great western electrification

Discussion in 'Infrastructure & Stations' started by timstours, 31 Oct 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. anthony263

    anthony263 Established Member

    Messages:
    5,410
    Joined:
    19 Aug 2008
    Location:
    South Wales
    I have been wondering what the hell are the scots thinking about scrapping the through trains between London & Inverness/Aberdeen which if it does happen I think will cause some damage to the local economies.

    As for wiring to Cheltenham & Swansea brilliant idea and hopefully the DFT are seing some sense.

    I have read that some in the industry have been looking at a cheaper alternative to the bi-mode IEP which may be a good thing for London Kings Cross - Hull and London Paddington - Oxford - Worcester/Hereford services.

    (I know some have mentioned the Polaris trains from CSRE, which maybe a bit of a risk but could be good and if they can be proven to work I cannot really see any not to buy them especially if the costs are far cheaper than the bi-mode IEP's)
     
  2. HSTEd

    HSTEd Established Member

    Messages:
    10,694
    Joined:
    14 Jul 2011
    I suppose I can hope for electrification to Hull and Middlesbrough and new 7x23m trains that will be able to use the suburban platforms at King's Cross when the time comes.

    We could always make new Voyagers even though I imagine I will get made fun of for saying that.
     
  3. tbtc

    tbtc Veteran Member

    Messages:
    15,824
    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
    I agree, unless the plan is to put the cost of wiring to Hull into the costings for TPE (North) electrification?
     
  4. YorkshireBear

    YorkshireBear Established Member

    Messages:
    7,714
    Joined:
    23 Jul 2010
    Hull should be wired with TPE north so they would either run on diesel or loose direct serves for a very short time especially if you make it the first stage of TPE electrification.
     
  5. cle

    cle Established Member

    Messages:
    1,937
    Joined:
    17 Nov 2010
    Wires to Hull would cover TPE to Manchester, the York services and also London services.

    That said, the current units are modern enough for now that it's not a worry.
     
  6. IanXC

    IanXC Emeritus Moderator

    Messages:
    5,731
    Joined:
    18 Dec 2009
    The current plan sees HSTs in service after IEP is delivered anyway, by the time Hull is really stuck so is west of Plymouth too, and there's always 180s and cascaded Voyagers (maybe from wires to Chester?).

     
  7. ChrisCooper

    ChrisCooper Established Member

    Messages:
    1,787
    Joined:
    7 Sep 2005
    Location:
    Loughborough
    If they drop bi-mode and go for just an EMU, I wonder what Siemens and the like will think of it, since they would have had no problem at all providing a fairly off the shelf 125mph EMU, and at vastly lower cost than IEP. The only fancy thing with it at the moment is the 25m vehicles, but I can see them being dropped too (and most people would not be sorry for that).

    Another interesting thing, if bi mode was scrapped and the Aberdeen and Inverness trains were cut back to Edinburgh, how many sets would the ECML then need to replace the HSTs? Is it worthwhile then having a small fleet on the ECML which would just run alongside the 225s? What would be an alternative to replacing the HSTs? Would it be better just to keep the HSTs on the ECML until the 225s are up for replacement and then swap the lot at once, afterall one plan does/did have HSTs on the GWML for quite a while after IEP.
     
  8. IanXC

    IanXC Emeritus Moderator

    Messages:
    5,731
    Joined:
    18 Dec 2009
    I would have thought maybe 3 diagrams? Maybe 10 would be required to replace the 14 HSTs? If only there were some 125mph electric locos as then the Mark 3s could be formed into electric sets.

    The other thing is though that some IEP sets were due for use on London-Cambridge/Kings Lynn(?). Given the Thameslink changes in that area I expect that this route, with IEP, will be added to the East Coast franchise. If that were the case then it wouldn't be a really really micro fleet.
     
  9. cle

    cle Established Member

    Messages:
    1,937
    Joined:
    17 Nov 2010
    Javelin type stock would be absolutely fine for Cambridge/Kings Lynn - in fact, the new Thameslink stock should be fine. Kings Lynn to London is from 1h38m - hardly that long.

    I suppose the toilet issue is one thing, but otherwise, it's commuter not long distance.
     
  10. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    21,821
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    Thameslink stock isn't 125 mph capable, so it wouldn't be fine at all.

    That's the reason for using electric IEPs, so that they can run on the fasts at the same speed as the LDHS services as far as Hitchin and Cambridge Jn...
     
  11. cle

    cle Established Member

    Messages:
    1,937
    Joined:
    17 Nov 2010
    Don't today's 365s keep time okay? Newer stock would have better acceleration too.
     
  12. ainsworth74

    ainsworth74 Forum Staff Staff Member Global Moderator

    Messages:
    21,347
    Joined:
    16 Nov 2009
    Location:
    Redcar
    It's not about keeping time but being able to put the new stock into 125mph paths, which should help increase capacity on that section of line. 100mph stock won't be able to do this no matter how fast it accelerates.
     
  13. Nym

    Nym Established Member

    Messages:
    8,152
    Joined:
    2 Mar 2007
    Location:
    Somewhere, not in London
    Essentially it doesn't matter what stock you use, so long as it isn't a slouch and can do 125...

    We should just be looking at a new standard EMU and not at anything bi-mode IMO, we can electrify our way out of the lack of LDPE diesel stock, it's harder for commuter stock, but it can be done, would be a lot of wires though.

    Electrifying out of the need for new Diesel LDPE stock is a lot easyer than reigonal, reigonal projects at the current rate span into 2030, for LDPE it can be done by 2023 - 2025 without too much difficulty (MML & CRE - CTR, order of 20 390 units)

    Listed it many times before, but EC looks after its self, loco haulage north of EDB is easy, and if not, using cascaded 220 units doubled up to EDB/YRK.

    GW is taken care of with the 222 fleet, and possibly a few extra 220/1s from ICWC/XC released by electrifiction and ordering them LDPE EMUs (390s for ICWC, somthing new elsewhere)

    But then the need to order more 390 units could be over-ridden by HS2, won't need any more Cl390 units if HS2 happens, HS2a opening would proberbly herald the eventual end of the Cl43 formations by cascade of 390s onto 221 routes etc.

    Currently set at 2025... Lets say that in this year...

    HS2a opens
    MML Electification Commissioned

    This releases...

    27 222 units
    20 221 units

    These units are plenty enough for the off wires GW area, and continuing through journies on the NWML, the 390s released would be enough to work the WCML diagrams.

    'Mainline' WCML services would be run by HS2 CC stock, that will be able to run off wires by loco haulage, as they can be designed to be able to be loco hauled and DVTable, with the loco attaching at Chester (Assuming wires get there) or Crewe, or for other services, Doncaster, York or Edinburgh.

    So off wires ECML and WCML services are handled by HS2 CC Stock loco hauled, retiring HSTs from these routes.

    The GWML routes will be operated by cascaded stock from the MML, namely the 222 fleet, that can be electrodieselified quite easilly.

    The 221 fleet can suplement this, with the same treatment.

    Since 2025 is a realistic target for HST retirement, HS2 can provide enough units to do this for the GWML, and the facilities to do it by new stock for the ECML and NW Coast, since HS2 CC Stock can be specified to be able to be loco hauled, and such a loco built by the same designer, also used for Thunderbird duties.

    The electrification of the MML would be nessesarry north of the HS2 connection anyway, for running onwards to Leeds and Doncaster/ECML Connection. But should also be completed in isolation for inter-reigonal services on the MML when HS2 takes over the fast services via Derby to Sheffeild, Leeds, York and North. Inter-Reigonal services operated by 5 car EMUs, doubled up when required, or by the same LDPE Stock (Call it the IEP if you like) as the GWML.

    So yeah, enough off topic there, and I'm sure somone will read half of this, pick it to peices and say that I'm wrong...

    PS: Fully electric services on the GWML will be operated by the new LDPE EMU, this would operate:

    GWML
    Midland Mainline (Post Electrification and HS2)
    Cambridge - London
    ECML (Possibly in lieu of 91+nMk4+DVT if needed, that I dowbt with main services being provided by HSCC)
     
  14. swtandgw

    swtandgw Member

    Messages:
    102
    Joined:
    24 Nov 2011
    Location:
    Between Berks and Hants
    Even if it's a matter of train frequencies not justifying wires beyond Newbury, I can't really see many technical reasons as to why we won't get the wires in Devon & Cornwall. Even if they do get a cascade of Voyagers/Meridians, the line would need to have a full upgrade to take advantage of higher speeds and also, the South Devon line would need either passing loops to allow the long distance services to run faster or an avoiding line via Tavistock and Dartmoor to Exeter. If it does come to that, then at least we'll have trains that can be pantographed to turn them into EDMUs should we eventually get wires down there, although then, clearance issues as regards to structures and the proximity of Dawlish to the cost would have to be looked at if the South Devon lines are to get OHLE.
     
  15. Chris125

    Chris125 Established Member

    Messages:
    2,504
    Joined:
    12 Nov 2009
    Nym, you've highlighted one of the biggest problems with IEP - it just doesnt fit with plans for a rolling programme of electrification and HS2, which will free up long distance (potentially bi-mode) Voyagers and Meridians.

    Even if there arent enough, and life-extended HST's have to be used as a stop-gap on cross country services, it makes a lot more sense than using them indefinately on services to the south-west.

    All this really highlights how the DfT needs to have a 10/15/20 year rolling stock strategy - if all rolling stock was suitable for all services on all lines then a hands-off approach would be fine, but its not.

    Chris
     
  16. Nym

    Nym Established Member

    Messages:
    8,152
    Joined:
    2 Mar 2007
    Location:
    Somewhere, not in London
    Indeed, hopfully if HS2 is passed it should be the final nail in the Bi Mode SET's coffin...

    Especially since LDPE stock is going to be CC HS2 for the most part, and this can be specified to be haulable by locomotive...
     
  17. Waverley125

    Waverley125 Member

    Messages:
    1,003
    Joined:
    2 Sep 2008
    Location:
    Leeds, West Yorkshire
    The DfT definitely need to bear in mind stock distribution from the wiring of the lines currently being undertaken.

    Personally, I think we need to be looking at a new set of Pendolinos for most of the lines. A mass order likes this could cover the GEML (with the tilt allowing an increase in speed on some sections), the MML (with its twists and turns) and the GWML all the way to Swansea.

    Personally I don't see the problem with the EC stock currently running, the 91/mk4s are due a mid-life full overhaul, and the HSTs could do with life extensions but, barring that, there's no serious need for new stock.

    Furthermore, given the services 'beyond the wires' are pretty self contained, there's no reason why diesel haulage beyond i.e. EDB-ABD couldn't be used.

    So wiring MML & GWML, as well as replacement on the GEML will leave

    -lots of HSTs & Mk3s

    HSTs to go to XC & Scotrail (for long distance services i.e. Edinburgh/Glasgow-Inverness/Aberdeen)

    -lots of 222s & 220s

    these can go to strengthening XC services with 7 cars on existing four car diagrams, and some replacement of other stock e.g. 222s on Liverpool-Norwich, 220s on Stansted-Birmingham New Street.

    Rest to go to split- some to TPE for longest, reduced stop services i.e. Newcastle-Liverpool, as well as 'regional' services, i.e. a potential Bristol-Penzance working with FGW.

    Any leftovers to SWT for Waterloo-Exeter workings.

    This would displace a hell of a load of 170s/158s, which could then all go to Northern for strengthening, pacer replacement etc etc.
     
  18. tbtc

    tbtc Veteran Member

    Messages:
    15,824
    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
    Most long distance stock is fairly modern, apart from the HSTs (Pendolini, Voyagers, Meridians, 180s.

    The way to replace stock is to concentrate on the other end of the scale - Pacers/ 150s etc. Otherwise you end up trying to dump 158s on short distance all stop routes etc.
     
  19. swt_passenger

    swt_passenger Veteran Member

    Messages:
    21,821
    Joined:
    7 Apr 2010
    ...and even if new LDHS stock was needed, why the heck would anyone order tilting bodied Pendolinos when they could have a proper full sized train instead?
     
  20. Nym

    Nym Established Member

    Messages:
    8,152
    Joined:
    2 Mar 2007
    Location:
    Somewhere, not in London
    Like I said, we don't need any more pendos if HS2 is confirmed to be happening...

    All we'll need is Classic Compatible HS2 Stock, Captive HS2 Stock, and possibly LDPE(125/140) stock (LDPE EMU Rated at 140 on ERTMS)

    If this stock can be capable of being hauled by a DVTable from the unit locomotive. Fantastic, if not because we're locked into the IEP Project, then just scrap off the Bi Mode and use the 222s from the Midland Mainline to run the off wires GW services, and spec the HSCC Stock to be able to be loco hauled and DVT from the unit.

    Would allow the LDPE services on the WCML to move to HSCC stock, and the Holyhead to run via HS2, Rugley, attach loco at Crewe or Chester and haul to Holyhead.

    For the ECML, attach loco at Edinbrugh, Doncaster or York.

    MML off wires services will only be the northern end extensions or possibly Lincoln via Nottingham, shove the loco on at Notts, or run via ECML and Newark with 22x stock spared from IEWC.

    So... we only need THREE new kinds of stock, the current new LDPE EMU (IEP) and the two HS2 kinds of stock. Won't need more 390s if HS2 is confirmed, and it will open and release about half the 390s around the mid life overhaul time.

    390s will then run routes like the semi-fasts up the WCML, not always calling all principal stations, but providing 2-3tph to each with a skip stop calling pattern to keep journey times down.
     
    Last edited: 24 Nov 2011
  21. Rhydgaled

    Rhydgaled Established Member

    Messages:
    3,357
    Joined:
    25 Nov 2010
    Only one Hull service each way is in the East Coast franchise anyway. The rest are operated by Hull Trains with 180s, which should be disability compliant so don't need replacment or major work like the Intercity 125s will. That one East Coast service could very easily be operated by sticking a class 67 on the front of the IEP when the wires run out, and as several others have said that won't have to go on for very long if TPE wiring happens.

    Nationalised pure-electric IEPs (ie. actually buy some rolling stock rather than messing around with expensive PFI deals or leasing fees), leased free-of-charge to TOCs (in return for lower subsidy/higher premiums to/from the TOCs in question) from Hitachi would be much cheaper than the current IEP plans anyway. Since Hitachi have started preperations (planning applications etc.), I think it makes more sense to buy some EMUs from them rather than start afresh completly with Polaris trains.

    What's the calling pattern like for the Cambridge/Kings Lynn services they were thinking of putting IEPs on? I know I've read debates on here that seem to suggest a 110mph class 90 can keep time with a class 91 if there are frequent enough stops. So could that route be 90+mark3s operated like the London - Norwich route, and hence put in the NXEA franchise as that franchise already has some of the said stock?

    Or we can do electrification for Pacer replacement and Intercity 125 fleet reduction by 2020 (when the deadline for not having slam-doors and other things that make life difficult for disabled passengers is annoyingly inflexible, it is good that we have a law to try and improve disabled access on trains, but if we are forced to buy new diesel stock because of it then it is not so great). We'll have to do an expensive refurb for the surviving IC125s, but as you say we can avoid buying and new diesel LDPE stock. After that, the focus can be on electrifying to avoid having to buy diesel LDPE stock. By 2040 the current fleets of IC125s, 180s, 220s, 221s and 222s can hopefully be replaced without building any diesel-powered replacments (there might still be the odd drag by class 67s and the like, but the diesel powerplants will not travel under the wires). Basically, we need to look at replacing stock in the order in needs to be replaced, but yes without new diesels. Roughly speaking we have:
    • Classes 142 - 144 - DEADLINE: 31st Dec 2019
    • Intercity 125 - Large fleet-size reduction DEADLINE: 31st Dec 2019
    • Class 180 - replacment commence by 2030, fully withdrawn by end 2035
    • Class 220 - replacment commence by 2030, fully withdrawn by end 2035
    • Intercity 125 - final replacment commence by 2033, fully withdrawn by end 2035
    • Class 221 - replacment commence by 2031, fully withdrawn by end 2037
    • Class 222 - replacment commence by 2032, fully withdrawn by end 2040

    Exactly, and Hull and Harrogate can hopefully be electrified while trying to get shot of Pacers, leaving Lincon services also in the care of a dragging locomotive (or perhaps get EMT to use bi-mode 222s and run them down to KGX and back from Lincon).

    The underfloor engines are just wrong for Paddington to Devon and Cornwall. Until the Intercity electrification programme reaches Penzance towards it's completion in about 2035, Intercity 125s will have to remain the workhorses of the route. The core routes to Oxford and Bristol are being wired anyway, add the final core route to Swansea and wires to Cheltenham and you don't need much LDPE stock other than the IC125s to the far south-west of England. GW will need a few bi-modes for the Cotswolds line, but not to the extent that Midland Main Line wires need to be that high on the list.

    390s for ICWC or Intercity 125s for XC, plus pantograph cars for the whole 22x series should give XC enough of an increase in overall capacity even after some 220s are transfered to GW for the Cotswolds line.

    If HS2 does free most LPDE paths on the WCML, then extra Pendos ordered to displace Voyagers to the Cotswolds line by 2020 could be be freed up. They could then be used on MML or PAD - Cornwall when they are wired as part of the full program. Same end result of replacing all diesel LDPE stock without ordering any more diesels, but my version is without underfloor diesel engines on the Paddington - Devon/Cornwall route.

    An alternative to some of that could be a suggestion I just read on WNXX, order new electric locos and DVTs to sandwich existing mark 3s, and then (I assume) replace the mark 3s but not the loco and DVT in 2035.

    I can think of uses for at least 6 extra 158s (and probablly double that) here in Wales if you free any up that would otherwise end up on short or all-stops services.
     
  22. tbtc

    tbtc Veteran Member

    Messages:
    15,824
    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
    Do any Welsh 158s get anywhere near 90mph?

    IIRC 150s can keep to the paths on the Cardiff - Holyhead/Manchester services, so I presume that there are no stretches of running over 75mph required on ATW services?
     
  23. LNW-GW Joint

    LNW-GW Joint Veteran Member

    Messages:
    13,837
    Joined:
    22 Feb 2011
    Location:
    Mold, Clwyd
    ATW units can do 90 most of the way from Abergavenny to Crewe, also Crewe-Chester and about half of Chester-Bangor; 100 Crewe to Cheadle Hulme (line speed 110).
    Plans for 90 Oxley-Shrewsbury-Wrexham (currently 70), also Newton-le-Willows-Astley with NW electrification (currently 75).
    There are even stretches of 85 on the Cambrian.
    150s can't keep up.
    175s use their 100 on the Crewe-Manchester bit.

    There are stretches on the SWML up to 100 in places Cheltenham-Swansea, but quite a lot of 90.
     
    Last edited: 25 Nov 2011
  24. Rhydgaled

    Rhydgaled Established Member

    Messages:
    3,357
    Joined:
    25 Nov 2010
    They probablly set the times for 150s so they could be used if required, or there are certain diagrams timetabled for 150s. However, as LNW-GW Joint says there is quite a lot of sections on the main line routes where faster linespeeds are available, so if a 150 can keep time a 158 or 175 will be early. That includes at least 80mph on parts of the Cambrian line, which is where I'd send two or three extra 158s for the promised hourly service that has not matterialised. Cardiff - Neath allows quite a bit of 90mph, which would be useful for a 158-operated 2-hourly Cardiff - Bridgend - Port Talbot - Llanelli - Carmarthen - Whitland - Fishguard service (these would be the only stops (until/unless extra stations on the Fishguard line open), journey time of 1hr 22mins - 1hr 25mins between Cardiff and Carmarthen, thanks to using the Swansea District Line). 3 158s would be needed from that, and it'd be even better if it could be hourly between Carmarthen and Cardiff. Putting doubled up 158s (or push-pull LHCS) on Manchester - Swansea to free up 175s for Holyhead - Manchester services or the like could be useful too.
     
  25. Aictos

    Aictos Established Member

    Messages:
    9,083
    Joined:
    28 Apr 2009
    Nah, instead of having IEP for the Kings Cross to Kings Lynn route or Desiros for the Liverpool Street to Norwich route, what the DfT ought to look at is a order of Bombardier/Alstom Class 13s with I11s coaching stock provided by BN Constructions Ferroviaries et Métalliques but to the UK guage and use them as a alternative as it's a tried and tested design that works very well in Belgium.

    Equally they could be used on the North West to Scotland routes and let the Class 380/3s go to London Midland to allow the remaining 321s to go elsewhere.
     
  26. Chris125

    Chris125 Established Member

    Messages:
    2,504
    Joined:
    12 Nov 2009
    Bi-mode Voyagers and Meridians would be just fine for west country services, any life-extended HST's should be a very short-term measure and shouldnt be on the GWML after electrification.

    Chris
     
  27. Nym

    Nym Established Member

    Messages:
    8,152
    Joined:
    2 Mar 2007
    Location:
    Somewhere, not in London
    Like I said, if HS2 happens, HSTs will only need life extending until that opens, provided it includes all electrification of links and the rolling stock specified as I have stated above.

    HSTs will only need life extending for the likes of:
    (If Swansea is electrified)

    West Country Services until 2025
    via Cheltenham & Kemble services until 2025
    and a few other routes, services running through Oxford will be formed up of 180s.

    Through services remaining on the ECML.

    And to be brutal, if you didn't want ANY HSTs running post 2019, you could get Mk4 + 91 sets cleared for the GWML and run them hauled by a locomotive from Bristol or Swindon. 67s can pull them fine. Replacing all of East Coast's stock with the new LDPE EMUs.

    Life extension of HSTs up to 2025 (by extending or exempting the DDA requirements until then, in lieu of receiving 222 stock, and the same for TPE, Valley Lines and other reigonal electrifications to free up local diesel stock, should all be acceivable by 2025).


    Said it before way too many times now, we don't need to order ANY more Diesel LDPE stock until 2035 (And by then all LDPE routes could be wired, or the next EMU be diesel haulable, whatever replaces the Electras), and at a push if we spend the money now, we don't need to order any new Diesel Reigonal stock either, but that would be pushing it, with the amount of rail growth about we'd need (With 2025 as the deadline)

    Midland Mainline
    High Speed Two
    Transpennine North (Exd. Scarbrough) (TPE Then using fixed formation 6 car EMUs)
    Valley Lines inc. other commuter routes of of Cardiff (Politically very popular!)
    This would be enough at current demand

    But with the growth in demand, and keeping 150s going until 2030 (when more could be wired) you'd also need some of these... (Aimed to free reigonal stock)

    Lostock - Wigan
    Manchester - Chinley via Stockport, Romiley & Guide Bridge (All E Manchester commuter lines) with terminating bays at Chinley
    Chiltern Mainline
    Harrogate Loop
    Marshlink
    Snow Hill Lines
     
  28. tbtc

    tbtc Veteran Member

    Messages:
    15,824
    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Location:
    Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
    I appreciate that ATW 158s run on lines with scope for 90/100 mph operation, but the services that they run generally don't need this (so that a 150 can keep time) and the stopping nature of the services means they would struggle to get near 90 before they had to brake pretty sharpish.

    By the same token, Pacers must have run on some 110/125 mph stretches of the ECML (esp a few years ago), but on the kind of stopping services which don't give any scope for those speeds (regardless of the unit).

    YES!

    These are the routes that we need to be focussing on (I'd add things like Wigan - Southport to the list, but I don't mean to quibble) - electrification of these routes would be:

    • Quicker (short sections will allow EMUs to replace DMUs much sooner than doing 100 mile stretches of main line)
    • Cheaper (lots of short sections can be costed for, allowing any budget fluctuations to be managed better, rather than trying to build an entire massive project where there is no contingency for efficiencies)
    • Less disruption (wiring the Harrogate loop wouldn't affect the Snow Hill lines, whereas doing the GWML will mean a long period of disruption to long distance services)
    • Most importantly - frees up Pacers/150s (rather than freeing up long distance stock to cascade down and end up with 158s on short distance stoppers)
     
  29. PhilipW

    PhilipW Member

    Messages:
    754
    Joined:
    6 Feb 2008
    Location:
    Fareham, Hants
    Recently Network Rail submitted a planning proposal to build a new maintenence and servicing facility at Swansea for the new Bi-Mode IEPs that will stable there overnight.

    Fine, good idea.

    However I suspect that they will have to also erect a few yards of OHLE so that they can check and maintain the electric equipment. It would be rather embarrassing if a Bi-Mode train failed the next day when running under electric traction to have to give the excuse "Well, we are sorry that we could only check the diesel equipment last night as we were stabled at Swansea".
     
  30. starrymarkb

    starrymarkb Established Member

    Messages:
    5,986
    Joined:
    4 Aug 2009
    Location:
    Exeter
    Would HSTs last till 2035? That would be a 60 year life! Does any other railway use stock this old on prime routes (as opposed to secondary cascades)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page