 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2
|
|
1
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: East Anglia Bi-modes
|
on: February 21, 2018, 12:58:22
|
....The 150s are 25 years old, the 158s might be ok for another 10 - 15 years, but the 165/166s are knackered.
The 150's are much older than that being nearly 35 years old (actually between 31 and 34 years old this year). The 158's are a little bit (5 yrs) younger (between 26 & 29 yrs old) and of a similar vintage to the 165/166's. |
|
|
|
|
3
|
All across the Great Western territory / Looking forward - the next 5, 10 and 20 years / Re: IEP - Capacity shortfall or plenty of seats?
|
on: April 01, 2015, 12:29:22
|
While that is accurate, it's not quite the full story! Indeed, it isn't the whole story. The very expensive procurement process has incurred the sort of eye watering costs usually associated with government procurement exercises. Firstly, while the TOC▸ will pay for the train service provision, the DfT» has guaranteed these payments for the 27.5 years of the Train Service Provision deal. I'd be quite happy with a guaranteed income for the next 27.5 years! The guarantee doesn't cost anything, other than the legal and administrative costs of setting up the deal, unless the payments are not met, or there's a default on the leasing contracts. .....As it is known that the monthly payments will be considerably higher this means that, all other things being equal, either a higher subsidy will be required to operate the trains or the Government will have to accept lower premium payments. In either case the taxpayer takes the hit   The taxpayer would indeed take at hit, but only if those eventualities are realised. If the TOC's increase their revenue and meet their contactual arrangements to pay the "promised" premiums to the government, then the taxpayer will not be paying. On the other hand, passengers, MAY end up paying more for the service provided. Again, it isn't as simple as that though. |
|
|
|
|
4
|
All across the Great Western territory / Looking forward - the next 5, 10 and 20 years / Re: IEP - Capacity shortfall or plenty of seats?
|
on: March 31, 2015, 17:27:47
|
We also know as a virtual certainty that most of the seats (as in more than half) will be bus style without tables, this is as shown on the drawings published. For the IEP▸ Order yes. You have no clue how the additional order is to be configured which will be to the operators wishes, with no DfT» input as they're privately financed. And it's well known that half the population (ie women) prefer the privacy of these airline (not bus) seats to table seating where men play footsie. It is true that a fair number of passengers prefer the airline style layout to facing seats with tables. Not just females either. Wasn't there a study that showed that the first seats taken on a FGW▸ HST▸ , paricularly during the peaks, were those closest to the carriage ends and the doors, followed by the airline style seats. Table seats tended to be avoided by solo travellers. Conversely, groups of 3 or 4, or families, tended to go for the tables first. Regarding finance, the IEP train order (i.e. the cost of the actual trains) is also privately funded. HSBC are heading up a group of UK▸ and overseas investors, who are providing the finance to pay for the trains and support infrastructure. The UK government will not be buying them, or paying for them. The lack of luggage space is a reasonable inference to be made from the scarcity of table seats (no space for bags between seat backs) and the absence of power cars and the luggage space therein. luggage space is like road provision - you supply it & it'll generate its own traffic. You could never have too much even if each seat came with its own luggage space instead of a seat beside it 0- that would still fill. Better to stop people using them to move house....:-) I can't say I've ever seen people placing their luggage in a HST power car. Maybe I'm just not observant enough? The IEP spec detailed the required minimum baggage space. If it's mostly at the carriage ends, in or near the vestibules, that brings its own issues of security and passenger confidence. Again, it's no use speculating until we can see what the end result turns out to be. |
|
|
|
|
5
|
All across the Great Western territory / Looking forward - the next 5, 10 and 20 years / Re: IEP - Capacity shortfall or plenty of seats?
|
on: March 30, 2015, 23:13:29
|
AT300s are similar to SouthEastern's Javelin's.....
AT300 is the family name for a range of HS▸ trains. The Javelin (class 395) and the Super Express Train (class 800/801) are all AT300 derivatives. The new order for the SW services is for an SET▸ with uprated engines and larger fuel capacity. They are struggling with a description for them because they want to differentiate the order from the trains ordered as part of the IEP▸ . Hence the (possibly temporary) use of the generic AT300 title, until they are given a name or TOPS▸ class description. |
|
|
|
|
7
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Reading Station improvements
|
on: March 20, 2015, 14:13:28
|
.....Continuing to block P13/14 with Padd-Rdg stoppers restricts pathing opportunities between the Relief Feeder line and the RL^s, which may be contributing to the continued use of P7/8 for freights to/from Westbury lines (as well as the Feeder Line gradient issue for the heavy freights).
RTT» appears to show fewer freights using P7/8 in June, than in the first month after Easter. Heavy stone trains (over 4000 tonnes) are booked to use the Feeder lines, with most of those given as 4200 & 4400 tonnes passing through P12-15. Only the 4800 tonne trains (only one or two booked a day) seem to be limited to P7. |
|
|
|
|
9
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Reading Station improvements
|
on: January 28, 2015, 22:05:48
|
And the heavy freights from UW towards London for which the ^freight only^ Feeder Lines were supposedly provided to avoid a flat crossing over the UM, DM and DR east of Reading?
Well, most if not all are routed via P7 and cross the DM, UM and DR on the flat at Kennett Bridge!
It's not most or all. As an example, on Thursday 24th April..... There are 4 Up stone trains in excess of 4000 tonnes that route via platform 7 (other days some are via platform 8 ). However there are 5 others (4000 tonnes plus) which route via the Feeder Lines and via platforms 13 & 15. The 2 heaviest (4800 tonnes) route via platform 7, but one of those passes at 0300. The other passes through platform 7 at 1039 when the relief platforms are either occupied or about to be. Those 5 Up trains routing via the Feeder Lines, are listed as 4400 & 4200 tonnes, the same as the other 2 passing through platform 7. Also note, that there are lighter Up freights (2000 tonnes or less) routing from the Westbury Line, that also route via platforms 7 & 8 and cross over to the reliefs at Kennet Bridge, in addition to other similarly loaded freights that will use the Feeder Lines. This might suggest that there are pathing reasons for using this routing, rather than using the Feeder Lines at those particular times. ? |
|
|
|
|
10
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Reading Station improvements
|
on: January 28, 2015, 19:31:57
|
Looking at RTT» for late April, we see most if not all passenger trains heading from Up Westbury (UW) towards London use the Festival Lines into P10 or P11 at Reading which is perfectly logical.
And the heavy freights from UW towards London for which the ^freight only^ (according to FGW▸ /NR» publicity a couple of years ago) Festival Lines were supposedly provided to avoid a flat crossing over the UM, DM and DR east of Reading? Well, most if not all are routed via P7 and cross the DM, UM and DR on the flat at Kennett Bridge!
Someone please tell me this is only temporary. Or was I right about the gradients?.
Festival Lines? Don't you mean Feeder Lines? |
|
|
|
|
11
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Reading Station improvements
|
on: January 26, 2015, 10:26:05
|
I'm curious about this move, possibly on Saturday 24th Jan. as stated the caption. An Up, London direction (Acton?) bound stone train, stated to have come from Westbury. Passing through Reading Station on the Down Relief through platform 12  This train clearly couldn't have come via the Westbury line. Is it possible that it routed via Swindon? Is that a normal routing? Of course the caption could be wrong and the train originated elsewhere? If it has arrived from the west on the Up Relief, is it typical to have switched to the Down Relief lines to pass through Reading, presumably due to platform occupation? (I do appreciate that all platforms a Bi-Directional.) Video here.... https://www.flickr.com/photos/danwarman1/16354666161/CCTV99 |
|
|
|
|
12
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Reading Station improvements
|
on: January 26, 2015, 10:22:52
|
I'm curious about this move on Saturday 24th Jan. An Up, London direction (Acton?) bound stone train from Westbury. Passing through Reading Station on the Down Relief through platform 12 This train clearly couldn't have come via the Westbury line. Is it possible that it routed via Swindon? Is that a normal routing? If it has arrived from the west on the Up Relief, is it typical to have switched to the Down Relief lines to pass through Reading, presumably due to platform occupation? (I do appreciate that all platforms a Bi-Directional.) Video here.... https://www.flickr.com/photos/danwarman1/16354666161/CCTV99 |
|
|
|
|
Click on the map to explore geographics
: 
