AnonymousUser1
Member
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2013
- Messages
- 1,010
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
No van space on GWR IETs for small businesses to send goods to London from Cornwall
- Thread starter Warwick
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
InterCity:125
Member
But they don’t run too london
James James
Member
- Joined
- 29 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 426
Surely they could add Dellners to a 153 and tag it on the back of an 800?
87electric
Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 1,023
IET special fish livery for the 153.
theironroad
Established Member
Despite searching on Cornwall live, which seems to be the Cornishman's online presence, I can't find the article. Any link please?
There would be space in the Van on the sleeper for the size of consignments currently sent - the issue I think would be more around timing.
The Up Sleeper takes 2 hours longer than the last Up London - the consignments are only refrigerated by being in ice boxes - can the ice boxes sustain the produce for the 8 hour journey time of the Up Sleeper? Also arrival time into London. The Fish and Shellfish is destined for restaurants - who are normally taking in their stocks from markets at the crack of dawn. Would the 5am arrival be early enough for them?
The Up Sleeper takes 2 hours longer than the last Up London - the consignments are only refrigerated by being in ice boxes - can the ice boxes sustain the produce for the 8 hour journey time of the Up Sleeper? Also arrival time into London. The Fish and Shellfish is destined for restaurants - who are normally taking in their stocks from markets at the crack of dawn. Would the 5am arrival be early enough for them?
AnonymousUser1
Member
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2013
- Messages
- 1,010
given dry ice chiller boxes are used to send product on 24 hour courier services ....
I don’t know the technical specifications of the ice boxes used; but given the choice of services from Cornwall to London the consignments could be carried on; there must be a reason why they choose to put it on the last Up London not the sleeper. Space isn’t an issue, that’s why I suggest timing.
AnonymousUser1
Member
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2013
- Messages
- 1,010
Marketing ? as after all the HST still has a great deal of draw and affection among the disinterested public ... as an example of the lasting power of British innovation ...
Not in the eyes of InterCity Railfreight, whose website goes big on some Belgian engineering...
http://intercityrailfreight.com
http://intercityrailfreight.com
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,289
Whatever the branding is doesn’t change my fundamental point that GWR ordered the trains for the Penzance service, not DfT.
Warwick
Member
I've already been asked for this via a PM from another person. The article is one that has not been put on line. However, because I like you if you would PM me your address I'll cut it out of the paper and send it to you. You may have the technical knowledge which I don't possess to be able to copy and scan it on to a post. It'll be Tuesday now as I'm off to Ifracombe to meet an ex R.A.F. lady friend that I haven't seen for a while tomorrow. If I get lucky
then it'll be Wednesday.Never said that it didn't, did I?
But you didn't seem to understand that all GWR 800s and 802s are IETs - never mind when they were ordered, and whether it was done by the DfT or by a leasing company for GWR.
Perhaps not, but that is the expectation these days.
But that doesn't really matter.
The fact still remains, the first few posts in this thread are blaming the DfT when it's actually GWR that should be blamed.
It may be the expectation on some people's part but it's simply not the reality.
43096's statement was wrong - the GWR 802s are IETs - and the precise reason the DfT got into this thread in the first place was because someone posted another bit of incorrect information - or should we now be selective about which bits of wrong information we point out and correct?
And you do a disservice to the first few posters, none of whom blamed the DfT.
As I have pointed out, the trains have lockable storage spaces, which would seem ideal for putting a few boxes of shellfish in.
As we haven't seen the article in full or at least had a fuller explanation of the content, I don't know if GWR was asked about those or whether it was asked by the Cornishman to comment on what it was telling the people shipping the shellfish and cakes.
theironroad
Established Member
I've already been asked for this via a PM from another person. The article is one that has not been put on line. However, because I like you if you would PM me your address I'll cut it out of the paper and send it to you. You may have the technical knowledge which I don't possess to be able to copy and scan it on to a post. It'll be Tuesday now as I'm off to Ifracombe to meet an ex R.A.F. lady friend that I haven't seen for a while tomorrow. If I get lucky
Thanks for the offer, but not necessary. I suppose not putting all articles online is to encourage people to buy a printed paper...Good luck in Ilfracombe
noddingdonkey
Member
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2012
- Messages
- 774
What is the official line on passenger TOCs conveying freight? Is that not treading on the toes of FOCs somewhat?
theironroad
Established Member
I don't know the official line, but a big difference between carrying a couple of boxes of fish or small goods and thousands or cars or washing machines through Southampton docks
James James
Member
- Joined
- 29 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 426
Could also slap some Dellners on the DVT (and add some fancy electronics), and attach them to an 80[0/2].
Maybe they should just get Hitachi to build a single-car 800, could call it the 853 fishbox?
InterCity:125
Member
It would just be a modern GWR parcels railcar.
co-tr-paul
Member
Just tag 6348/on the end...... .
I'm not saying they aren't IETs...
I'm questioning who ordered the Class 802 trains, as per this post.
So it wasn't the GWR that ordered them as a singular company, but the DfT ordered them, like the 800s?
If that's the case, and while I realise Wikipedia isn't particularly reliable, someone needs to edit the page as it says:
That, to me, suggests that GWR decided to order some separate trains all by themselves. I agree they're essentially the same (shape) as the Class 800/801 trains that were ordered by the government.
Thus, the 802s (that is, the trains that will be regularly heading to Cornwall) not having any space for cakes or fish is on GWR.
Forget about the IET name/project and think about the classes of train.
Where's the difficulty? There are other sources on the internet than Wikipedia.
The 800s and 801s were ordered by the DfT/Government under the InterCity Express Programme (IEP).
The GWR class 802s were ordered in two batches, via a leasing company, by GWR's parent company First Group - which has since ordered more 802s for TransPennine and Hull Trains. At the time of the initial order in 2015, no TOPS class number had been allocated, so the trains were described as AT300s - using the Hitachi type designation.
Intercity Express Train - the name chosen in 2016 by GWR for the class 800, 801 and class 802 trains operating its long-distance services in future, in order to present a single brand to the travelling public. Class 801s destined for GWR were then respecified to become more class 800 bi-modes, due to delays to the electrification project.
As have I pointed out already, the 802s (and 800s and 801s) have lockable compartments to carry bikes or luggage, which could also perfectly well be used for fish/cake boxes.
Presumably someone within GWR has taken a policy decision that they will not do so in future - but we have not got any indication of the reasons why they no longer wish to carry this traffic, even though there is space on the trains that could be used for it.
The 800s and 801s were ordered by the DfT/Government under the InterCity Express Programme (IEP).
The GWR class 802s were ordered in two batches, via a leasing company, by GWR's parent company First Group - which has since ordered more 802s for TransPennine and Hull Trains. At the time of the initial order in 2015, no TOPS class number had been allocated, so the trains were described as AT300s - using the Hitachi type designation.
Intercity Express Train - the name chosen in 2016 by GWR for the class 800, 801 and class 802 trains operating its long-distance services in future, in order to present a single brand to the travelling public. Class 801s destined for GWR were then respecified to become more class 800 bi-modes, due to delays to the electrification project.
As have I pointed out already, the 802s (and 800s and 801s) have lockable compartments to carry bikes or luggage, which could also perfectly well be used for fish/cake boxes.
Presumably someone within GWR has taken a policy decision that they will not do so in future - but we have not got any indication of the reasons why they no longer wish to carry this traffic, even though there is space on the trains that could be used for it.
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,582
Every deviation from the core business is a potential source of problems and delay. It is not a problem unique to UK TOCs or railways.
For example, Merseyrail has demonstrated a desire to isolate itself as much as possible from the rest of the rail network. Tyne and Wear Metro has removed as much freight as possible from its network and is on record as saying it would not under any circumstances permit any new freight flows over its lines.
This is understandable from the point of view of the individual operator, but perhaps there is occasionally a need for a "greater good" intervention from a higher authority (DfT?).
dk1
Veteran Member
What if they provided an area on the 802s which would not come cheap then suddenly those using the train to send their produce changed to road, air or stop sending it altogether? It's not a guaranteed income so is it really worth bothering about?
Rail Blues
Member
- Joined
- 2 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 608
Good point, certainly not designing a new train with 30/40 year lifespan around.
They're certainly ideal vehicles with big sliding doors already, but DVTs at each end of the rake could also allow ECS moves at the terminals to take place without a second locomotive, even while trunk haulage of the full set in passenger sleeper service would remain loco forward. Using a DVT for what it was designed for could also make the short seating part of the sets more flexible for summer extras in the west country and any emergency fill-in duties that may arise, as the need for loco run-round facilities at termini and the time allowance to achieve such manoeuvres would be avoided. The van compartment(s) might be used to provide more generous than usual cycle capacity for such a summer day train, as proposed in Scotland using 153s. That capacity might also be marketed to surfers in Cornwall! A few additional Mk3 seating trailers could be added to the fleet to allow augmentation of the short seating portion for such day work where required, or at night during any especially busy times. The seating part set at the London end (with or without any extra Mk3 seating cars) could be made available for specialist charter work during the day, e.g. race day specials, which is an especially attractive option on a Saturday, when there's no overnight run scheduled so no need to get the set back to depot in time for service.
- Status