is currently occupying the trackbed. Likewise the Spa Valley Railway stands in the way of Brighton Main Line 2 and a potential reopening of the Matlock to Buxton Line would result in Peak Rail being shunted into the sidings. So what is to be done? local commuters need these reopenings to relieve congestion and cut down on CO2 emissions, but closing the heritage railways would hurt the local tourist trade. The simplest answer would of course be to simply shut up shop, sell or donate rolling stock to other nearby heritage railways and let Network Rail move in. Peak Rail, for instance, is practically next door to the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway. Does the area really need two heritage lines, or could the two railways co-locate? This solution wouldn't work so well for the ELR as there are no other heritage lines close to Manchester. Another solution would be to allow heritage trains to operate over Network Rail lines or vice-versa. This would be a legal and managerial nightmare, but not entirely impossible as the NYMR Whitby trains (operating over the NR line from Grosmont to Whitby) demonstrate. You could potentially have National Rail trains running Monday to Friday and have the heritage operation running weekends-only. A third option might be to simply convert the heritage loco sheds to static museums with no operating trains. This would not go down well with the volunteers or visiting public, who want to actually ride on the trains.
So which is more important? A museum (or more derogatorily "toy") railway for tourists and enthusiasts to enjoy of a weekend, or a modern, functioning mass transit system to move people and goods?

Is there a future for domestic air travel?

The recent collapse of flybe has made headlines, but many in the industry have seen this coming for some time. The short-haul airline was operating on a flawed business plan and had been in financial trouble for some time before the sudden drop-off in passenger numbers caused by the COVID-19 outbreak tipped it over the edge.
But with the climate crisis and the rise of the flygskam movement, can short-haul flights continue to be justified? To avert the climate crisis, there will need to be fewer planes in the sky. However, this will inevitably hit the profit margins of the airlines. Can short-haul airlines remain viable businesses?
Within mainland Britain and Europe, rail (and high-speed rail in particular) is the main competitor for short-haul air travel. However in the UK, rail is very highly priced compared to budget airlines. If you can get where you're going faster for less, why bother taking the train? For the sake of the environment, higher air passenger duty could be used to subsidise rail fares, encouraging more people to take the train.
Air travel starts to look much more appealing when you get out into the islands. The Hebrides and the Orkney and Shetland islands are a long ferry ride away from the mainland. Air travel is much, much faster for foot passengers and mail. But out here, passenger numbers are far less, meaning airlines need to use much smaller aircraft to make routes economical. But with the speed advantage, airlines should be able to charge a premium over the ferry operators for foot passengers.
Can the airline industry be saved? Should it be allowed to fail?
Long-haul airlines will probably be alright, as air travel has such an advantage over sea travel. Short-haul airlines are inevitably going to lose out as people turn from air to rail travel to save the planet. I suspect the era of the budget airline may soon come to an end and we may return to the days when air travel was a premium service for the well-to-do.

Star Wars irl

Ever since man has gone into space, the military have used satellites for their own advantage, primarily as an intelligence gathering platform. The big players in the space race were historically the USA and the USSR. The cold war has ended, but the military use of space may just be about to warm up with the creation of the US Space Force. Up until now, American military satellites have been controlled by the US Air Force (itself founded in 1947) but a recent reorganisation has created the Space Force as an independent branch of the armed forces of the United States.
So is this simply a rebrand of the existing Air Force Space Command? Is it a headline-grabbing publicity stunt to satisfy the ego of Donald Trump? Will satellites become weaponised? Will we see space battles like in the movies? All of this seems a bit far-fetched, doesn't it? At the moment the establishment of a Space Force looks like nothing more than a statement of intent. The service will carry on the work previously done by the Air Force Space Command. Very little will immediately change on the ground. But if the world does get invaded by aliens from outer space, we know who will be the first line of defence.

Putting the "Express" in Transpennine Express.

Way back in the early days of privatisation, Cross Country (Virgin Cross Country as it then was) described itself as the "Cinderella" franchise. Equipped with old, unreliable, yet comfortable and spacious loco-hauled trains, it made the decision to scrap its old fleet of Class 47s and loco-hauled coaches in favour of "Voyager" Class 220 and 221 DMUs. However, its Cinderella transformation is nothing compared to that currently taking place to Transpennine Express.
Tasked with running Inter-City trains within the North of England (and more recently into Scotland), TPX, in its earliest incarnation, inherited a small fleet of Class 158 Express Sprinters from BR. These were, simply put, not man enough for the job. From 2005, the 2-car Class 158s were replaced with 3-car Class 170s and 185s. Then when the Liverpool-Manchester electrification was completed these were supplemented by 4-car Class 350 EMUs. These are quite decent units for cross-country services, but they are still effectively upgraded suburban commuter units rather than full-fat Inter-City trains.
So now, the fleet is to be totally be replaced with longer, faster, better equipped trains than ever before. This new fleet will be known as Nova.
The nova fleet will come in 3 varieties, for diesel, electric and bi-mode services:

Nova 1. This is the bi-mode train, for routes with partial electrification between Liverpool-Manchester, Newcastle and Edinburgh. It is based on the Hitachi AT 300 design and consists of a 5-car multiple unit.
Nova 2.  This is the Electric train, operating on the Manchester Airport to Glasgow/Edinburgh and Liverpool to Glasgow routes, which follow the electrified West Coast mainline. These are 5-car units based on the CAF Civity design.
Nova 3. This is the diesel train, for unelectrified routes between Liverpool and Scarborough Unusually, this train consists of push-pull Mk 5 coaches hauled by a class 68 locomotive, which should please enthusiasts. When lines are electrified it will be possible to convert this train to bi-mode or full electric simply by swapping the locomotive, to a class 88 for instance, and if trains require to be lengthened it will be a simple matter to insert more carriages into the train.

All these trains will have first class carriages, space for 4 bikes and a catering trolley service.
With this new fleet, Transpennine Express trains will be transformed from an overcrowded second tier commuter TOC to a legitimate competitor to Cross-Country Trains.

Parking mad

Car parking has been in the news this month on two fronts.
Firstly the workplace parking levy. This proposal by the Scottish government follows a similar successful scheme in Nottingham where a tax on car parking has helped fund public transport, particularly the Nottingham tram system. The proposal would allow local councils to introduce a workplace parking levy if they chose. It is not a mandatory national scheme. The theory is that the scheme will encourage commuters to take public transport instead of the car, reducing both congestion and air pollution. Critics have hit out at the scheme as a "tax on workers", especially those for whom public transport is inconvenient. Of course if the tax is used to improve public transport, as is the case in Nottingham, then it should work as planned.
Secondly comes the ban on pavement parking. This has been called for by disability advocates and campaigners for years. The idea is to stop cars parking on footpaths, where they block wheelchair and pram users. The problem here is the limited availability of parking in certain residential streets, particularly those in suburban housing estates with narrow streets and limited on-street parking. Again, public transport needs to be improved, but for residents of older council houses that don't have a driveway, the pavement is often the only place to keep their car. provision of adequate parking needs to be built into any housing development.

Maritime history is rusting away.

Preserving ships is an expensive business. Ships are much larger than road vehicles or even trains,  and they need constant upkeep. Despite the best efforts of preservationists, even ships that have been preserved as museums have been scrapped in recent years. In this blog I am making a list of historic ships in the UK; those preserved, at risk and recently scrapped. This is not a comprehensive list, but gives a sense of the scale of the problems of ship preservation in the UK. The relatively safe and large collections of Chatham historic dockyard (HMS Cavalier, Gannet, Ocelot), Portsmouth (HMS Victory, Warrior, Mary Rose) and Hartlepool (Trincomalee, PS Wingfield Castle) have been omitted for simplicity.

MV Balmoral
Status: Preserved/under restoration. After many years acting as back-up for the Waverley, and re-engining in 2003, the ship was given up by the paddlesteamer preservation society in 2012. Now in the hands of the MV Balmoral fund who are planning to return her to service.
Location: Bristol
Website: https://www.mvbalmoral.org.uk/home/

HMS Belfast
Status: Preserved by the Imperial War Museum
Location: London
Website: https://www.iwm.org.uk/visits/hms-belfast

HMY Britannia
Status: Preserved. A well-visited and well-funded vessel in the Scottish capital.
Location: Leith
Website: www.royalyachtbritannia.co.uk

Calshot
Status: At risk. Currently owned by the Tug Tender Calshot Trust, it was announced in May 2019 that due to "lack of financial resources" the vessel would have to be scrapped.
Location: Southampton
Website: http://www.tugtendercalshot.com/

City of Adelaide
Status: Under restoration. After many years languishing at the Scottish maritime museum in Irvine, the former clipper ship was transported to Australia for restoration in 2014.
Location: Adelaide
Website: https://www.cityofadelaide.org.au/

Cutty Sark
Status: Preserved
Location: Greenwich
Website: https://www.rmg.co.uk/cutty-sark

Daniel Adamson
Status: Preserved/Active. Offers cruises on the river Mersey and the Manchester Ship Canal.
Location: Liverpool
Website: thedanny.co.uk

RRS Discovery
Status: Preserved. The ship's engines were removed for scrap during the second world war.
Location: Dundee
Website: https://www.rrsdiscovery.com/

TSS Dover
Status: Scrapped in 2018, following a fire in 2017 that rendered the ship beyond saving.
Location: N/A
Website: https://www.tssdover.co.uk//

Duke of Lancaster
Status: At risk/Abandoned. Campaigners are currently hoping the ship can be saved, but no work has been carried out.
Location: Llanerch-y-Mor 
Website: http://dukeoflancaster.net/

Falls of Clyde
Status: At Risk. A campaign is underway to return the vessel to Scotland from Hawaii, where she has been neglected for some time, even though she was officially part of a museum
Location: Honolulu
Website: http://www.friendsoffallsofclyde.org/

Glenlee
Status: Preserved
Location: Riverside museum, Glasgow
Website: https://thetallship.com/

Great Britain
Status: Preserved. After decades rotting away in the Falkland islands, Brunel's masterpiece, once the biggest ship in the world, was returned to the UK for restoration in 1970.
Location: Bristol
Website: https://www.ssgreatbritain.org/

PS Lincoln Castle
Status: Scrapped 2010. The ship served for many years as a floating restaurant, and was in relatively original condition, retaining her engines. Sadly the owner could not afford the upkeep of the rotting hull and she was dismantled where she lay.
Location: Grimsby
Website: N/A

PS Maid of the Loch
Status: Preserved/under restoration. The Loch Lomond Steamship company are carrying out a multi-million pound restoration of the paddlesteamer with the intention of returning her to service on Loch Lomond.
Location: Balloch
Website: https://www.maidoftheloch.org/

PS Medway Queen
Status: Under restoration. This is more of a rebuilding than a restoration, with the original machinery being installed in a new hull.
Location: Gillingham
Website: https://www.medwayqueen.co.uk/

Nomadic
Status: Preserved
Location: Belfast
Website: https://www.nomadicbelfast.com/

HMS Plymouth
Status: Scrapped 2012. Despite serving as a museum in Birkenhead for many years, the museum closed in 2006 and the ship reverted to the ownership of Peel ports, who sent her for scrap, despite the historical importance of the ship as a Falklands War veteran.
Location: N/A
Website: N/A

TS Queen Mary
Status: Preserved. After many years as a floating restaurant on the Thames, the Queen mary has been returned to the Clyde for preservation. Sadly her engines were removed and scrapped previously, so she will be unable to return to service.
Location: Glasgow
Website: https://tsqueenmary.org.uk/

PS Ryde
Status: At Risk. Despite several attempts to form a preservation group over the years, the funnel and forward superstructure have collapsed and the ship is considered beyond saving.
Location: Isle of Wight
Website: N/A

Shieldhall
Status: Preserved/Active
Location: Southampton
Website: https://www.ss-shieldhall.co.uk/

PS Tattershall Castle
Status: Floating restaurant. Although still afloat, the ship has been modified from its original appearance so can't really be considered preserved.
Location: London
Website:  https://www.thetattershallcastle.co.uk/home

HMS Unicorn
Status: Preserved. A remarkable survivor of the post-Napoleonic era. The Unicorn was put straight into reserve when she was built and was never commissioned, remaining a hulk for her entire life.
Location: Dundee
Website: https://www.frigateunicorn.org/

PS Waverley
Status: Preserved. Waverley has been taken out of service in 2019 for reboilering, but should return to service soon.
Location: Glasgow
Website: https://www.waverleyexcursions.co.uk/

Track gauge in Ireland.

Ireland. Cut off from Great Britain and continental Europe by the sea, it might as well be on another planet as far as railways are concerned, and that's because Ireland uses a different track gauge. Back in the 1800s when the railways were first being built, a number of different gauges were in use in Ireland. The Dublin & Kingstown Railway used the same standard gauge of 4' 8 1/2" as most of Great Britain (not counting Brunel's Great Western, but that's another story). Meanwhile the Ulster Railway used a broad gauge of 6' 2" and the as yet unbuilt Dublin & Drogheda proposed a gauge of 5' 2". This was a mess, so the, the board of trade decided in 1846 that Ireland should standardise on one gauge. Bizzarely the gauge of 5' 3" was selected as a compromise between the two gauges in use at the time. This seems wasteful, since rather than regauging the non-complying half half of the island's railways (if they had chosen one of the gauges in use), they would have to change them all!
The use of broad gauge would be fine so long as Ireland's railways remained separate from British railways. However, this might cause a problem if proposals for a bridge over the north channel came to fruition. That would mean there would be a break of gauge in Ulster, resulting in need for transshipment. Frankly, though, due to the depth of the north channel, such a bridge is probably nothing more than a fantasy. The biggest real life problem in today's globalised rolling stock market is producing rolling stock just for Ireland. If stock is transferred from Great Britain, as has been done on occasion, bogies need to be changed to suit the Irish track gauge and vice versa. This is of course an expensive undertaking. A recent rumour appeared in the Railway Magazine that ex-Transpennine Express class 185s could be transferred to Ireland. This might be cheaper than buying in new trains specially made for Ireland, but it would be so much cheaper if they didn't have to be modified. one wonders, if Ireland had used standard gauge, not only would they have had less track to reguage (only the Ulster Railway would have needed regauging; the Dublin & Kingstown would have stayed as it was and the Dublin & Drogheda would have been built to 4' 8 1/2" from new) but stock could have been bought "off the shelf" or even second hand from Great Britain, without modification. Alternately, Irish stock could be exported to Britain, opening up potential for Irish manufacturing and providing a second-hand market for Irish trains.

How eco-friendly is cruising?

I've seen quite a few posts on social media recently demonising cruise ships as being particularly harmful to the environment, but how much of this is true and how much is scaremongering?
Let's break the pollution down into categories:


Air Pollution.
Sewage
Garbage
Oil

It's a fact that ships burn a lot of fuel, and that fuel is often heavy fuel oil, which is some of the dirtiest fuel there is besides coal. MARPOL Annex VI, introduced in 1997, aims to regulate air pollution from ships. Certain special areas (a full list can be found here) ban high-sulphur fuel oil from being used, and some only allow Marine Diesel Oil (which is much more expensive) to be burned. A handful of ships are fitted with seawater scrubbers to reduce the sulphur content of exhaust emissions, but these are experimental and not in widespread use, and essentially cut out the acid rain middleman by washing sulphur directly into the sea.Nevertheless, a typical cruise ship will emit more CO2 per passenger mile than an aeroplane, and if you fly to get to the cruise ship, you are adding even more emissions to the atmosphere. While modern vessels are far more efficient than the steam ships of old, they are still a major source of air pollution. For the lowest possible emissions, you may with to consider a cruise on a sailing ship. 

Disposal of sewage at sea is regulated by MARPOL Annex IV. It's probably easiest to quote the Annex at this point: "The discharge of sewage into the sea is prohibited, except when the ship has in operation an approved sewage treatment plant or when the ship is discharging comminuted and disinfected sewage using an approved system at a distance of more than three nautical miles from the nearest land; sewage which is not comminuted or disinfected has to be discharged at a distance of more than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land." Typical cruise ships are fitted with a Marine Sanitation Device, which disinfects the sewage in a similar manner to a municipal sewage plant. Ergo, it is no worse for the environment than what your city is pumping into the sea, with the advantage that the ship is dumping sewage much further from the shore! Untreated sewage may be discharged outside 12 miles, but a modern cruise ship will not do this except in an emergency. Some cruise ships are fitted with an Advanced Wastewater Purification System (AWWPS), which produces clear water (which is harmless and can be discharged almost anywhere) and a small amount of sewage sludge (which can be discharged as per treated sewage). Solid waste is pumped ashore for disposal at landfill.

Garbage comes under MARPOL Annex V. There are a variety of types of garbage, which must be separated and disposed of in different ways.
Food waste is usually comminuted and dumped at sea, since it poses no threat to marine life.
Solid waste can either be sent ashore for recycling or (if burnable) burned in an incinerator (outside of emission control areas with reference to Annex VI). Scrap metal and glass will be sent ashore for recycling. Although legally it cold be dumped at sea there is a financial incentive to sell scrap metal in port. Throwing plastic overboard is absolutely banned and companies can and have been fined for dumping plastic at sea. 

Oil is the most harmful waste stream and it is very heavily regulated by MARPOL Annex 1. Ships must keep a record of all waste oil disposed in an oil record book. Bilge water must be treated in an oily water separator and contain less than 15ppm of contamination before it can be pumped overboard. Waste oil can either be burned in an incinerator (see above) or boiler, or be sent ashore for disposal. 

Is cruising any worse for the environment than any other holiday? Well, yes. Certainly it's more harmful than backpacking/cycling holidays or a "staycation". Is a cruise from a UK port better than flying abroad? It depends on how far you're flying. A fly cruise to the Caribbean is probably the most harmful option. If you want to visit the Med, but want to avoid the pollution, it might be worth taking the train to Spain, France or Italy.

Anxious about public transport?

I've seen several posts recently on youtube and in facebook groups about people with autism spectrum conditions and anxiety struggling with public transport, especially when there are delays and cancellations, so here are some tips I use to cope:

General
Plan ahead. Book your tickets in advance if you can. Request assistance at the time of booking if you have a disability and need help with checking in and boarding. Research the route you're taking so you know where to change if neccessary.

Bus
Buses can't usually be booked in advance. You have to buy a ticket from the bus driver. Some bus companies don't give change while others do, so it's best to take some loose change with you so you can give the exact fare. Many companies now take contactless payment. Ticketing on buses can be confusing. Some companies do return tickets, some don't and some have day rover tickets. It's a good idea to research ticket types online before you travel. Unfortunately through ticketing may not be available if you need to change buses.
Most timetables are online and many of the major companies have mobile apps so you can check bus times before you leave the house.
Google maps is a great tool for checking the locations of bus stops. One problem I find is that a lot of bus routes aren't mapped, so you have to cross-check the timetable with a map to figure out where the route goes. When taking the bus in an unfamiliar area I have been known to follow the bus on google maps on my phone so I can see if a bus stop is coming up so I know when to ring the bell to stop the bus.
Another problem is that buses often don't run exactly to time. Some bus stops now have dot matrix signs to tell you when the next bus is, but these are quite rare. A mobile app may be a good investment in this case. If you miss your bus, as the saying goes, "there will be another one along in a minute".

Train
The best thing about trains is that routes are mapped, stops are announced in advance and through ticketing is available. If there is disruption on one route, it's quite easy to find a diversionary route to get you to your destination, and if a train is unable to proceed, the company can put on a replacement bus service or allow tickets to be used on buses to get you to where you need to go. Guards and station staff are available to assist if required. If you are stuck, someone will be able to tell you how to get to where you are going. Don't be afraid to ask for help.
Tickets should be bought before you board (unless you are boarding at an unstaffed halt, in which case the on-board staff will sell you a ticket). You can buy tickets in advance online or at a station, or you can just buy at the station when you travel, but often the cheapest fares will be online. If you need assistance (especially for wheelchair users) this must be booked in advance. A wide variety of ticket types are available. If you need help choosing, ask at the ticket office.
I find the Realtime Trains app incredibly helpful, as it allows you to see whether trains are delayed and what platform they are expected at for any station in the country.

Aeroplane
If you're travelling internationally, the chances are you will end up flying. This will involve the double hassles of airport security and Customs & Immigration.
First of all, checking in. When you book your ticket, the airline should tell you how soon before the flight you need to arrive for check-in. Budget airlines such as easyjet prefer you to check in online and print your boarding pass at home before you go to the airport. If you have to change flights on your trip ask if the bags are checked in for the whole journey, or if you need to re-check your bags when you change planes. When changing planes in the USA, you will probably have to re-check your bags, but if you're travelling withing the EU this may not be necessary.
Prepare for security. Metal detectors will pick up belt buckles, keys, steel toecaps and spare change. It's best to wear trainers for flying and pack work boots in your checked luggage. Likewise, avoid wearing a belt. Stick to elasticated trousers that aren't going to fall down. Put keys and wallet in your hand luggage (you won't need your keys until you get home anyway) and keep your boarding card, passport and any other travel documents in a poly pocket. Some airports require laptops to be removed from hand luggage, some ask you to keep them in the bag. Ask a member of staff which it is before you get to the front of the queue if there are no signs indicating what you should do.
Immigration needs a lot of patience, tact and diplomacy. Be polite but firm with immigration officers. You may be stressed by having to wait in a queue but don't lose your temper with law enforcement. Have any documents you need in a poly pocket (as I said) ready to give to them. Inquire before you travel what documents you will need. The USA has a myriad of different forms to fill in depending on the nature of your trip, how long you are staying in the USA or whether you are a resident. Ask a member of staff to help filling in the form before you get to the front of the queue. If it isn't filled in properly you might be sent to the back of the queue again and nobody wants that.
When you finally reach the departure lounge, don't forget to arrive at the gate in good time. Some airports announce flights, some don't, so you have to keep an eye on the dot matrix screens. Don't get too engrossed in that book and miss your flight!
Delays and cancellations are rare, but when they do happen they can be catastrophic. It helps to have the phone number of your travel agent or a family member who can help you if you get stuck. If you have to stay overnight in a hotel, save all your receipts so you can claim compensation later on.

Ferry
Ferry trips can vary from 10 minute hops across to a small island or longer international trips to the continent. These almost always have to be booked in advance, as aeroplanes do. You may travel either as a foot passenger or you can take your car with you. The check-in process for international ferries is much the same as at an airport, but without the security theatre. Loading is first come first served. If you arrive early, you may get put on an earlier ferry. Ferries are usually just an end-to-end journey without any changing or intermediate stops. Once you're there, you're there. Delays and cancellations can happen due to weather or mechanical failure, unfortunately in these events there are no alternatives, you just have to wait. Sit back, relax and enjoy your cooked breakfast.

The death of railway architecture.

Back in the day, railway stations were the height of building design. From the Victorian magnificence of St. Pancras, Glasgow Central and other major termini, to the art deco beauty of Girvan, the Edwardian elegance of Wemyss Bay, even small stations had comfortable waiting rooms in attractive buildings. By the 1970s and 1980s, railway architecture had become far more utilitarian. The attractive buildings of Stranraer and Motherwell were replaced by ugly concrete and steel carbuncles. The ambition of those older railway companies, who used their buildings as a form of advertising, was destroyed by nationalised austerity. Now in the post-privatisation era, is it time to put the ambition back into railway stations? Maybe yes, maybe no. Network Rail, who own the stations, are still a nationalised entity, with little budget for lavish ornamentation. The vast majority of re-opened stations have been unstaffed halts such as Larkhall, stations on the Airdrie-Bathgate line and on the Borders railway. However, where a substantial station has been built, such as Alloa or Edinburgh Park, the buildings tend to be relatively bland grey boxes. Not unattractive, just... dull. They don't make you go "wow". I want to see a bit more ambition in railway architecture. Even if a building is modern, it can still be attractive. Take Glasgow's Riverside museum, for instance. The wavy design is an icon in itself. Let's get creative with railway station design. A good place to start would be Largs. The original station was destroyed by a train crash in the 1990s, and was replaced with a small waiting room on the platform, while the old shop fronts around the original entrance were retained. A better idea would be to start afresh, knock the whole lot down and build something amazing.

Baffling bi-modes.

Electrification; it's good for the environment and good for train operators and passengers, but it's a very slow, expensive process. Back in the 1960s when the west coast main line was being electrified northwards from Euston, electric locomotives would haul the train as far as Crewe, and later Preston, where a class 50 diesel would take over to pull the train along the yet-to-be electrified sections onward to Glasgow. Once the wires were up all the way to Glasgow in 1974, the class 50s were reallocated to the western region. However, swapping locos is a time consuming business. What if an electric loco could carry its own diesel engine for the bits of track with no electricity supply? The southern region's solution was the class 73 electro-diesel. On the 3rd rail electrified network it worked as an electric locomotive, but where the 3rd rails ended it had a diesel engine to power it. Fast forward to the 21st century and a new breed of electro-diesel locomotive has been introduced: the class 88. It can work off the 25kv overhead wires, or use an on-board diesel generator on non-electrified railways. It could potentially be used with the Mk5 "Nova 3" loco-hauled sets being procured by Transpennine Express, although these will be hauled by conventional class 68 diesel locos initially.
A different solution is offered by the Class 800 IEP train, which is essentially a DEMU fitted with a pantograph. These are intended to replace Intercity 125 high-speed trains. However the Class 800 units are far shorter, coming in either 5 or 9-car sets. Given the inadequacy of 5-car Class 221 Voyager trains on Intercity routes, one wonders why any TOC would bother with a 5-car class 800? But I digress...
A more unconventional electro-diesel comes in the form of the Class 755  train for the Greater Anglia franchise. This is almost the opposite of the class 800, being built primarily as a conventional EMU, but with a separate power car containing four diesel generators. To convert the train from electro-diesel to straight electric, it is simply a matter of removing the power car from the train. As electrification spreads and the need for electro-diesels is reduced, this seems like a good way of keeping a train in service for longer. A class 800 would require considerable time in the workshop to remove all of its diesel engines.