sjpowermac
Established Member
- Joined
- 26 May 2018
- Messages
- 1,989
MID-Carlisle-Bletchley-MID ran again today. Fingers crossed that’s 1000 miles out of the 4500 miles required
Lovely image, I don’t think I’ve seen a picture of a 68 under the roof at Scarborough. Good that Felix is keeping warmUnusually, Felix is in platform 4 tonight at Scarborough station. I came in on the train from Hull which is parked permissively in front of the class 68. My train was held at the signals at Washbeck just outside the station, probably because of the permissive parking issue.
Lovely image, I don’t think I’ve seen a picture of a 68 under the roof at Scarborough. Good that Felix is keeping warm
In the 1960s when BR wanted trailer sets for the Bournemouth line they created unpowered multiple units; the ECML Mark 4 stock were envisaged and used as fixed formation rakes; even the Mark 3 sets on the West Coast were used fairly inflexibly - there was no concept of strengthening at times of high demand and this was the case even before the use of Driving Van Trailers. Even in the 1950s and early 60s when there were substantial numbers of pre-grouping coaches hanging around for months doing nothing the main express services operated with fixed rakes which were only amended when coaches needed to come out of service for some reason. I don't know the reasons or the costs but it is fairly obvious that a train as a semi-fixed unit is always the solution that wins. The idea that we can add coaches at times of high demand is surely redundant - costs of holding spare coaches, costs of having shunters to alter the sets, costs of providing longer platforms than are normally needed etc etc.
In the 1960s when BR wanted trailer sets for the Bournemouth line they created unpowered multiple units; the ECML Mark 4 stock were envisaged and used as fixed formation rakes; even the Mark 3 sets on the West Coast were used fairly inflexibly - there was no concept of strengthening at times of high demand and this was the case even before the use of Driving Van Trailers. Even in the 1950s and early 60s when there were substantial numbers of pre-grouping coaches hanging around for months doing nothing the main express services operated with fixed rakes which were only amended when coaches needed to come out of service for some reason. I don't know the reasons or the costs but it is fairly obvious that a train as a semi-fixed unit is always the solution that wins. The idea that we can add coaches at times of high demand is surely redundant - costs of holding spare coaches, costs of having shunters to alter the sets, costs of providing longer platforms than are normally needed etc etc.
Whatever it was it must be fairly serious/embarrassing if they are threatening staff with the sack if they talk about it!
You are right, of course, in that nobody in their right mind would start leaking information on a public forum when they had been told not to. I think the point is though why that information was deemed so sensitive in the first place.Or like any job, when you leak sensitive info - you're in breach of contract and bye bye job. If I leaked the info from confidential meetings I'd been in, I'd be given my p45 quicker than you can say David Bellamy.
And yet down South quite a number of operators use their fleets (mostly MU, admittedly) very flexibly - Chiltern are probably the best at this, being able to form anything from 2 to 8-car (I think), possibly 9, but most of the operators do it, some with some very elaborate splitting/joining diagrams like LNR and SWR. So the idea of matching length to demand is very much not redundant, it's just some of the IC operators[1] who ignore it as a possibility.
Can I ask a daft question - do all the sets have to be put out all at once on day one, or can they be slowly introduced as crews and trains pass muster?
Cheers
And yet down South quite a number of operators use their fleets (mostly MU, admittedly) very flexibly - Chiltern are probably the best at this, being able to form anything from 2 to 8-car (I think), possibly 9, but most of the operators do it, some with some very elaborate splitting/joining diagrams like LNR and SWR. So the idea of matching length to demand is very much not redundant, it's just some of the IC operators[1] who ignore it as a possibility.
Even EMT has hacked around with their 222s to form 4s, 5s and 7s to allow this kind of chopping and changing.
[1] VT of course have the option of 5, 9, 10 and 11 which are used quite well in that regard too.
Can I ask a daft question - do all the sets have to be put out all at once on day one, or can they be slowly introduced as crews and trains pass muster?
Cheers
The 22 surplus class 185s are scheduled to be handed back to the leasing company between 13 October 2019 and 31 March 2020.Just wondering, when are the 185's planned to go off lease? Is it in May time or is there a reasonable overlap to account for delays introducing the new trains?
I'm sure the leasing companies would probably be happy to offer an extension, due to the fact they won't be making any money sat round!
A gradual phased introduction to service is typical for all new train fleets. As noted above, the plan is to start with two mark 5 sets in traffic and build up from there.Can I ask a daft question - do all the sets have to be put out all at once on day one, or can they be slowly introduced as crews and trains pass muster?
Cheers
That's good to know. Plenty of time to introduce the new fleets. Hopefully we'll get some very long services before they go off lease!The 22 surplus class 185s are scheduled to be handed back to the leasing company between 13 October 2019 and 31 March 2020.
There is a strong argument that a uniform fleet of 5 car 80x would have offered ultimate flexibility.
A strong argument is putting it mildly ..... from the amateur viewpoint it looks like an obvious decision - not least because the solution of initial faults and snags would have been shared with two other much larger fleets on the Great Western and East Coast. When (If??) the new fleets are in service it will be more interesting for the enthusiast but the passenger is suffering right now.
He means the Caledonian Sleeper order, the first Mk5 order.
Personally, I wonder if the TPE sets are really a compromise too far, with few of the advantages of traditional LHCS or multiple units, but some of the definite disadvantages of both.
A strong argument is putting it mildly ..... from the amateur viewpoint it looks like an obvious decision - not least because the solution of initial faults and snags would have been shared with two other much larger fleets on the Great Western and East Coast. When (If??) the new fleets are in service it will be more interesting for the enthusiast but the passenger is suffering right now.
Can't disagree .....but Great Western have a substantial fleet of basically similar trains carrying passengers in revenue earning service .....somehow you would think that this fact could have been exploited. That said I am very wary of falling into the trap of arguing that every decision made by Train Operating Companies is wrong.If the Mark5a s are in service before the Hull Trains 802s, they will still be there sooner than the 802s would otherwise have been.
I was under the impression that the sets needed 2,000 fault-free miles before being acceptable to TPE.MID-Carlisle-Bletchley-MID ran again today. Fingers crossed that’s 2000 miles out of the 4500 miles required