NR responce to ORR/ ATW LONDON

[merlodlliw]

From the public domain ORR website.

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s22-atw-38sa-nr-280110.pdf


a few mystery meetings with W/S & ATW have come to light.

So its 2010/11, even if the go ahead is allowed by ORR,


M

 

[The Planner]

My money would be on May 11 as that would be the timetable that Evergreen 3 kicks off fully in.

 

[Voyager 2093]

I agree with you 'The Planner'. Furthermore why do ATW feel the need to run services to London Marylebone, its really daft (no pun intended). Also I dont think 158s will be able to cope with that journey to be honest a 168 maybe but not a 158.

 

[The Planner]

Why can't a 158 "cope" to Marylebone ?? They manage to do Aber to Birmingham Int without any hassle and also back up to Holyhead, so whats so difficult about the bit to London ??

 

[HSTfan!!!]

Agreeing with the planner here, if a 158 can manage Aber to Birmingham, Holyhead to Cardiff, Manchester to Milford Haven (6 and a bit hour journey), Cardiff to Portsmouth Harbour as well as return workings, so in the case of a Manchester-Milford for example, that's 12 hours straight working just for one return trip...? So what justification is there behind saying a 158 can't manage it. So what if they only do 90? It's hardly going to hold the line up?

 

[heart-of-wessex]

They have done London before in their older days too, such as Waterloo - Maesteg and a Waterloo to Pembroke IIRC too.

Let's not forget the ATW Manchester to Penzance trek they once did!

 

[HSTfan!!!]

indeed, I expect they worked some mileage in their XC days as well? I really would like to know why a 158 couldn't cope with this working?

 

[Voyager 2093]

I remmember those days too Aberdeen to Birmingham quite a journey, When I refer to not coping Im talking about the 158s reliability not thier Top Speed, because they are 100mph capable.

 

[Skip 10]

I remmember those days too Aberdeen to Birmingham quite a journey, When I refer to not coping Im talking about the 158s reliability not thier Top Speed, because they are 100mph capable.

really???

 

[HSTfan!!!]

because they are 100mph capable.

since when...???
I don't think they are all that unreliable either compared to some of our other stock...

 

[GNERman]

158s reliability not thier Top Speed, because they are 100mph capable.

hock:

Erm, no, they are 90mph maximum...

 

[thefab444]

Let's not forget the ATW Manchester to Penzance trek they once did!

There was also a Waterloo - Manchester service at one point (via a large number of intermediate places!).

 

[robert2000]

and will ATW be doing cheap £10 singles from shrews.

plus will they be the current timetable, but some services extending to marylebone.

 

[merlodlliw]

and will ATW be doing cheap £10 singles from shrews.

plus will they be the current timetable, but some services extending to marylebone.

As I found the response with difficulty on a tip off, I have a couple of observations now.

1.It is not a done deal yet, other responses are awaited.

2.I am a bit mystified on the closeness of these two Cardiff address organisations as well as the chummy first name terms, also the meeting with W/S & ATW,why would NR put this in their reply?

3.WAG have yet to be convinced that using The All Wales fleet out of the franchise area is best value, this is being raised in the Assembly, due to the chronic shortage of stock.

4.Yes we all recall the previous TOCs ambitions to London,Manchester/Waterloo using 158s, lost to oblivion as an exercise
in failure.

5. As each train will carry a travelling fitter(bought in services are expensive)
plus the other ongoing costs, as an open access Birmingham Int to
Marylebone with the only fares getting on at Lem Spa after Shropshire, can it possibly pay, and again will WAG allow its stock to be used as open access,


We shall see, but not before Dec 2010. Interesting thoughts.

M

 

[TDK]

From the public domain ORR website.

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s22-atw-38sa-nr-280110.pdf


a few mystery meetings with W/S & ATW have come to light.

So its 2010/11, even if the go ahead is allowed by ORR,


M

The only reason ATW have put it back in my opinion is totally down to the fact they could never be ready by May 2010 anyway.

 

[The Planner]

Why the mystification with the first name terms ?? I know people from all manner of disciplines from TOCs, FOCs, NR etc etc... no one is going around calling each other Mr X, the right honorable member for Wales that...

The meeting with WSMR and ATW was put in because it was relevant, if WSMR, like other TOCs...have been consulted and involved with this proposal then why should it be hidden ??

If the ORR say yes, Arriva will run to Marylebone from May 11.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The only reason ATW have put it back in my opinion is totally down to the fact they could never be ready by May 2010 anyway.

It isnt all down to ATW anyway, NR would have to sort out the gauging works.

 

[HSTfan!!!]

3.WAG have yet to be convinced that using The All Wales fleet out of the franchise area is best value, this is being raised in the Assembly, due to the chronic shortage of stock.



M

But it's already used out of our franchise area, Cheltenham Spa isn't in our franchise area, it's purely an extension of the Gloucester service funded by ATW not the WAG.

 

[Voyager 2093]

hock:

Erm, no, they are 90mph maximum...

Taken from the words of 'royal oak' in the Chiltern Evergreen Announcement thread in the Infastructure section.

'Any traction unit with a maximum PERMITTED speed of 100 can do 110 because they are tested to maximum PERMITTED plus 10%, so a 390 can actually do 154mph!'

So a 158 is acutally 100mph capable.

I have noticed when in the cab of trains such as a 321 or 350 its displays 120mph on the dial, for what reason is this?

 

[HSTfan!!!]

But it's never going to do 100mph. With regards to the speedo, It just does I guess, For the same reason why does my car show 160mph on the dial when it can only do about 120mph?

 

[Voyager 2093]

Thanking you 'HSTfan!!!' Ive always wondered too, a 390 shows 160mph on the dial too.

Has anybody thought that 175s would be better than 158s for passenger comfort ect, thier acceleration and top speed.

 

[j0hn0]

I wouldn't like to travel from Aber to London on a 158, sure they're capable units but I also don't think they score high on passenger comfort, especially for long journeys.

I recently did Bham int to Harlech on a 158 and when I got off I was dizzy from the vibrations of the engine and poor track. Just like a trip to holyhead on a voyager, uncomfortable seats and vibrations from the engines.

For me, long distance diesel trains should be loco hauled, or an HST, or IEP diesel with distributed power. No units.

I wonder what is cheaper :roll:

 

[robert2000]

now that you mention it, i too have encountered being dizzy after travelling on a 158.

 

[HSTfan!!!]

never had a problem with 158's in all honesty, personally I quite like them and don't see them as all that bad compared to some people on here, I'd much rather travel on a 158 than some of the other ****e still about.

 

[Greenback]

never had a problem with 158's in all honesty, personally I quite like them and don't see them as all that bad compared to some people on here, I'd much rather travel on a 158 than some of the other ****e still about.

I've had many very pleasant long distance 158 journeys on lightly used track such as Inverness to Thurso & Kyle of Lochalsh and Harlech to Birmingham New St. I've also travelled on 'main' lines like Manchester to Swansea, Cardiff to Portmsouth and Carlisle to Leeds. Apart from a bit of overcrowding on some trains, I find them quite comfortable both in terms of ride quality and seating. I would have no problem in travelling from Mid Wales to London in a 158!

 

[merlodlliw]

Why the mystification with the first name terms ?? I know people from all manner of disciplines from TOCs, FOCs, NR etc etc... no one is going around calling each other Mr X, the right honorable member for Wales that..."

This is a response to the governing body for publication,first name terms do not convey transparency of individuals , this is not a response to an e mail

The meeting with WSMR and ATW was put in because it was relevant, if WSMR, like other TOCs...have been consulted and involved with this proposal then why should it be hidden ??

If NR were present and taking part at the meeting, so be it, If NR were
not present with W/S & ATW, then it can be mentioned, but hearsay appears to be used in the response, which gives an impression of support.
Were NR at the meeting? nothing wrong with the meeting being mentioned
which is all NR should have said, if not present.

My opinion.

 

[embers25]

In the early days when you could actually see the speedo as a passenger in a 158 between Bristol and Bath they often hit 100 despite the 90mph max. Also to respond to an earlier point the WW Manc-Waterloo services were not cancx due to them not being profitable. In actual fact the morning one was often fully reserved (largely from stations between Crewe and Hereford) and indeed required reservation east of Bath due to the exceptionally high loadings. They were canx due to the one operator per London terminal rule amongst other very dubious reasons. They became part of the SWT franchise were curtailed to Bristol, lost their unbelievably friendly and helpful WW guards and were immeidately dramatically slowed down with heaps of recovery time at Westbury and Salisbury making them far less attractive. Then to top it off several now connect at Salsibury with huge waits and then go forward calling all stations to Basingstoke. The old 2 hr 14 min journey time from Bath has been increased by at least 35 mins on even the fastest one. Another great service destroyed.

 

[merlodlliw]

But it's already used out of our franchise area, Cheltenham Spa isn't in our franchise area, it's purely an extension of the Gloucester service funded by ATW not the WAG.

The difference is, ATW want to use The All Wales stock for an open access
service , Birmingham to Marylebone, Chel Spa service is not
open access, as you say an extension of a service that's all.

 

[emoaconr]

I've had many very pleasant long distance 158 journeys on lightly used track such as Inverness to Thurso & Kyle of Lochalsh and Harlech to Birmingham New St. I've also travelled on 'main' lines like Manchester to Swansea, Cardiff to Portmsouth and Carlisle to Leeds. Apart from a bit of overcrowding on some trains, I find them quite comfortable both in terms of ride quality and seating. I would have no problem in travelling from Mid Wales to London in a 158!

Its not so much the train and ride quality that I think is the problem... I just feel slightly claustrophobic on them sometimes... and the unrefurbished 1980's décor ATW has refrained from updating, and the general state of interior disrepair they've been allowed to fall into places a negative image on them for me. Plus also the fact ATW often substitute a 2-car 158 on diagrams usually held by 3-car 175's, which makes them seem more cramped when full.

I'm sure if the cosmetic issues were sorted, I'd find them much more attractive units to travel on. Some other TOCs have done lovely jobs of 158's and I would never have a problem with boarding one of them.

 

[Greenback]

I do prefer ATW's 175's because they do seem roomier! If you get off a 175 and on to a 158 you really notice the difference in space! But Is till think they're OK for long distances!

 

[royaloak]

Taken from the words of 'royal oak' in the Chiltern Evergreen Announcement thread in the Infastructure section.

'Any traction unit with a maximum PERMITTED speed of 100 can do 110 because they are tested to maximum PERMITTED plus 10%, so a 390 can actually do 154mph!'

So a 158 is acutally 100mph capable.

I have noticed when in the cab of trains such as a 321 or 350 its displays 120mph on the dial, for what reason is this?

For any train to have a designated top speed it has to be tested to 10% above, so if you want a 158 to be allowed to do 100 it would have to be tested to 110, and the brakes need to be able to bring the train down from that higher speed in a certain distance, now the distance goes up exponentially to the speed and it ain't going to happen with the standard brakes!
There is more to top speed than the engine, there is the gearbox ratios, final drive ratio, wheel diameter, cooling capability, brakes and suspension plus more.
I could fit a formula 1 engine in my car so it would do 180mph, but as soon as I try and stop it would burst into flames as the brakes would overheat.
If you are going to quote somebody at least quote them in context!
The speedo just reads whatever was supplied, as long as it reads higher than the maximum speed it doesn't really matter, you can put a 160mph speedo on a shunter, doesn't mean it will do it.