Ahh ok, I still think that they should go for more 23/24m cars as there is bound to be another point where 26m cars can't passThe stretch concerned is, I believe, the platforms at St Pancras, which XC do not serve and are unlikely to ever serve.
Ahh ok, I still think that they should go for more 23/24m cars as there is bound to be another point where 26m cars can't passThe stretch concerned is, I believe, the platforms at St Pancras, which XC do not serve and are unlikely to ever serve.
I may be wrong, but i think all platforms that CrossCountry serve could easily handle 5x26m 802s and even 9x26m 802s although perhaps some regional stations would require slight extension to handle those, but platform extensions are much cheaper than they used to be and the civil engineering required can be done in a short amount of time. Just look at the existing stations on the Crossrail project.The stretch concerned is, I believe, the platforms at St Pancras, which XC do not serve and are unlikely to ever serve.
Ahh ok, I still think that they should go for more 23/24m cars as there is bound to be another point where 26m cars can't pass
Reliable?But that won't happen with 80x - they are proven and reliable.
Reliable?
The latest figures for Miles per Technical Incident (MTIN) and the Moving Annual Average MTIN (MAA MTIN) published in the October 2019 edition of Modern Railways show that for Accounting Period 4 of 2019-20 the figures were:
TOC Class MTIN MAA MTIN
SWR 707 209,133 39,143
Northern 142 7,374 9,585
LNER 800 9,735 9.341
GWR 800 10,355 9,092
GWR 802 9,502 8,375
So the 80Xs are about as reliable as a 30 year old Pacer and a quarter as reliable as the equally new Class 707. I should add that the Class 220/1/2 trains have MAA MTINs of around 30,000 and better.
The Hitachi trains have a very long way to go
Then explain why the equally new Class 707 is four times better.They're still better than HSTs.
Those results were "teething-issues" which could be expected with any new trains.
They're still a 30 year old train reaching thr end of their useful life.
I'll be interested in the 801s as they are electric only.Reliable?
The latest figures for Miles per Technical Incident (MTIN) and the Moving Annual Average MTIN (MAA MTIN) published in the October 2019 edition of Modern Railways show that for Accounting Period 4 of 2019-20 the figures were:
TOC............Class........MTIN.........MAA MTIN
SWR.............707..........209,133.......39,143
Northern......142 .............7,374..........9,585
LNER............800 .............9,735..........9.341
GWR.............800............10,355..........9,092
GWR.............802..............9,502..........8,375
So the 80Xs are about as reliable as a 30 year old Pacer and a quarter as reliable as the equally new Class 707. I should add that the Class 220/1/2 trains have MAA MTINs of around 30,000 and better.
The Hitachi trains have a very long way to go
I'll be interested in the 801s as they are electric only.
They're still better than HSTs.
Those results were "teething-issues" which could be expected with any new trains.
Do you have a source for Miles per Technical Incident of a HST vs 800?
No, but out of experience, i prefer travelling on an IET vs a HST, and i think the general public does....
....
How do you work that one out? Even if you (or the public) prefer to travel on an IET doesn't mean it's more reliable.
Newer trains, more comfortable....
https://www.gwr.com/about-us/modernising-gwr/iet
You still haven't explained why the equally new Class 707 trains cover four times the distance before they cause a three minute delay.Don't be fooled by those statistics they are just teething problems, as could be expected with any new trains...
I don't deny that, the point I was making that the train's that will replace them aren't necessarily better just newer. Consider what trains the HST replaced and how much they changed rail travel, it kind of puts things into perspective.
You still haven't explained why the equally new Class 707 trains cover four times the distance before they cause a three minute delay.
But each Voyager goes three or four times as far as a Class 80x before it goes 'twang...'80x have many faults but they are absolutely, definitely, 100% better than Voyagers in just about every way other than the one that's the easiest thing to change in an afternoon using a spanner (I don't dare say it ).
80x have many faults but they are absolutely, definitely, 100% better than Voyagers in just about every way other than the one that's the easiest thing to change in an afternoon using a spanner (I don't dare say it ).
They why were so many running recently under diesel power only when there was a perfectly good 25kV supply right over their roofs?No diesels to go wrong, no ATP to go wrong.
But each Voyager goes three or four times as far as a Class 80x before it goes 'twang...'
Which do you think is better for the customer?
Your statement about 80Xs being 100% better than Voyager is, at my most charitable, disingenuous.
They why were so many running recently under diesel power only when there was a perfectly good 25kV supply right over their roofs?
But the Voyagers also have diesel engines, exhaust pipes, fuel tanks and so on, not just generators. Similarly in the days of Christian Roth on South Western Trains the Salisbury maintained Class 158 and 159 trains were amongst the most reliable trains on the network - electrics included.I must admit I've always found this odd given that an EMU is typically far, far more reliable than a DMU. A Voyager, of course, is basically an EMU with generators under each coach.
Not suggesting replacing the 68s (use them for freight) but replace the MK3 coaches with voyagers for faster acceleration and comfort on the Chiltern main line... Maybe that's what they're gonna do with the ex-EMR 222 meridians!
Yet, SWR can replace two-year old 707s with 701s.....
Not to get political, but it's the CONSERVATIVE'S fault.
They're still better than HSTs.
Those results were "teething-issues" which could be expected with any new trains.
No, but out of experience, i prefer travelling on an IET vs a HST, and i think the general public does....
One could argue that the bar has well and truly set low if you are trying to build a superior train to a Voyager.
In the days of Christian Roth on South Western Trains the Salisbury maintained Class 158 and 159 trains were among the most reliable on the network - electrics included.
The train reliability is not the only consideration affecting the reliability of the train service offered to the customer. Electric trains bring the whole question of the reliability of the power feeding arrangements into the equation and that has been sadly lacking in the past.
'Wires down at <townname>' usually brings hours of delay.
It's the system reliability which is the important metric.
I must admit I've always found this odd given that an EMU is typically far, far more reliable than a DMU. A Voyager, of course, is basically an EMU with generators under each coach.
One could argue that the bar has well and truly set low if you are trying to build a superior train to a Voyager.
You obviously don't understand the concept of the Miles between Technical Incidents.As long as the approach to operation is such that the customer doesn't see them going "twang" who cares? That the TOC needs more sets to deliver the same availability is fundamentally not my problem any more than it would be at a bus or taxi firm or any other similar service.
In your opinion.