No because there wasn’t time. Had they ordered it when they ordered the 230s they would have. Your example further proves my point.How exactly were the 230s a 'vanity project'? Admittedly they took longer to get into service than envisaged but when they worked they were decent units which were much cheaper than buying similarly-specified brand new units which were clearly never going to be procured.
Has the Marston Vale got 'nice new stock' now that the 230s have gone? No.
Asbestos riddled thingsMark 1 coaching stock.
Asbestos riddled things
None....as far as I'm aware.Which Mark 1s operative on the national network still contain asbestos?
None....as far as I'm aware.
Indeed not! I wonder where @Ben Anslow found that little piece of misinformation?Well, indeed hence my question. Not actually 'asbestos riddled' then.
I was told by someone who worked at west coast carnforth quite a few of the mk1s when they acquired them had a lot between interior panels to make them more resistant to fire idk maybe falseIndeed not! I wonder where @Ben Anslow found that little piece of misinformation?
No....it is true that a very large proportion of Mark 1 carriages were insulated with blue asbestos when newly-built, but I believe that most of the vehicles still in main line service have had it removed - at considerable expense.I was told by someone who worked at west coast carnforth quite a few of the mk1s when they acquired them had a lot between interior panels to make them more resistant to fire idk maybe false
166s for me. I’m no fan of the 165s either but the air cooling seems to redeem it a little. But the 166s were already knackered when sent west, been put on routes entirely unsuitable for them and have the dingiest passenger environment I’ve seen on a train, worsened by that constant high pitch whine the ever weak air conditioning gives off.
As I said earlier in the thread, I disagree. There are many problems with the Networker design that the Desiro/Electrostar don't have.The whole Turbo/Networker fleet is a case of “what might have been”, as none of the fleets seem to have been developed to their proper potential. In the case of Southeastern it’s simply a case of being left to rot, just like many of their stations, and the 365s were the victims of a particularly unfortunate refurbishment which rather spoiled them.
Very true. Every SouthEastern franchise since Connex seems to have neglected 465/466s to the point they are in a right state now. Given the right care and overhauls them along with their diesel sisters would be pretty decent units...The situation with the 165/166 is quite sad really, as they are fundamentally quite decent trains. In particular the interior is more roomy than the Turbostars.
The GWR fleet seems to have been pushed from pillar to post as electrification plans have changed, whilst Chiltern’s units are better but seem to suffer from Chiltern’s main depot being chronically under-sized for the fleet it now maintains, and also Chiltern’s transition from the glory days of Shooter to a bargain-basement Arriva operation.
The whole Turbo/Networker fleet is a case of “what might have been”, as none of the fleets seem to have been developed to their proper potential. In the case of Southeastern it’s simply a case of being left to rot, just like many of their stations, and the 365s were the victims of a particularly unfortunate refurbishment which rather spoiled them.
To be honest I don't care how many coaches they have I just don't think they're particularly nice trains. Too much noise and vibration from engines and their environmental credentials must be fairly dire?I think voyagers suffered from a post privatisation trend in ordering new stock, order fewer carriages than you're replacing. It happened across most franchises at the time, could advertise new stock with the bare minimum orders.
....is that from the engine emisssions or from the toilet fumes?and their environmental credentials must be fairly dire?
Engines but point taken on the toilet!....is that from the engine emisssions or from the toilet fumes?
150's hands down. They're loud, vibrate too much, look awful and all the internal layouts I've seen are pretty bad. I think they should have gone before the Pacers, at least they had some character.
The lighting mainly followed by the overhead luggage racks not being available for every seat (generally the one I end up in). I also have an irrational dislike for the door area dividers and the location of the grab poles.What’s wrong with the GWR / TfW interior layout? I agree that Northern’s units aren’t great (though I personally don’t mind the 150/1s with the 3+2 facing layout, as per the class 317), but there’s nothing really wrong with the ones I’ve mentioned above. I find them quite decent actually, and I’ve always been someone who has never been keen on 150s precisely because of the interior layouts.
175's and 180's
also 92's and 66's
92's feel like they were designed to do everything but in the process ended up pretty limitedAny particular reason?
Personally I can't stand 66s but 92s are pretty good, extremely powerful locomotives. 66s replaced many 'classic' traction types on UK freight and the design is hideous although I appreciate they are relatively simple and easy to maintain compared to older locos.