HST stabling at Worcester

[whole diary]

[vacman]

ummmmm.....you live next to a railway line, you will hear trains, GET USED TO IT!!!

[John R]

Yes, but I think it's unreasonable to leave a stationary train with engine running next to houses all night. You often see notices telling freight drivers to switch off when stationary, so the precent is there that it can cause disturbance.

But in general I do agree with the principle that if you live next to a railway you should expect noise of passing trains, especially if the railway was there before you.

[Mookiemoo]

Have to say - im on the side of the residents

Passing through trains ok - constant rumbling all night which we all know is a new thing in the last several months!

If they stop it - makes my options limited but I wouldnt be surprised if they do

[dog box]

As there is no shore supply at this location, how is the train supposed to be cleaned, kept secure and all the auxillary equipment keep running?.....you cant just jump into a train start it up and off you go.. it dont work like that.......it could always run  ECS^▸ (Empty Coaching Stock) To and from  the Marsh and burn a few more hundred gallons of fuel

[IndustryInsider]

We could all see this one coming a mile off. It's been happening since the December t/t change, but now summer's here and people are starting to open their windows at night...

I do feel sorry for the residents, too. It is quite a racket going all night long, bearing in mind the one power car left on is also providing the ETH and therefore working harder than a normal idling engine. The houses aren't right next to the tracks, but the noise carries in the dead of night. Two possible solutions; 1) Shore supply is fitted in the siding concerned, or 2) The HST^▸ (High Speed Train) stables in the platform for the night (which has already happened on occasions).

I would bet on it being option 2, as it doesn't cost any money and freight trains can be routed round the train if needed. If stabled in the station and the far power car is left running there's nothing much except industrial units - I dare say you would still be able to hear it from the nearest houses if you strained your ears, but at an acceptable level, and with the depot in close proximity running engines are the norm through the night.

[moonrakerz]

I seem to recollect - about 50 years ago  - one of the foremost arguments for getting rid of steam was the fact that with a diesel or electric loco you could just "turn a key" or "press a button" and you were off. No more would we require hordes of men working through the night preparing the locos for the forthcoming days work.
Do we really now have locos that require the engines to be kept running all the time ? At least with steam locos they did allow the fires to go out now and again !

[Tim]

Doesn't it rather make a mokery of First's supposed environmental crudentials leaving an engine running all night?

[eightf48544]

Put in a shore supply. It's only money and it solves all the problems.

It's called attention to detail.

[grahame]

Doesn't it rather make a mokery of First's supposed environmental crudentials leaving an engine running all night?

Andrew Griffiths was FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s head of environmental stuff.  He lost his job through redundancy at the end of March.

[dog box]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) could always use a turbo instead and hear the backlash......and for people to actually think or imply the railway is no longer a 24hr a day operation is well rather silly and quite frankly an insult to the staff who work through the night to service and prep the trains, who clean up the bloody mess left by inconsiderate passengers, repair the damage caused by  the TAZ 09 graffitti brigade, who ferry drive and shunt throughout the night.
It could be worse you could have the Network Rail HOBC^▸ (High Output Ballast Cleaner) Train outside your bedroom window for a week

[super tm]

it is a condition of the warranty of the MTU^▸ (Motor Traction Unit) engines that they must be kept warm at all times.  Either by keeping one engine running or plugged into the mains. (Called shore supply)

As there is no shore supply at worcester then if you want to kepp an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) at Worcester then your only option is to keep the engine running.

Putting in a shore supply is quite expensive

[Tim]

Putting in a shore supply is quite expensive

I don't suppose it costs more than the total value of ticket sales on one peak-time HST^▸ (High Speed Train).  And a shore supply would save fuel costs and possibly staffing costs (I assume that if the engine is left running, a driver, engineer or someone with at least the knowledge to shut the engine down if something goes wrong or bursts into flames has to be near the train at all times?)

There is a difference between passing train noise and the occassional short term distrubance caused by engineering work or a rail grinder (which most people will put up with as a reasonable part of living near a railway line) and the chronic noise of an engine running night after night which is only taking place because the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) wants to save a few thousand pounds on a shore supply.

By analogy, I'd be tolerant of my neighbours having a noisy party on the occasional night or having a week of demolition work as part of living in a city, but if it went on for months I would complain.

[IndustryInsider]

Doing some maths: With an MTU^▸ (Motor Traction Unit) engine costing about ^1 a minute in fuel to idle (which is a quoted statistic) for roughly 4 hours a night, 5 nights a week, adds up to over ^60000 per annum in lost fuel costs alone.

[ReWind]

Ok Flamingo, but therefore there wont be no early morning cotswold line service to London for the commuters.

Cant win!!

[Tim]

Doing some maths: With an MTU^▸ (Motor Traction Unit) engine costing about ^1 a minute in fuel to idle (which is a quoted statistic) for roughly 4 hours a night, 5 nights a week, adds up to over ^60000 per annum in lost fuel costs alone.

"shorely" a shore supply can't cost more than ^60 grand (now where did I put that coat?)