Great Western Coffee Shop

Journey by Journey => Bristol (WECA) Commuters => Topic started by: Steve44 on May 29, 2008, 11:11:24



Title: I know this isn't FGW but...
Post by: Steve44 on May 29, 2008, 11:11:24
Off of XC site:
06:15 Bristol Temple Meads to Edinburgh due 13:16
This train will run short formed with 3 carriages between Birmingham New Street and Edinburgh.This is due to a train fault.

3 car voyager?! surely not. *scratches head*


Title: Re: I know this isn't FGW but...
Post by: John R on May 29, 2008, 11:48:39
Sounds like it's been replaced by a Class 170 at Birmingham. Wonder how much time that will lose?


Title: Re: I know this isn't FGW but...
Post by: John R on May 29, 2008, 11:53:39
And in reply to my own question, currently running on time north of Newcastle. Maybe they just had to take one carriage out of passenger use but the set ran in normal formation. 


Title: Re: I know this isn't FGW but...
Post by: Steve44 on May 29, 2008, 12:32:24
It sounds quite logical for either
the only other thing i could think of was that it could have been a double formation voyager and it being formed of 3 was a typo and was meant to be 4..


Title: Re: I know this isn't FGW but...
Post by: smithy on May 29, 2008, 18:22:48
i would guess at a 4 car voyager having a car locked out of use for a lighting fault or something like that.

i doubt the ex central drivers who sign 170's sign the route to jock land and also doubt ex virgin sign 170's.the reason i say this is down to different pay and conditions hence the staff are unable to cross train yet


Title: Re: I know this isn't FGW but...
Post by: Btline on May 29, 2008, 19:16:36
Whether it was a Voyager or a 170, this service must have been critically overcrowded! >:(

Voyagers are bad enough, but with one car down? ???

Why did Virgin reduce the capacity of their trains? And don't say "Operation Princess" - that did not increase frequencies on the extrimites of the network (i.e. past Plymouth), nor on the routes towards Reading! These services basically had capacity cut by a half.

At least XC is undoing some of the damage... :)


Title: Re: I know this isn't FGW but...
Post by: swlines on May 29, 2008, 19:37:44
this was a slip of the key error. It arrived 10 early in EDB, a 170 wouldn't manage that!


Title: Re: I know this isn't FGW but...
Post by: vacman on May 29, 2008, 21:12:09
this was a slip of the key error. It arrived 10 early in EDB, a 170 wouldn't manage that!
It probably could with the amount of slack in XC timings!


Title: Re: I know this isn't FGW but...
Post by: Btline on May 29, 2008, 21:15:23
this was a slip of the key error. It arrived 10 early in EDB, a 170 wouldn't manage that!
It probably could with the amount of slack in XC timings!
::)


Title: Re: I know this isn't FGW but...
Post by: swlines on May 29, 2008, 21:23:10
this was a slip of the key error. It arrived 10 early in EDB, a 170 wouldn't manage that!
It probably could with the amount of slack in XC timings!

Not when the areas where it picked up time are 125mph linespeed and the XCs are booked for 115mph!


Title: Re: I know this isn't FGW but...
Post by: devon_metro on May 30, 2008, 09:19:03
this was a slip of the key error. It arrived 10 early in EDB, a 170 wouldn't manage that!
It probably could with the amount of slack in XC timings!

Not that the HSTs would suggest was there. 9V57 running over 30 late yesterday surprise surprise!



This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net