• 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!

221115 renamed Polmadie Depot

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
What a shame. Here we have a class that had a series of interesting and consistent names, which is then thrown out by Arriva, and now one of the remaining ones is replaced. I have nothing against naming stuff after depots, though I would prefer something more stimulating. At least it hasn't been named "PDQ Stationers - our best customer" or "Arthur Blenny - Deputy MD 2003-4"
 

Dreadnought

Member
Joined
1 Oct 2007
Messages
586
What a shame. Here we have a class that had a series of interesting and consistent names, which is then thrown out by Arriva, and now one of the remaining ones is replaced. I have nothing against naming stuff after depots, though I would prefer something more stimulating. At least it hasn't been named "PDQ Stationers - our best customer" or "Arthur Blenny - Deputy MD 2003-4"

Actually 221114-221118 all lost their original names when they were hired by VT to XC prior to the introduction of the VHF timetable. 221115 is the first one to be named since they returned to VT.
 

mumrar

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2008
Messages
2,646
Location
Redditch
What a shame. Here we have a class that had a series of interesting and consistent names, which is then thrown out by Arriva, and now one of the remaining ones is replaced. I have nothing against naming stuff after depots, though I would prefer something more stimulating. At least it hasn't been named "PDQ Stationers - our best customer" or "Arthur Blenny - Deputy MD 2003-4"
A typically ill-informed Arriva rant, but on here that's quite normal. The names were taken off all 220s and 221s that XC received because Virgin kicked up a stink about having paid for them. It was all part of their dummy spitting at not retaining the franchise, which came as a result of Virgin and the DfT foisting such small units upon us. If you don't know the facts, don't just put something in the place they belong.
 

Matt Taylor

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2008
Messages
2,339
Location
Portsmouth
But the Voyagers were not foisted upon XC, they were ordered to Virgin's specifications and while not being everybodies cup of tea they were fit for purpose within the scope of Operation Princess. After the failure of Operation Princess (by no means entirely VT's fault) XC was continually playing catch up and never attained the service level that could have been possible if there had been less Dft intervention.
 

MCR247

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2008
Messages
9,596
But the Voyagers were not foisted upon XC, they were ordered to Virgin's specifications and while not being everybodies cup of tea they were fit for purpose within the scope of Operation Princess. After the failure of Operation Princess (by no means entirely VT's fault) XC was continually playing catch up and never attained the service level that could have been possible if there had been less Dft intervention.

But Virgin wanted 6 and 7 car voyagers, but the DfT said no
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top