anamyd
On Moderation
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,011
Their exhaust note...?We can call them "Flymos". That is their nickname but don't ask me how they got it
Their exhaust note...?We can call them "Flymos". That is their nickname but don't ask me how they got it
Does anyone know when the rest of the units will start to transfer...?
Not necessary as they already know Cheltenham. It is the 170s they don't know.Does Cheltenham not exist on the driver training then? lol
Seeing 170s in Alstone CS is gonna be weird. I think TfW will definitely benefit from these.Yes everyone loves a pacer and i'm gonna be sad when they go lol but all good things have to come to an end
Alstone...? If you mean Alstom, that's in Chester and is the 175 depot. The 170s are based at Cardiff CantonSeeing 170s in Alstone CS is gonna be weird. I think TfW will definitely benefit from these.Yes everyone loves a pacer and i'm gonna be sad when they go lol but all good things have to come to an end
Alstone...? If you mean Alstom, that's in Chester and is the 175 depot. The 170s are based at Cardiff Canton
False. 67s definitely do not.They will be replacing several classes as all classes of TFW's fleet work to Cheltenham
oh OKHe means Alston C.S. which are turn back/stabling sidings at Cheltenham
It's actually Alstone as Jacob says, not Alston.He means Alston C.S. which are turn back/stabling sidings at Cheltenham
It's actually Alstone as Jacob says, not Alston.
Yeah that's what i meantHe means Alston C.S. which are turn back/stabling sidings at Cheltenham
False. 67s definitely do not.
False. 67s definitely do not.
Not wanting to be pernickety but just couldn’t resist sorryAgreede. DMUs on the brain and Locos locked out
The low linespeed is not ideal. The toilets plonked in the passenger saloon, draughts from the exterior doors and provision of large amounts of standing room isn't great for a long-distance route like the HOWL, particularly one that is marketed as for leisure travel (as a scenic route).
what view...? overgrown vegetation...?Why would the layout no be great for the HoW? Large windows for the view, table seats and the added benefits of a more spacious toilet, aircon and electrical points from my experience would make them more than suitable. As for draughty doors........ 150/2 certainly aren't none draughty.
I was thinking the same the other day on there. Not been down for years and for a fair chunk of the journey all you can see is trees. For what's marketed as a scenic route they'll be pushing the Trades description rules before long!what view...? overgrown vegetation...?
Why would the layout no be great for the HoW? Large windows for the view, table seats and the added benefits of a more spacious toilet, aircon and electrical points from my experience would make them more than suitable. As for draughty doors........ 150/2 certainly aren't none draughty.
what view...? overgrown vegetation...?
I was thinking the same the other day on there. Not been down for years and for a fair chunk of the journey all you can see is trees. For what's marketed as a scenic route they'll be pushing the Trades description rules before long!
Don't get me wrong, a 170 would be a massive improvement over a class 150, but both fall short of the quality standards I believe should be applied to rolling stock for such routes. These include:Why would the layout no be great for the HoW? Large windows for the view, table seats and the added benefits of a more spacious toilet, aircon and electrical points from my experience would make them more than suitable. As for draughty doors........ 150/2 certainly aren't none draughty.
I've been on the line only once, quite a few years ago, and have a similar memory of the journey (it was also no fun having no legroom).I was thinking the same the other day on there. Not been down for years and for a fair chunk of the journey all you can see is trees. For what's marketed as a scenic route they'll be pushing the Trades description rules before long!what view...? overgrown vegetation...?
I have an aversion to trains with ⅓ ⅔ doors yes, but what makes that aversion 'strange'? And it's not "journeys of longer than 20 minutes", it's rather more complicated than that. A large part of it is whether I think expecting passengers to stand (at peak times) is reasonable on the service (meaning there must be stops very close together) and another factor is what other services share the route. ⅓ ⅔ doors on the ValleyLines make sense (even though it's an hour into Cardiff from the heads of the valleys), but they do reduce the quality and so should be avoided where there is a possibility of long-distance passengers using the service and/or no need for them.He has a strange aversion to journeys of longer than 20 minutes on trains with ⅓ ⅔ doors. The 170s will be a great improvement for the HOWL which I'm sure all the regular users will appreciate.
does anyone know when the third 170 transfers...? they're supposed to be one a week aren't they...?
Chief executive of Transport for Wales Rail Services Kevin Thomas said that the new trains “will transform the passenger experience” and attract new customers to the railway by making it more accessible.
He added: “We are here to deliver Welsh Government’s vision of a high-quality, safe, and accessible transport network that the people of Wales are proud of.”
thanks for the info if and when anyone finds the schedule for 170208's delivery please let me know!Not sure entirely when but 208 has now been unbranded so it's can't be far away...
Don't get me wrong, a 170 would be a massive improvement over a class 150, but both fall short of the quality standards I believe should be applied to rolling stock for such routes. These include:
The ideal unit for the HOWL would probably be something similar to a class 156 but air-conditioned with better legroom and a second toilet to reduce the risk of non-availability of toilets due to CET tanks being full. Sadly, no such thing exists. The nearest existing design to that is probably a 2-car class 175.
- internal doors seperating the vestibles from the saloons, to significantly reduce draughts
- toilets leading off said vestibles, rather than directly off the passenger saloon
- maximised space for legroom, well-padded seats etc. (ie. not sacrificing space for standing room)
I've been on the line only once, quite a few years ago, and have a similar memory of the journey (it was also no fun having no legroom).
I have an aversion to trains with ⅓ ⅔ doors yes, but what makes that aversion 'strange'? And it's not "journeys of longer than 20 minutes", it's rather more complicated than that. A large part of it is whether I think expecting passengers to stand (at peak times) is reasonable on the service (meaning there must be stops very close together) and another factor is what other services share the route. ⅓ ⅔ doors on the ValleyLines make sense (even though it's an hour into Cardiff from the heads of the valleys), but they do reduce the quality and so should be avoided where there is a possibility of long-distance passengers using the service and/or no need for them.
Isn't the 175 exactly what you described? Even built in the same factory as the 156s!The ideal unit for the HOWL would probably be something similar to a class 156 but air-conditioned with better legroom and a second toilet to reduce the risk of non-availability of toilets due to CET tanks being full. Sadly, no such thing exists. The nearest existing design to that is probably a 2-car class 175.