Mike Storey Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 The problem with this suggestion is the rail over road bridge immediately to the east of the station (which the platforms may have continued over in the past based on photos) was rebuilt after the line was singled as a single track structure. Thus for the second platform to be returned to work, total bridge reconstruction is needed. Moving the signals and getting rid of the extended platform (which I believe is of a modular construction and can be removed relatively easily is peanuts by comparison (although obviously they will add to the 'total cost' of such a project). In short there is no business case / very poor BCR for such works, a situation that won't change unless said bridge requires renewal and the powers that be chose to make the replacement double track again. And, I would earnestly presume, it would have to have its bus removed from said bridge for some considerable time, making modelling of same almost incomprehensible. Unique probably? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold phil_sutters Posted April 6, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 6, 2017 Smaller franchises are the answer - Bristol & Exeter - Stockton & Darlington - Bodmin & Wadebridge. The trouble started when they built branches and extensions. Who wants to travel all these great distances? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted April 6, 2017 Share Posted April 6, 2017 The problem with this suggestion is the rail over road bridge immediately to the east of the station (which the platforms may have continued over in the past based on photos) was rebuilt after the line was singled as a single track structure. Thus for the second platform to be returned to work, total bridge reconstruction is needed. Moving the signals and getting rid of the extended platform (which I believe is of a modular construction and can be removed relatively easily is peanuts by comparison although obviously they will add to the 'total cost' of such a project). In short there is no business case / very poor BCR for such works, a situation that won't change unless said bridge requires renewal and the powers that be chose to make the replacement double track again. Probably simpler to extend the platforms west, by the sound of it - if such an arrangement is desired. At least until the second track is put back throughout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 but 'alph a line later I realized there was more 'Alphaline' was actually a BR (Regional Railways Wales & West) marketing initiative that lasted a decade or so after privatisation... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold phil_sutters Posted April 8, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 8, 2017 'Alphaline' was actually a BR (Regional Railways Wales & West) marketing initiative that lasted a decade or so after privatisation... Thanks for that info. My implied point was that names like, One, Alphaline and indeed First don't tell one much about the service they are providing and One and First can make platform announcements sound really ridiculous. As for Virgin - what on earth is that all about? At least names that have some geographical relevance can be helpful in some circumstances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Thanks for that info. My implied point was that names like, One, Alphaline and indeed First don't tell one much about the service they are providing and One and First can make platform announcements sound really ridiculous. As for Virgin - what on earth is that all about? At least names that have some geographical relevance can be helpful in some circumstances. I agree there have been some rather silly names. But then, what is the name for, as regards passengers? Along with other examples above, LMS did not really help in identifying who ran trains to Southend, did it? The only name we had that was really useful, was British Rail(ways). That covered almost all bases (London and Glasgow were a bit different). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfsup Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 Thanks for that info. My implied point was that names like, One, Alphaline and indeed First don't tell one much about the service they are providing and One and First can make platform announcements sound really ridiculous. As for Virgin - what on earth is that all about? At least names that have some geographical relevance can be helpful in some circumstances. To be fair to First, they do tend to have the geographical reference within the name though, I.e First Great Western, First Great Eastern, First / Transpennine Express and First ScotRail to name a few though. At least this South Western franchise looks set to have just that within it's name. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted April 10, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 10, 2017 The problem with this suggestion is the rail over road bridge immediately to the east of the station (which the platforms may have continued over in the past based on photos) was rebuilt after the line was singled as a single track structure. Thus for the second platform to be returned to work, total bridge reconstruction is needed. Moving the signals and getting rid of the extended platform (which I believe is of a modular construction and can be removed relatively easily is peanuts by comparison although obviously they will add to the 'total cost' of such a project). In short there is no business case / very poor BCR for such works, a situation that won't change unless said bridge requires renewal and the powers that be chose to make the replacement double track again. I had never noticed that this bridge is now single track. If they do ever replace it, hopefully they will do the job properly and give decent road clearance height as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted April 10, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 10, 2017 (edited) Changing the height of the road is nothing to do with the railway and to lower it would mean a severe dip because of the buildings around it and just make it a flooding problem. The bridge was completely shot so would have needed replacing anyway. You can't move the station along unless they buy back the old goods shed to get access and there's not enough foot fall to justify it. It was a daft solution in the first place driven by cost of one bridge span, much like the afterthought of Tisbury Loop. There are rumblings though to sort out Tisbury now the Down Side land is unused again. Edited April 10, 2017 by PaulRhB 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastwestdivide Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 ...and if First win the WCML franchise next time round.... FWCR . Can you pronounce that in Welsh please? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Wyambustinforraleakgogogo. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan452 Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 FirstGroup boosts its Waterloo trains with £895m British deal - http://www.standard.co.uk/business/firstgroup-boosts-its-waterloo-trains-with-895m-british-deal-a3568851.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.snowdon Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 FirstGroup boosts its Waterloo trains with £895m British deal - http://www.standard.co.uk/business/firstgroup-boosts-its-waterloo-trains-with-895m-british-deal-a3568851.htmlExcept that Bombardier are a Canadian company- the only benefit to Britain is what they pay in wages and taxes, and like every other multinational company, they will be setting out to minimise the latter. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernman46 Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 Stupid Q - What were / are the 707's due to replace in September with SWT ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 I think they're extras to allow the reading line to go 10 car, releasing 450s for other routes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesperus Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 I can understand why we need new trains for the Crossrail and Thameslink routes but with vast numbers of EMUs finding themselves homeless due to these schemes (mostly 25kv but plenty of 750v) shouldn't we be building DMU's instead? I am starting to find it ridiculous that we are seriously considering fitting diesel engines to 35 year old 455s because there is no money/capacity to build DMU's when that money and capacity can be found to build new units to replace already brand new units. I understand why they want a uniform fleet and I'm not against them getting it. I just think they should wait a few years so the factorys can build a couple of hundred DMU's to replace the Pacers and sort out capacity issues on diesel routes. If they were designed with care they could even be rebuilt as EMU's when (if) the wires go up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombatofludham Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Here's a thought...if they insist on rebuilding Mk3 derived EMUs to diesel, why not strengthen the underframe and structure of one of the driving cars, stick a lightweight diesel generator set behind the cab, and Bob's your aunty's husband. They could even call it a class 210. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
black and decker boy Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 I can understand why we need new trains for the Crossrail and Thameslink routes but with vast numbers of EMUs finding themselves homeless due to these schemes (mostly 25kv but plenty of 750v) shouldn't we be building DMU's instead? I am starting to find it ridiculous that we are seriously considering fitting diesel engines to 35 year old 455s because there is no money/capacity to build DMU's when that money and capacity can be found to build new units to replace already brand new units. I understand why they want a uniform fleet and I'm not against them getting it. I just think they should wait a few years so the factorys can build a couple of hundred DMU's to replace the Pacers and sort out capacity issues on diesel routes. If they were designed with care they could even be rebuilt as EMU's when (if) the wires go up. They are building new DMU fleets, northern have some on order from CAF and Anglia some from Stadler. Bi-Modes are also on order for TPE. The debate seems to be whether DfT will allow any more electrification due to the current disasters playing out in Scotland and on the GWML and the fact that funding to NR in CP6 is going to be a lot lower than previous periods. We have the London Midland franchise and East Midlands franchises to be awarded soon, maybe more DMU or Bi-mode for those too? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Here's a thought...if they insist on rebuilding Mk3 derived EMUs to diesel, why not strengthen the underframe and structure of one of the driving cars, stick a lightweight diesel generator set behind the cab, and Bob's your aunty's husband. They could even call it a class 210. That's basically what they're doing but with a lower-powered genset under each end. This avoids the need to strengthen the underframe (expensive), gives redundancy against engine failure and maximises useable floor space. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david.hill64 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Except that Bombardier are a Canadian company- the only benefit to Britain is what they pay in wages and taxes, and like every other multinational company, they will be setting out to minimise the latter. Jim True that the parent company is Canadian but BT Transport recently located its domicile in U.K. Bit of a surprise as most had expected it to be Frankfurt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 (edited) considering fitting diesel engines to 35 year old 455s because there is no money/capacity to build DMU's when that money and capacity can be found to build new units to replace already brand new units. It would be utterly ludicrous if the railway owned them - but it doesn't, so to make sense of it you have to follow the money. What's happening is that some of the new fleets are expensive to lease relative to the cost of finance today - so 'money can be found' is the wrong way round - 'money can be saved' is a better description. Edited June 21, 2017 by Glorious NSE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 True that the parent company is Canadian but BT Transport recently located its domicile in U.K. Bit of a surprise as most had expected it to be Frankfurt. What do you mean by "domicile" with regard to Bombardier Transportation and when did that happen? Bombardier Transportation's global HQ has been situated in Berlin, Germany since about 2005. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david.hill64 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 What do you mean by "domicile" with regard to Bombardier Transportation and when did that happen? Bombardier Transportation's global HQ has been situated in Berlin, Germany since about 2005. It happened recently as part of global restructuring. We had an internal briefing about it. The transport HQ is in Berlin. The domicile is where the brass plaque is, presumably for tax purposes but I haven't looked into the details. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan452 Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 FirstGroup boosts its Waterloo trains with £895m British deal - http://www.standard.co.uk/business/firstgroup-boosts-its-waterloo-trains-with-895m-british-deal-a3568851.html Just a thought. I trust that these trains will have 20m (rather than 23m) bodies? Otherwise they won't fit in-to Platforms 1 to 4 at Waterloo - after lengthening that is. Many thanks in advance for clarification on this matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertcwp Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 Just a thought. I trust that these trains will have 20m (rather than 23m) bodies? Otherwise they won't fit in-to Platforms 1 to 4 at Waterloo - after lengthening that is. Many thanks in advance for clarification on this matter. Yes, 20m as for existing stock, with two doorways per side. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now