Christopher125

1 hour ago, 009 micro modeller said:

I thought the point was that they wouldn’t be using the third rail, since that’s life expired as well.

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.

17 minutes ago, St. Simon said:

 

From what I hear, the Class 230s are doing very well, with what has been described as 'Boring reliability' by a couple of people. Also, I gather they have been well received by crews and passengers.

 

Simon

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

On 14/09/2019 at 13:44, lmsforever said:

It is worrying to think that from being a country of confident outgoing youth we have a generation of children who know nought of danger, ability to communicate or understanding of many things in the world around them.

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

On 15/08/2019 at 22:25, Gwiwer said:

A significant amount of detail, including the paragraph marked * above, on the Island diesel shunters can be found in the recently-published Ryde Rail (A History of Tube Trains on the Isle of Wight) by Richard C Long - who is active on this site - and published by Crecy.  

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

On 28/07/2019 at 22:26, Ron Ron Ron said:

We were told early on, that as a result of the extra capacity provided by HS2 and the extra capacity released to the classic lines,  the Underground network at Euston Station, would not be able to absorb such a large increase in passengers.

Even with Euston Square being integrated into the the Euston Underground Station complex.

Apparently, the modelling showed that it would overload this part of the underground system.

Crossrail 2 is supposed to be part of the long term solution to this issue.

.

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.

On 11/07/2019 at 23:56, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Has this work involved lowering the tunnel floor though? I realise this might be necessary to make the 230s fit but won’t it make the flooding problems worse?

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).

21 hours ago, roythebus said:

The new units have platform clearance problems at AFK.

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/

7 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

But back to trains, I assume that there were reasons for the tightening of the crashworthiness standard, probably based on unfortunate incidents.

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.

On 22/03/2019 at 17:26, jim.snowdon said:

He will have better information that I (and most of us) will have, so I would believe him.

 

Jim

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)"

On 07/04/2019 at 23:06, phil-b259 said:

That means Guards would be needed for any 313 / 314 based solution - however given TfL in general has no need of guards (the North London line / West London line went DOO in 2013) and the ex guards used with the 172s will be heading for new roles, so it may not be that easy to rustle up some at quick notice.

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.

On 08/03/2019 at 13:58, lmsforever said:

Agree with last posting the Vivrail option is the only sensible one and the councillors and toc should get off their backsides and order the units .Councils are notorious for   going slow on something that benefits people and remarkably fast when its concerning taxes.

The local council have no responsibility for Island Line or it's rolling stock, those are decisions for the franchisee and the DfT.

On 08/03/2019 at 14:36, jim.snowdon said:

The suitability of the D stock on the Isle of Wight really rests on the matter of gauge clearance in the Ryde tunnel, which would, I think, turn out to be negative. 

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.

2 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

But all the electric sets on the east side are 4 car aren’t they?

 

6 car platforms certainly needed for DMU eg Calder Valley

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

4 hours ago, lmsforever said:

Trains without tilt are no good north of Wigan because of the twisty route plus Scotland is never going to finance a HS route they spend their money on projects that benefit their people ie. more electrification and improved intercity services.The  time gains will be lost by the time you arrive in Glasgow but I seem to remember reading a long time ago that signalling on the EC route was set up for 140mph running or was it all canned to save money.If it is still in the system maybe then these trains could go to Edinborough vi this route. 

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 agree that replacing an HST with a 5-car Class 800 is a backward step (assuming that the full capacity of the HST was actually required), however it would be interesting to know whether the total number of vehicles (or perhaps more importantly, seats) provided by the new trains is greater or fewer than the trains being replaced ?

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. 

In my travels today I noted, among other things, 800003 displaying badly-peeling livery vinyls around most windows.  This looked atrocious on such a new train.  I do have a picture but it's on the iPhone which means it will upload sideways or inverted here until I have had a chance to run it through the desktop software.  Suffice to say that the peeling wasn't slight - we are talking several centimetres and around almost every window.

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.

So overall not a bad day in train running terms on GWR, a very good days in terms of correctly formed and orientated Class 80X trains, but a number of 802s noted in Bristol and South Wales workings (why?).

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?

I keep an eye on the National Grid and the (metered) power produced by wind is never very high compared to the amount produced from fossil fuels so I dont think there is much 'spare' wind generation except in Political circles.

 

Thats before we get to what happens when the wind stops blowing?

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

Guys

 

Do we have a capable electric loco the 92s have struggled on the Caley Sleeper so not sure how they would cope with the jumbo trains

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

But old oak looks like a Stratford international remake.

The only connections it has is the GWML and Zone1, no tube, no TfL rail.

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.

Your going to need deep pockets to commute to London from Brum by HS2 (regardless what they say about same price fares, there will be a premium, it’s just a matter of time before they announce it, overspends have a habit of providing palatable cover for announcing it).

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.

IMHO the trains size/design should be better reflected to allow through running in the overall design, hence no need for a terminal. One miss was not having a southerly connecting tunnel out to Waterloo.. 1S76 could have returned, amongst several other opportunities... a southern spur, in addition to a through operation would be far more useful than an end to end line where every passenger has to waste the very time HS2 is trying to save by having everyone connecting in obscure places 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.

Why does it need a london terminal at all.

Most successful city stations are through stations. Look at Berlin, or even the linking of Picc / Victoria in Manchester, or even Thameslink..

Much less space would be needed as services could terminate out side the city and provide through routes... South Eastern High Speed could have been part of it, not only that but for a wider selection of passengers a thru / non-condcting service could be offered.

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.

Given that HS2 is allegedly having the brakes put on to fund the Crossrail shortfall, I would agree that proposals like this one are unfortunately a waste of good paper (or cyberspace) whatever the merits of the case.

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.

That said, I still think it crazy to build the London terminal at Euston.

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

Or it could all be a load of nothing that will go away when someone takes a closer look. Guess time will tell.

It wouldn't be the first time!

Would a derogation to allow them to continue beyond 2019 even be possible? As I understand it, the PRM compliance is a statutory deadline, and possibly an EU regulation?

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.

If so, what a damned good idea, as everything else can be standard and the DMU can presumably become a straight electric almost instantly if/when electrification is extended.  

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.