Christopher125

It certainly requires investment but if that's cheaper than the alternatives in the long term, which always seemed likely, it makes sense to keep it. As can be seen below SWR have released their investment timetable, which confirms two periods of disruption next Winter, with the last 483 running in March 2021 and the new 30min frequency following in May 2021.

Alas the reliability has been anything but boring, predominantly due to the diesel gensets - a 3rd rail design will hopefully be far more reliable.

Doesn't every generation make similar sweeping statements about the 'youth of today'?

That book also confirms that the first 03 - with original cab - was squeezed from St Johns through Ryde Tunnel, but couldn't get back under Rink Road bridge on the Up Line. As for the shunters on Ryde Pier, the photos below are the few I am aware of: https://www.flickr.com/photos/74165767@N05/43390122814 https://www.flickr.com/photos/74165767@N05/30240570038

IIRC the Mayor/TfL argument that you couldn't have HS2 without Crossrail 2 was rather misleading - passenger growth was predicted to overwhelm the tube lines serving Euston regardless of HS2.

I don't see why, as Gareth himself says "The tunnel is flatly not an issue..." and that's backed up by gauging profiles - the sharp curves and arched roof certainly make it tight but D78s are lower, shorter and narrower at the roofline than typical 20m+ mainline designs. Until the DfT make a decision any changes have presumably been minor and occurred as a result of other work - perhaps tamping, or re-sleepering of which there's been quite a bit - and so more likely to concern track under the two overbridges mentioned as possible issues (almost certainly Rink Road and Smallbrook Lane).

That surely can't be right, 374s did briefly work services through Ashford IIRC and there was even a press launch with Grayling on one of the platforms before they were suspended. Kent News have recently reported that it was a 'power spike' damaging equipment on the new trains, and it won't be resolved until next year: https://www.kentonline.co.uk/ashford/news/power-spike-prevents-trains-stopping-at-station-206311/

Happy to be corrected but I was under the impression that the driver has been given more protection, hence the new cab designs.

These videos really show what a good job they've done with the inside and just how unobtrusive the diesel engines are - as soon as they get going it's just like being in an EMU, as as I think one passenger can be heard remarking.

Indeed, and now confirmed by gauging professional Gareth Dennis on twitter: https://twitter.com/GarethDennis/ https://twitter.com/GarethDennis/status/1121055592171356161 "...the dynamically modelled Class 230 vehicles "fit" (i.e. can be gauge-cleared) without a problem.... A little cosy here and there, but the only thing stopping them running is the Solent!" "The tunnel is flatly not an issue. Platform gauging always requires a bit of work, and there are two minor overbridges that get tight enough to warrant a closer look, but not a thing that would worry me, and I have to live and breathe this stuff." "(and I ran this using data that precedes the recent physical work that "may or may not" have been done to make sure they definitely fit anyway)"

The 172s were converted to DOO as well, so London Overground has had no guards for some time - perhaps if there was the prospect of a long-term delay that might have needed changing, but with 710s now signed off by the ORR it seems TfL called it correctly with the 4-car 378s.

The local council have no responsibility for Island Line or it's rolling stock, those are decisions for the franchisee and the DfT. Adrian Shooter of Vivarail has confirmed they fit (only just, it's safe to assume), and it's widely understood that they are being proposed by SWR.

IIRC they were planning to run some 6-car 331s into Leeds, but for now they'll use 4-car 331s alongside the 333s.

HS2 will still cut Euston-Glasgow by around an hour - IIRC the non-tilt penalty is something like 11-15mins on the northern WCML, but the Scottish government are keen to see capacity and linespeed improvements.

I forget the number of HSTs but I gather it's quite a decent capacity increase - there are 605 new vehicles, equivalent to 64 full length (9/10-car) sets, though a few will be replacing non-HST workings like the Bedwyns. IIRC this only affects a handful of early 5-car sets which were vinyled in a certain way, presumably they'll be re-done in due course. Presumably it means they can get more IETs in service while driver training in the South West is still going on, but it's been the plan to use 802s on other routes for some years now - I think since they ordered extra 9-cars in 2016?

Presumably this will need replacing by next year unless they want a PRM derogation, any idea what with?

Wind has recently peaked at 15GW in favourable conditions so, at times, is a very significant source of electricity - I'd suggest looking at www.electricinsights.co.uk as their figures include an estimate of unmetered supply. It's worth noting that even during the summer (July-September) Wind provided 14% of our electricity

Are they struggling? I was under the impression the GBRf locos, having gone through reliability mods at Brush, have proved highly satisfactory.

Old Oak will be an interchange between HS2, Crossrail, GWR and Heathrow Express services - a new London Overground station will be a short walk away, and there are tentative proposals to terminate some Chiltern services via the NNML there too. With plenty of development potential it's expected to become one of the busiest stations in the country IIRC. Btw Stratford International might be poorly named but passenger numbers are decent and growing fast - from 1.1m in 2014/15 to 2.6m in 17/18, and with plenty more to come as the area develops further. I find the whole 'premium fare' argument bizarre - it makes no practical sense, let alone political, to spend billions on a huge increase in capacity helping free up the existing network if people can't afford to use it. Even if a suitable through station was a practical proposition, I can't see the sense in trying to combine a high frequency, high speed long distance intercity service to the Midlands, North East/West and Scotland with 3rd rail commuter services - it would be totally unworkable and horribly compromised.

All intercity services in London I can think of terminate, which if nothing else allows sufficient dwell times for what would be where most people leave or join the train. Through running makes far more sense for commuter services using rolling stock with lots of doors, no reservations and serving multiple stations in Central London. A serious proposal for a through station, 'Euston Cross', was made but the case against was clear: The HS2 station at Old Oak Common is huge, but a Central London equivalent would need to cope with even more passengers but without a suitable site for a station box dug from the surface - excavating a super-Crossrail station with 6+ 400m-long platforms and numerous caverns for the throats would be a truly epic endeavour and probably impractical. Where do up to 17 200mph+ 400m long intercity trains every hour go anyway? Interworking with a much less frequent glorified commuter service, with 140mph 240m long trains really doesn't make much sense and would risk importing delays from the 3rd rail network and HS1. I think even the proponents may have accepted this, instead pushing for a scheme to terminate at Euston using the existing approach.

Surely it's Crossrail 2 having the brakes put on (not that it was making much progress) - London's community infrastructure levy will continue to fund Crossrail 1, rather than switch to funding the new line as expected.

I remember looking through the sifting process and it was, realistically, the only practical option that could meet the requirements of HS2 - there were plans to rebuild the station anyway. This document summarises the Euston decision: Determining the scheme

It wouldn't be the first time!

IIRC the 2020 cut-off date actually originated in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 which pre-dates the PRM-TSI, so it's not an EU or Brexit issue - I gather the PRM-TSI merely applies to new or renewed/upgraded rolling stock and infrastructure. Few (if any?) other EU countries have taken such a rigid approach.

It's perhaps more likely they'd move elsewhere if electrification was extended and the ROSCO could find a new home for them as bi-modes attracting higher leasing charges.