FGW make a teriable mess!!!

[Jim]

I have to agree with jim there!!! and yes i am a SWT fan there is nothing wrong with them, everytime i haev been late on SWT its becoase of NR not SWT, I have never had a train failure while i have been travelling, adn its once in a bluemoon i am late to where ever im going to. I think stagecoach have done a better job on that franchise than anyone else could do!

Correct, it ain't easy getting a whole new fleet going, perfectly, unlike FGW who have had the 180's for YONK'S

 

[Sprog]

You lot still going...?

fGW ballsed up...it happens.

Lets not fall out about it..........

 

[Techniquest]

Where in this thread, did I say I was a SWT fan exactly?!?!



WTF?!?!

The SWT fleet is far bigger than FGW's (& possiabally FGWL's as well)

1 960
2 158's
22 159's
A few 170's
110 450's
45 444's
28 458's
tonnes of 455's
2 421's
24 442's
MORE desiro's on order.......
--- edited ---

FFS - I give up - I have shouted it, capsed it, but still YOU WON'T LISTEN. HE DID NOT use fancy words, & did not say it was a TCF, as my original post stated in error, which was stated in this thread....



Any of them due to me by chance?

You've implied through posts and other means of communications that you prefer Sh***y Wa**y Trains over FGW, and that you're a fan of the former over the latter.

As for the fleet differences, I'm not even going to bother counting how many power cars FGW own/lease, the amount of 180s (which contrary to previous statements I would prefer over a 159 any day) and the amount of HST trailer stock. As well as the Night Riveria MK2s and MK3s and the 57s.

As for you giving up, that's up to you. All I'm saying is that you expressed concern as a result of what the TM said, this being a shared reaction amongst the 'norms' judging by your post. If he said:

'Ladies and gentlemen, we apologise for the delays experienced this evening on this service. This is due to the signaller reporting a track circuit failure on the line ahead of us. As a result of this, we are progressing along the route at reduced speed until the driver can confirm with the signaller where the track circuit fault is so he can arrange other services to follow similar action on the affected line. This will add around 10 minutes to the journey time, but this is purely to ensure safety, and this is a routine procedure.'

Would that have made it better? No. Indeed, that's more likely to cause alarm in passengers. Whatever he DID say was probably a standard message to use in the meantime until he got confirmation from the control room, driver, signaller on what was happening. If this sort of thing had happened on an ATF service, I swear 99% of the time you'd not know what was happening. Basically my point remains that the TM did his job well enough. But if Mr. SWT Junior (that's you Jim) wants to find fault with everything FGW do, then go ahead and do so. I'm beyond the point of caring. If it was serious, you'd e-mail/write/fax a comments form off to FGW on it, but I daresay you'll get hardly anything, if anything at all, back. Although you might do, but FGW will claim it back from NR.

Oh, and the thing about me giving up my FGW fanship has NOTHING to do with you. There are many different reasons why I've done this, although I reserve the right to reattach my FGWFan name and fanship when I feel they, as a whole, have improved enough. Performance lately has been worse than most other TOCs, especially IC ones, but if this should improve soon, I might feel the name FGWFan worthy of donning on my username here. Oh yes, one last thing, thanks to TC for doing the name change.
--- edited ---

Correct, it ain't easy getting a whole new fleet going, perfectly, unlike FGW who have had the 180's for YONK'S

Sorry, got a new bit to go off on a tangent on...

How long has SWT had their 170s? A good few years, possibly longer than FGW have had their 180s. What are SWT (yes, even I'm sick of typing Sh***y Wa**y Trains, I didn't envisage typing it on average five times a post) doing with their 170s? Sending them off to FTPX. Why? To get more 158s in replacement. Sorry, but that's so stupid, it's going on my list right now! 10 Reasons to Hate SWT...Maybe that should be more, but that list will be compiled before the next forum meet. Or posted somewhere, whichever is sooner.

I'm not known to like Turbostars, but even I can't see why SWT want to unload some of their best fleet off in replacement for older, less reliable trains. Granted, FTPX will find them quite handy, what with their improved accleration on the Pennines, but still...

The 180s have been troublesome since Day 1, everyone knows that. But in the years they've been under FGW's wing, they've improved quite a lot, much like the 458s. Still seems strange both TOCs want to get rid of their newer fleets in terms of 180s and 458s when they've improved considerably.

In any case, that really is enough for me. I will say ONE good thing for SWT. What might that be? Use of 159s? No. 442s? Ha! No, it's the 458s. Best new-gen EMUs I've sampled, by far. The FC in them is lush too. Which reminds me to visit Reading and get on a 458 again as soon as possible.

Delivering yet another rant,
WSXFan

 

[yorkie]

Correct, it ain't easy getting a whole new fleet going, perfectly, unlike FGW who have had the 180's for YONK'S

Not FGW's fault! On the contrary, credit to FGW for getting rid of them!

This topic is getting very silly.

Many innacurate statements have been made by both 'sides', but there really should be no need for the SHOUTING, the ranting, etc. It's clouding people's judgement, and people are saying things they may regret.

BTW I don't agree with WSXFan regarding the 170/158 swap. It makes sense to be able to couple up compatible units, and have a common fleet. There are some similarities with FGW's HST/180 situation (but not due to reliability issues).

It appears this has developed into a TOC vs TOC 'war', which is just crazy! They're not comparable TOCs, for starters. Even if they were, such comparisons are always going to be extremely difficult, and it's certainly not worth getting worked up over.

Jim has accepted he made a mistake with his original post. The mistakes were politely pointed out by some people and he accepted them, and that's the way it should be, without any of the ranting that appeared later which was not helpful. So let's move on please, guys.

 

[Techniquest]

Now I've had more than my share of arguing over it, fair enough. It truely is a TOC V TOC war, which I seem to get involved in quite often it seems...

Jim, do expect either a PM or MSN converse from me later today (if I'm online that is).

 

[yorkie]

Now I've had more than my share of arguing over it, fair enough. It truely is a TOC V TOC war, which I seem to get involved in quite often it seems...

It's adviseable not to get involved in any discussion that turns that way, as it just descends into farce.

Jim, do expect either a PM or MSN converse from me later today (if I'm online that is).

I hope it will be a case of you two apologising to each other and moving on, however what happens on MSN is nothing to do with here. Just don't carry it on to here if you can't agree (or at least 'agree to disagree' )

 

[Techniquest]

It won't spill on the forum, Scout's Honour.

And yes, the ambition is to either agree to disagree or at least apologise to each other on it (that took some effort to hit those keys to type the word 'apologise' admittedly). Maybe we should lock/delete the thread. Or just lock it and keep it as a reminder of how things got out of hand.

And yes, there were things I said I knew I'd regret.

 

[Jim]

TBH, (I hope FGWFan agreees here) we have both been wollies - and this topic has got a bit 'war' like. We have said things we should/would/will regret - I am happy just to forget about this topic, and move on, be with it SWT or FGW:blob4:

 

[960012]

one last thing!!! the SWT 159s and the 158s will go up in relaiablty as they always go to there home depot everynight for maintance thus not leaving them at a another depot taht doesnt know the history of the unit. im sure the SWT 158s reliablity will og up andthey will be more relaible than the NON standard 170s

 

[Guinness]

You moan about FGW every few days it seems, via here or MSN...In any case, you blamed FGW for the TCF thing, which isn't their fault. But then they, sounds like a perfect undercover DfT employee there...

We are all entiled to opinions and views, so stop moaning about Jim's post.

 

[Julian G]

SWT are quite good
but i haven't been seeing the 170s operating to London that much
the 158/9s are quite good , and it's good we are getting more 158s from TPX
442, they are quite good trains , it's just the doors which let them down
444, I couldn't get into the compartment last time, buttons
450, they are ok, although i'm not too happy with their operating areas
455, they are quite good- such a shame that the 455 Vehicle was scrapped at Eastleigh
3CIGs, they are quite good as well

 

[yorkie]

Feltham2104 - Good point about the depots, this sort of thing often gets overlooked by people who are not aware of the full picture.

I think this topic has run it's course now.