What future the stored HSTs?

[Colin Redman]

The failure of Grand Central means that more HSTs will be consigned to
store.

Considering the versatility of this type of train, it is a tragedy,
and I am surprised that Porterbrook and the SRA are not working
together on developing refurbishment options as there are no
replacements in the pipeline.

No way is it a Voyager or Meridian a satisfactory replacement. On top
of that around 200 Mk 3s face scrap. It's a disaster.

Just why is it that no one can make the right decisions on stock and
traction policy. SRA is an example of the blind leading the blind.

Anyone got any other views?

[John Ruddy]

Post by Colin Redman
The failure of Grand Central means that more HSTs will be consigned to
store.
Considering the versatility of this type of train, it is a tragedy,
and I am surprised that Porterbrook and the SRA are not working
together on developing refurbishment options as there are no
replacements in the pipeline.
No way is it a Voyager or Meridian a satisfactory replacement. On top
of that around 200 Mk 3s face scrap. It's a disaster.
Just why is it that no one can make the right decisions on stock and
traction policy. SRA is an example of the blind leading the blind.
Anyone got any other views?

Part of the problem is that it costs roughly the same to lease a HST
as it does a brand new train. Which, considering that many of these
units are nearly 25 years old, is ridiculous. But the banks must make
their money somewhere, I hear they are down to their last £10 billion.

[EverettPet]

What will happen to MML's HSTs in September when project rio finishes?

Are they keeping the hourly Manchester service or reducing it?

[Peter Masson]

Post by EverettPet
What will happen to MML's HSTs in September when project rio finishes?
Are they keeping the hourly Manchester service or reducing it?

Scrapping it (i.e. the SRA will stop paying them to run it), and they won't
be able to cope with it anyway in 2.5 platforms at St Pancras.
Peter

[Tony Miles]

Post by EverettPet
What will happen to MML's HSTs in September when project rio finishes?
Are they keeping the hourly Manchester service or reducing it?

Ending it - SRA subsidy (from the WCRM budget) runs out and paths have not
been allocated.

Rio HSTs go to FGW and GNER - the allocation has been agreed by the two TOCs
and those heading to FGW are being fitted with ATP in readiness, with two
ex-VT power cars covering.

Tony

[4973]

Post by Tony Miles

Post by EverettPet
What will happen to MML's HSTs in September when project rio finishes?
Are they keeping the hourly Manchester service or reducing it?

Ending it - SRA subsidy (from the WCRM budget) runs out and paths have not
been allocated.
Rio HSTs go to FGW and GNER - the allocation has been agreed by the two
TOCs and those heading to FGW are being fitted with ATP in readiness, with
two ex-VT power cars covering.

Do you mean that the cars are being fitted with ATP and then going back into
service with MML until the transfer ?

That does surpise me considering what I heard about ATP being ripped out of
ex GW cars going to MML a few years ago.

[Jack Taylor]

Post by 4973
That does surpise me considering what I heard about ATP being ripped out of
ex GW cars going to MML a few years ago.

What GW power cars went to MML a few years ago? Only 43007/178/180 and 184,
of GWML origin, are on MML and most of those came via Virgin CrossCountry
for Rio. All of the MML core fleet are ex-ECML.

[TP]

Post by John Ruddy
Part of the problem is that it costs roughly the same to lease a HST
as it does a brand new train. Which, considering that many of these
units are nearly 25 years old, is ridiculous. But the banks must make
their money somewhere, I hear they are down to their last £10 billion.

The reason for this is that, in the privatisation legislation, all
rolling stock had to be leased out by ROSCOs at a rate that reflected
its *replacement* cost.

The thinking was that this would encourage TOCs to demand new stock
rather than leasing the old rattletraps at the same price as new. But
it also meant that the old rattletraps were a massive earner for the
ROSCOs in the first round of franchises, which were largely based on
the use of existing rolling stock. The windfall profits for the
ROSCOs were astronomic.

One of the architects of this unholy legislative mess was of course
our good friend the Rail Regulator, aka the Ayatollah Tom Winsor.

[John Ruddy]

Post by TP
One of the architects of this unholy legislative mess was of course
our good friend the Rail Regulator, aka the Ayatollah Tom Winsor.

Indeed, which is why it comes as no surprise that the Rail Regulator
thinks that there is nothing wrong with the current structure.

[TP]

Post by John Ruddy

Post by TP
One of the architects of this unholy legislative mess was of course
our good friend the Rail Regulator, aka the Ayatollah Tom Winsor.

Indeed, which is why it comes as no surprise that the Rail Regulator
thinks that there is nothing wrong with the current structure.

Personally, I think the thing that is most wrong with the current
structure is the fact that someone so closely involved in creating the
current shambles is equally closely involved in preserving it.

[John Ruddy]

Post by TP
Personally, I think the thing that is most wrong with the current
structure is the fact that someone so closely involved in creating the
current shambles is equally closely involved in preserving it.

Thats two threads where we agree! I must be coming down with
something!

;)

[Paul Harley]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 23:20:16 +0100, John Ruddy

Post by John Ruddy
Part of the problem is that it costs roughly the same to lease a HST
as it does a brand new train. Which, considering that many of these
units are nearly 25 years old, is ridiculous. But the banks must make
their money somewhere, I hear they are down to their last £10 billion.

ITYF the leasing cost is less, but one needs to add on the higher
maintenance cost of an HST.

The problem seems to be that the ROSCOs would rather store the HSTs
rather than sell them off at slightly more than scrap value. It's in
their financial interest to ensure there is a "healthy" shortage of
rolling stock; this helps keep leasing costs high for stock still in
use.

Paul Harley

[Mark Youngman]

Post by Paul Harley
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 23:20:16 +0100, John Ruddy

Post by John Ruddy
Part of the problem is that it costs roughly the same to lease a HST
as it does a brand new train. Which, considering that many of these
units are nearly 25 years old, is ridiculous. But the banks must make
their money somewhere, I hear they are down to their last £10 billion.

ITYF the leasing cost is less, but one needs to add on the higher
maintenance cost of an HST.
The problem seems to be that the ROSCOs would rather store the HSTs
rather than sell them off at slightly more than scrap value. It's in
their financial interest to ensure there is a "healthy" shortage of
rolling stock; this helps keep leasing costs high for stock still in
use.
Paul Harley

A state of affairs which shows no signs of not continuing - apologies for
the double negative, my old english teacher will be annoyed.

[Peter Masson]

Post by Colin Redman
The failure of Grand Central means that more HSTs will be consigned to
store.
Considering the versatility of this type of train, it is a tragedy,
and I am surprised that Porterbrook and the SRA are not working
together on developing refurbishment options as there are no
replacements in the pipeline.
No way is it a Voyager or Meridian a satisfactory replacement. On top
of that around 200 Mk 3s face scrap. It's a disaster.
Just why is it that no one can make the right decisions on stock and
traction policy. SRA is an example of the blind leading the blind.
Anyone got any other views?

There were 95 HSTs. After December, FGW will use 42. GNER will need about 14
when they have to send the GNE*s back. MML also use about 14 (someone will
probably have exact numbers), though they've got the problem of what to do
with the 9-car Meridians. Even allowing for some write-offs (Southall and
Ladbroke Grove) and the Dr Yellow (Network Rail Track Recording Train), by
my reckoning there'll be about 20 HSTs with no work

There needs to be a decision on a thorough re-engineering to make HSTs
suitable for another 15 or more years. From the passenger perspective this
includes power doors, retention toilets, DDA provision, modern PIS, as well
as reliable aircon, and Jon will no doubt have information about what work
the power cars will need. This will of course have to be costed against HST2
new build. However, if the re-engineering is to go ahead, quite a number
will need to be out of service at a time for the work to be carried out.

I don't see sending some of them back to VXC as a realistic answer. There
needs to be a way found to make the 220s up to 5 cars - could surplus
intermediate cars in MMLs 9-car 222s be the basis for a solution?

There needs to be a small fleet of modern trains for the Charter and spot
hire markets. Should someone like Fragonset take on a small fleet of HSTs?
or Mk3 rakes plus 67s? Rail needs to be able to offer realistic capacity for
such opportunities as Millennium Stadium events, Ascot, Glastonbury, the
Grand National, as well as a few extras on peak Saturdays to the South-west.
I realise that the crankex market probably wants to keep Mk1s if it can, but
what about the luxury market (VSOE, etc). Can they keep 1920s Pullmans going
forever, or should they replace them with Mk3s, furnished in a way that
displays timeless luxury, and painted in a distinctive livery? After all,
the last build of loco-hauled Mk3s started life as Pullmans, complete with
names.
How many Mk3 loco-hauled FOs and SOs were built, and how many have found
other uses or will be needed by One Anglia?
Other thoughts and info?

Peter

[EverettPet]

Are CT not interested in an HST or two for their long distance routes? (e.g.
Liverpool-Norwich) They could use shortened (1 first, 1 buffet and 3 standard)
HSTs.

It might not be much faster than a Turbostar - especially on routes with lots
of stops and lowish line speeds. I think it would be better for passengers.

[Ross]

On 25 Jun 2004 23:12:55 GMT, EverettPet wrote in

Post by EverettPet
Are CT not interested in an HST or two for their long distance routes? (e.g.
Liverpool-Norwich) They could use shortened (1 first, 1 buffet and 3 standard)
HSTs.

Given the problems North Western had when they tried to introduce 309s
between Crewe and Carlisle, I suspect there may be safety case
problems were CT to try to introduce HSTs.

We'd also have to get SRA approval, which I doubt would be
forthcoming.

Shame: I think most CT crews would like to get their hands on an
HST... :)

[Peter Fox]

Post by Ross
On 25 Jun 2004 23:12:55 GMT, EverettPet wrote in

Post by EverettPet
Are CT not interested in an HST or two for their long distance routes? (e.g.
Liverpool-Norwich) They could use shortened (1 first, 1 buffet and 3 standard)
HSTs.

Given the problems North Western had when they tried to introduce 309s
between Crewe and Carlisle, I suspect there may be safety case
problems were CT to try to introduce HSTs.

I can't see this. The problems with the 309s were allegedly due to them not
having Central Door locking, which HSTs have, of course.

Connex were going to use some on Trans-Pennine, but they lost out to first.
It might be a good idea to use some on either Nottingham - Cardiff or
Liverpool - Nottingham, but the dead hand of the SRA would prevent this.

Peter Fox

Post by Ross
We'd also have to get SRA approval, which I doubt would be
forthcoming.
Shame: I think most CT crews would like to get their hands on an
HST... :)
--
Ross
From & reply-to addresses will bounce. Reply to the group.

[Mark Youngman]

Post by EverettPet

Post by Ross
On 25 Jun 2004 23:12:55 GMT, EverettPet wrote in

Post by EverettPet
Are CT not interested in an HST or two for their long distance routes?

(e.g.

Post by Ross

Post by EverettPet
Liverpool-Norwich) They could use shortened (1 first, 1 buffet and 3

standard)

Post by Ross

Post by EverettPet
HSTs.

Given the problems North Western had when they tried to introduce 309s
between Crewe and Carlisle, I suspect there may be safety case
problems were CT to try to introduce HSTs.

I can't see this. The problems with the 309s were allegedly due to them not
having Central Door locking, which HSTs have, of course.
Connex were going to use some on Trans-Pennine, but they lost out to first.
It might be a good idea to use some on either Nottingham - Cardiff or
Liverpool - Nottingham, but the dead hand of the SRA would prevent this.
Peter Fox

Post by Ross
We'd also have to get SRA approval, which I doubt would be
forthcoming.
Shame: I think most CT crews would like to get their hands on an
HST... :)
--
Ross
From & reply-to addresses will bounce. Reply to the group.

But as the SRA may itself be dead soon......

HSTs - even four coach efforts, could, would even revolutionise rail travel
in many parts of the UK, help deal with some overcrowding on current DMU
routes.

[Peter Fox]

Post by Ross
On 25 Jun 2004 23:12:55 GMT, EverettPet wrote in

Post by EverettPet
Are CT not interested in an HST or two for their long distance routes? (e.g.
Liverpool-Norwich) They could use shortened (1 first, 1 buffet and 3 standard)
HSTs.

Given the problems North Western had when they tried to introduce 309s
between Crewe and Carlisle, I suspect there may be safety case
problems were CT to try to introduce HSTs.

I can't see this. The problems with the 309s were allegedly due to them not
having Central Door locking, which HSTs have, of course.

Connex were going to use some on Trans-Pennine, but they lost out to first.
It might be a good idea to use some on either Nottingham - Cardiff or
Liverpool - Nottingham, but the dead hand of the SRA would prevent this.

Peter Fox

Post by Ross
We'd also have to get SRA approval, which I doubt would be
forthcoming.
Shame: I think most CT crews would like to get their hands on an
HST... :)
--
Ross
From & reply-to addresses will bounce. Reply to the group.

[Ross]

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:36:43 +0100, Peter Fox wrote in

Post by Peter Fox

Post by Ross
On 25 Jun 2004 23:12:55 GMT, EverettPet wrote in

Post by EverettPet
Are CT not interested in an HST or two for their long distance routes?
(e.g. Liverpool-Norwich) They could use shortened (1 first, 1 buffet
and 3 standard) HSTs.

Given the problems North Western had when they tried to introduce 309s
between Crewe and Carlisle, I suspect there may be safety case
problems were CT to try to introduce HSTs.

I can't see this. The problems with the 309s were allegedly due to them not
having Central Door locking, which HSTs have, of course.

I can see problems being created - just as I believe the NWT 309
problem was created.

Off the top of my head: How many 6 car platforms are there on LIV-NRW?
Standing rules don't permit running the cab off platforms any more
(unless there are local instructions, but you can forget trying to get
new ones of *those* now), so a 2+5 HST needs a 6-car platform as a
minimum.

I bet there are plenty of shorter platforms, and I can just see the
safety wallahs deciding that it's not safe to stop 2+5 HSTs at them -
Hell, look at the carry on you get at Loughboro' nowadays, and that's
only down to a narrow stretch of platform!

Basically, as much as I'd like to see them on the route, I think that
plenty of obstructions would be placed in their way - and, frankly, CT
management are looking to and beyond the end of the franchise now, so
they're unlikely to be very interested in using masses of management
time for HSTs.

[Brian Milner]

Post by Ross
Basically, as much as I'd like to see them on the route, I think that
plenty of obstructions would be placed in their way - and, frankly, CT
management are looking to and beyond the end of the franchise now, so
they're unlikely to be very interested in using masses of management
time for HSTs.
--
Ross

I wonder what the future has for CT land?

Peterborough to Doncaster, Grimsby to Newark, Nottingham to Lincoln,
Nottingham to Skegness, Nottingham to Norwich and even Birmingham to
Cambridge could join "one".

Liverpool to Nottingham could join Trans Pennine

Nottingham to Cardiff could join Cross Country

Northampton to Birmingham to Liverpool could join West Coast

Some local services around Nottingham and Derby could join Midland Mainline

This leaves the miriad of services centred on Birmingham

What do others think - should the SRA just leave it as it is?

Regards
Brian Milner

[Martin WY]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:41:08 +0100, "Brian Milner"

Post by Brian Milner

Post by Ross
Basically, as much as I'd like to see them on the route, I think that
plenty of obstructions would be placed in their way - and, frankly, CT
management are looking to and beyond the end of the franchise now, so
they're unlikely to be very interested in using masses of management
time for HSTs.
--
Ross

I wonder what the future has for CT land?
Peterborough to Doncaster, Grimsby to Newark, Nottingham to Lincoln,
Nottingham to Skegness, Nottingham to Norwich and even Birmingham to
Cambridge could join "one".
Liverpool to Nottingham could join Trans Pennine
Nottingham to Cardiff could join Cross Country
Northampton to Birmingham to Liverpool could join West Coast
Some local services around Nottingham and Derby could join Midland Mainline
This leaves the miriad of services centred on Birmingham
What do others think - should the SRA just leave it as it is?
Regards
Brian Milner

Well quite a while back now, but the idea that came out of that man
who may (or may not , who knows yet) be departing and his empire
decimating, stated that he wanted all such services to be part of a
new Cross Country, and that inlcuded the TPX routes as well as those
you have listed..... as Darling said, you will have to wait and
see....in the meantime, watch out for porcines traversing the skies.

[John Ruddy]

Post by Martin WY
Well quite a while back now, but the idea that came out of that man
who may (or may not , who knows yet) be departing and his empire
decimating, stated that he wanted all such services to be part of a
new Cross Country, and that inlcuded the TPX routes as well as those
you have listed..... as Darling said, you will have to wait and
see....in the meantime, watch out for porcines traversing the skies.

I wonder whether the creation of something approaching the old LNWR
with the merging of Silverlink, WC, and CT - whats the future for fNW?
perhaps it too could be combined into a mega franchise, along the
lines of Greater Western.

[Charlie Hulme]

Post by John Ruddy
I wonder whether the creation of something approaching the old LNWR
with the merging of Silverlink, WC, and CT - whats the future for fNW?
perhaps it too could be combined into a mega franchise, along the
lines of Greater Western.

FNW is merged into the new Northern Franchise in October, assuming
the SRA ever get round to announcing the winning bid.

I thought we were being made to wait until after the local
elections, but that was some time ago now. Could it be that
another bus company has been re-invited to bid?

Charlie

[Martin WY]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 11:33:19 +0100, Charlie Hulme

Post by Charlie Hulme

Post by John Ruddy
I wonder whether the creation of something approaching the old LNWR
with the merging of Silverlink, WC, and CT - whats the future for fNW?
perhaps it too could be combined into a mega franchise, along the
lines of Greater Western.

FNW is merged into the new Northern Franchise in October, assuming
the SRA ever get round to announcing the winning bid.
I thought we were being made to wait until after the local
elections, but that was some time ago now. Could it be that
another bus company has been re-invited to bid?

mmmm well I suppose Wales and Northern would fit in with each other
quite well I suppose, with Northern covering Lancashire and Yorkshire,

Post by Charlie Hulme
Charlie

[Richard]

Post by John Ruddy
I wonder whether the creation of something approaching the old LNWR
with the merging of Silverlink, WC, and CT - whats the future for fNW?
perhaps it too could be combined into a mega franchise, along the
lines of Greater Western.

Silverlink is likely to merge with VWC in 2006.

Richard

[Ross]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:41:08 +0100, Brian Milner wrote in

Post by Brian Milner

Post by Ross
Basically, as much as I'd like to see them on the route, I think that
plenty of obstructions would be placed in their way - and, frankly, CT
management are looking to and beyond the end of the franchise now, so
they're unlikely to be very interested in using masses of management
time for HSTs.

I wonder what the future has for CT land?

While the SRA are still in charge? Little change, I suspect. We will
simply see a new franchise holder who will, as with the Northern
franchise, be strapped for cash for the entire length of the
franchise.

I doubt we will see CT split and its workings added to other
franchises simply because that would require the renegotiation of (and
no doubt subsidy increases for) those franchises.

[Peter Fox]

Post by Brian Milner

Post by Ross
Basically, as much as I'd like to see them on the route, I think that
plenty of obstructions would be placed in their way - and, frankly, CT
management are looking to and beyond the end of the franchise now, so
they're unlikely to be very interested in using masses of management
time for HSTs.
--
Ross

I wonder what the future has for CT land?
Peterborough to Doncaster, Grimsby to Newark, Nottingham to Lincoln,
Nottingham to Skegness, Nottingham to Norwich and even Birmingham to
Cambridge could join "one".
Liverpool to Nottingham could join Trans Pennine
Nottingham to Cardiff could join Cross Country
Northampton to Birmingham to Liverpool could join West Coast
Some local services around Nottingham and Derby could join Midland Mainline
This leaves the miriad of services centred on Birmingham
What do others think - should the SRA just leave it as it is?

I agree with you except that Notts-Lincoln/Skeg would be MML and As for
Peterborough - Donny and Grimsby - Newark, we could let Hull Trains run
them.

Peter Fox

Peter Fox

Post by Brian Milner
Regards
Brian Milner

[Brian Milner]

Post by Brian Milner

Post by Brian Milner
I wonder what the future has for CT land?
Peterborough to Doncaster, Grimsby to Newark, Nottingham to Lincoln,
Nottingham to Skegness, Nottingham to Norwich and even Birmingham to
Cambridge could join "one".
Liverpool to Nottingham could join Trans Pennine
Nottingham to Cardiff could join Cross Country
Northampton to Birmingham to Liverpool could join West Coast
Some local services around Nottingham and Derby could join Midland

Mainline

Post by Brian Milner
This leaves the miriad of services centred on Birmingham
What do others think - should the SRA just leave it as it is?

I agree with you except that Notts-Lincoln/Skeg would be MML and As for
Peterborough - Donny and Grimsby - Newark, we could let Hull Trains run
them.
Peter Fox

This would suit me as I am very keen to see Hull Trains 170s on Lincolnshire
services such as Lincoln - Sleaford - Spalding - Peterborough - Kings Cross
although the SRA may persist in saying that there is no capacity south of
Werrington Junction.

Regards
Brian Milner

[Tim Fenton]

Post by Brian Milner

Post by Brian Milner
I wonder what the future has for CT land?
Peterborough to Doncaster, Grimsby to Newark, Nottingham to Lincoln,
Nottingham to Skegness, Nottingham to Norwich and even Birmingham to
Cambridge could join "one".
Liverpool to Nottingham could join Trans Pennine
Nottingham to Cardiff could join Cross Country
Northampton to Birmingham to Liverpool could join West Coast
Some local services around Nottingham and Derby could join Midland

Mainline

Post by Brian Milner
This leaves the miriad of services centred on Birmingham
What do others think - should the SRA just leave it as it is?

I agree with you except that Notts-Lincoln/Skeg would be MML and As for
Peterborough - Donny and Grimsby - Newark, we could let Hull Trains run
them.

It is comforting to know that you are consistent in the desire to rid
the world of CT (something that was aired in an early edition of
Entrain), but they are still there, and will still be there tomorrow.

One should be wary of reorganisations, and other means of repainting
trains, together with suitably grand rebrandings and attendant
publicity. The service the day after the party is likely to be much as
it was before.

--
Tim

[Ross]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 20:11:59 +0100, Tim Fenton wrote in
<***@uni-berlin.de>, seen in uk.railway:

[...]

Post by Tim Fenton
It is comforting to know that you are consistent in the desire to rid
the world of CT (something that was aired in an early edition of
Entrain), but they are still there, and will still be there tomorrow.

I'm intrigued by the deafening silence from a certain quarter about
failure to provide adequate seating on a certain p.m. peak working on
the Hope Valley from Manchester. Of course, now the journey concerned
is no longer provided by CT, being a TPX Cleethorpes run instead.

TPX only provide 2-car units, but apparently that's OK - a TPX 2-car
set is evidently much better than the same offering from CT, even when
it's an ex-FNW set that can't meet the advertised service quality
requirements, or a 'true' TPX set with limited accommodation courtesy
the 1st class - and don't you bet that the certain quarter would have
screamed about both if it were CT doing it.

Post by Tim Fenton
One should be wary of reorganisations, and other means of repainting
trains, together with suitably grand rebrandings and attendant
publicity. The service the day after the party is likely to be much as
it was before.

I'm sure we all remember the shouts about how SouthCentral would be
wonderful the day after Connex finished. Did anyone actually notice
the immediate improvements?

No, I thought not.

[Paul Harley]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 08:41:08 +0100, "Brian Milner"

Post by Brian Milner
I wonder what the future has for CT land?
Nottingham to Cardiff could join Cross Country

I'd prefer to see Birmingham<>Cardiff/Swansea to join ATW.

Post by Brian Milner
This leaves the miriad of services centred on Birmingham

This is the big challenge with the Central franchise - one operator is
needed to run the Centro services - and there's no obvious candidate!

If the franchise was carved up, Centro could become a mini-franchise
like Merseyrail. Whether the Midland Metro gets thrown into the pot
by the PTE remains to be seen....

Paul Harley

[Theo Markettos]

Post by Ross
Off the top of my head: How many 6 car platforms are there on LIV-NRW?
Standing rules don't permit running the cab off platforms any more
(unless there are local instructions, but you can forget trying to get
new ones of *those* now), so a 2+5 HST needs a 6-car platform as a
minimum.

I don't know the route, but would HSTs work on the Hull Trains run? It's a
limited stop service, so fewer problems with short platforms and a long
non-stop section on the ECML where 125mph working creates more paths.

There's perhaps reduced flexibility to multiple units up, but what are the
cost comparisons between running a 3 or 6 car 170 and a short-formed HST?

Theo

[Peter Masson]

Post by Theo Markettos
I don't know the route, but would HSTs work on the Hull Trains run? It's a
limited stop service, so fewer problems with short platforms and a long
non-stop section on the ECML where 125mph working creates more paths.

GNER run a daily 2+9 HST each way between Kings Cross and Hull. However,
Hull Trains have got 4-car Meridians on order, so I can't see them being too
pleased if someone wants to palm second hand HSTs off on them (and as
they're an open access operator the SRA has little power to tell them what
to do).

Peter

[Richard]

Post by Peter Masson
GNER run a daily 2+9 HST each way between Kings Cross and Hull. However,
Hull Trains have got 4-car Meridians on order, so I can't see them being too
pleased if someone wants to palm second hand HSTs off on them (and as
they're an open access operator the SRA has little power to tell them what
to do).

Is that now confirmed? A few monthes ago they were trying to find a case to
order 5-car units.

Richard

[Ross]

On 27 Jun 2004 19:13:32 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos wrote in

Post by Theo Markettos

Post by Ross
Off the top of my head: How many 6 car platforms are there on LIV-NRW?
Standing rules don't permit running the cab off platforms any more
(unless there are local instructions, but you can forget trying to get
new ones of *those* now), so a 2+5 HST needs a 6-car platform as a
minimum.

I don't know the route, but would HSTs work on the Hull Trains run?

I don't know. I think Selby might be a problem (I can't recall how
long the platforms are, I've only been there once) and I suspect
they'd be subject to the same blocking moves that CT would be.

In any case, having just obtained new 170s and possibly having ordered
125mph DMUs, I doubt they'd be interested.

My feeling is that whoever attempted to take them on would be subject
to blocking manoeuvres from our Lords and Masters, unless maybe one of
the IC companies which already has HSTs could make a case for them.
I'm sure the SRA would prefer to see them scrapped. :(

[Tim Rogers]

Post by EverettPet
Are CT not interested in an HST or two for their long distance routes? (e.g.
Liverpool-Norwich) They could use shortened (1 first, 1 buffet and 3 standard)
HSTs.
It might not be much faster than a Turbostar - especially on routes with lots
of stops and lowish line speeds. I think it would be better for passengers.

Since when has comfort been forefront in the TOC's mind?!!!

Tim


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004

[Philip]

Post by Colin Redman
The failure of Grand Central means that more HSTs will be consigned to
store.
No way is it a Voyager or Meridian a satisfactory replacement.

Is that a fact or merely your opinion? If the latter, then I have to
disagree.

Philip.

[Richard]

Post by Philip

Post by Colin Redman
The failure of Grand Central means that more HSTs will be consigned to
store.
No way is it a Voyager or Meridian a satisfactory replacement.

Is that a fact or merely your opinion? If the latter, then I have to
disagree.

The Voyager/Meridian concept is unsatisfactory for wholesale replacement of
high volume high speed routes, because it is diesel.

Such routes require improvements in reliability and capacity that diesel is
inefficient in providing.

We should be looking to move on from the 1970s, not repeating them with new
trains.

Richard

[Philip]

Post by Richard

Post by Philip

Post by Colin Redman
The failure of Grand Central means that more HSTs will be consigned to
store.
No way is it a Voyager or Meridian a satisfactory replacement.

Is that a fact or merely your opinion? If the latter, then I have to
disagree.

The Voyager/Meridian concept is unsatisfactory for wholesale replacement
of high volume high speed routes, because it is diesel.
Such routes require improvements in reliability and capacity that diesel
is inefficient in providing.
We should be looking to move on from the 1970s, not repeating them with
new trains.

I agree. This does not mean that Voyagers and Meridians are unsuitable
replacements for HSTs, if you are going to replace HSTs with new deisel
trains. The Voyagers have proved very popular with passengers according to
surveys by the RPC and the National Passenger Survey wether enthusiasts
like it or not.

Philip.

[4973]

Post by Philip

Post by Richard

Post by Philip

Post by Colin Redman
The failure of Grand Central means that more HSTs will be consigned to
store.
No way is it a Voyager or Meridian a satisfactory replacement.

Is that a fact or merely your opinion? If the latter, then I have to
disagree.

The Voyager/Meridian concept is unsatisfactory for wholesale replacement
of high volume high speed routes, because it is diesel.
Such routes require improvements in reliability and capacity that diesel
is inefficient in providing.
We should be looking to move on from the 1970s, not repeating them with
new trains.

I agree. This does not mean that Voyagers and Meridians are unsuitable
replacements for HSTs, if you are going to replace HSTs with new deisel
trains. The Voyagers have proved very popular with passengers according to
surveys by the RPC and the National Passenger Survey wether enthusiasts
like it or not.

The stock may be, VXC are decidedly not with some pax. A few weeks ago I
heard a woman complaining about having been deposited at Darlington late at
night after a failure. usual VXC lack of support. She will not be using VXC
again if there's a choice.

[EverettPet]

I've noticed the female half of the population seem to prefer the newer trains
while those of us in the other half seem to prefer older (and more practical)
stuff.

[Five Cats]

Post by EverettPet
I've noticed the female half of the population seem to prefer the newer trains
while those of us in the other half seem to prefer older (and more practical)
stuff.

Please explain why it's more practical to have to lean out of a window
to open a door rather than press a button, and why it's more practical
to have to put everything down to struggle to open said window to get
said door open and to then find said window cannot be shut - or indeed
when said window will not stay shut, so the vestibule is full (in
winter) of cold air which rushes into the seated area each time the door
in between opens.

[Dave Proctor]

Post by Five Cats

Post by EverettPet
I've noticed the female half of the population seem to prefer the newer trains
while those of us in the other half seem to prefer older (and more practical)
stuff.

Please explain why it's more practical to have to lean out of a window
to open a door rather than press a button, and why it's more practical
to have to put everything down to struggle to open said window to get
said door open and to then find said window cannot be shut - or indeed
when said window will not stay shut, so the vestibule is full (in
winter) of cold air which rushes into the seated area each time the door
in between opens.

That doesn't mean that the stock itself is unsuitable. The Mk-3's are
very fine vehicles, just replace the doors with ither plug doors or
inward opening doors with central locking and you will have carriages
capable of servicing the public for the next 20 years.

Dave

=====

NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

[Jon Porter]

Post by Dave Proctor

Post by Five Cats
Please explain why it's more practical to have to lean out of a
window to open a door rather than press a button, and why it's more
practical to have to put everything down to struggle to open said
window to get said door open and to then find said window cannot be
shut - or indeed when said window will not stay shut, so the
vestibule is full (in winter) of cold air which rushes into the
seated area each time the door in between opens.

That doesn't mean that the stock itself is unsuitable. The Mk-3's are
very fine vehicles, just replace the doors with ither plug doors or
inward opening doors with central locking and you will have carriages
capable of servicing the public for the next 20 years.

It's the word "just" that will have HST engineers smiling. What is
required to modify the HST stock to achieve a standard similar to the
SWT 442 (built from new with) or the IE restaurant car (converted to) is
well known . It is achievable, it is desirable, and in my view it is
essential, but my view I'm afraid holds little sway with the bean
counters. The basic engineering bill to equip mk3 with such doors, even
without all the legal, certification and regulatory work that is
required, would be a very steep one. In 1998-99 such an exercise was
looked at to not only fit the doors but also retention tanks. The IE
buffet conversion from 2001 was also promoted as a possible model to
follow. Even on a production line basis, when money was more freely
available, (pre-Princess & poached frogs) it was rejected out of hand
due to costs. With money tighter now my aspiration will remain just
that, unless we send them all to China to be done...

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 12:42:30 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Jon

Post by Jon Porter
It's the word "just" that will have HST engineers smiling. What is
required to modify the HST stock to achieve a standard similar to the
SWT 442 (built from new with) or the IE restaurant car (converted to) is
well known . It is achievable, it is desirable, and in my view it is
essential, but my view I'm afraid holds little sway with the bean
counters.

Fitting them with internal door handles and locking the windows
would get a number of the benefits, though not all, for rather less
cost. ISTR a manufacturer had come up with a suitable handle. Has
this been costed in comparison to the above?

[Charlie Hulme]

Jon Porter wrote:

[Power door fitting to Mk3 coaches]

Post by Jon Porter
With money tighter now my aspiration will remain just
that, unless we send them all to China to be done...

How about somewhere like Poland or Slovakia? I bet they'd
be happy to tender for the work, and all these new EU
countries will be avid readers of the requests to tender
in the EU Official Journal...

Charlie

[David Jackson]

Post by Charlie Hulme
[Power door fitting to Mk3 coaches]

Post by Jon Porter
With money tighter now my aspiration will remain just
that, unless we send them all to China to be done...

How about somewhere like Poland or Slovakia? I bet they'd
be happy to tender for the work, and all these new EU
countries will be avid readers of the requests to tender
in the EU Official Journal...

If China's good enough for Hornby and Bachmann, it's good enough to deal
with Mk.3s...

[Paul Hutchinson]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 12:42:30 +0000 (UTC), Jon Porter

Post by Jon Porter

Post by Dave Proctor

Post by Five Cats
Please explain why it's more practical to have to lean out of a
window to open a door rather than press a button, and why it's more
practical to have to put everything down to struggle to open said
window to get said door open and to then find said window cannot be
shut - or indeed when said window will not stay shut, so the
vestibule is full (in winter) of cold air which rushes into the
seated area each time the door in between opens.

That doesn't mean that the stock itself is unsuitable. The Mk-3's are
very fine vehicles, just replace the doors with ither plug doors or
inward opening doors with central locking and you will have carriages
capable of servicing the public for the next 20 years.

It's the word "just" that will have HST engineers smiling. What is
required to modify the HST stock to achieve a standard similar to the
SWT 442 (built from new with) or the IE restaurant car (converted to) is
well known . It is achievable, it is desirable, and in my view it is
essential, but my view I'm afraid holds little sway with the bean
counters. The basic engineering bill to equip mk3 with such doors, even
without all the legal, certification and regulatory work that is
required, would be a very steep one. In 1998-99 such an exercise was
looked at to not only fit the doors but also retention tanks. The IE
buffet conversion from 2001 was also promoted as a possible model to
follow. Even on a production line basis, when money was more freely
available, (pre-Princess & poached frogs) it was rejected out of hand
due to costs. With money tighter now my aspiration will remain just
that, unless we send them all to China to be done...

I believe there is a very good chineese outside devonport dockyard?

[Five Cats]

Post by Dave Proctor

Post by Five Cats

Post by EverettPet
I've noticed the female half of the population seem to prefer the newer trains
while those of us in the other half seem to prefer older (and more practical)
stuff.

Please explain why it's more practical to have to lean out of a window
to open a door rather than press a button, and why it's more practical
to have to put everything down to struggle to open said window to get
said door open and to then find said window cannot be shut - or indeed
when said window will not stay shut, so the vestibule is full (in
winter) of cold air which rushes into the seated area each time the door
in between opens.

That doesn't mean that the stock itself is unsuitable. The Mk-3's are
very fine vehicles, just replace the doors with ither plug doors or
inward opening doors with central locking and you will have carriages
capable of servicing the public for the next 20 years.

How much will that cost, and will it be cost effective? Also, what is
the likelihood of it getting done? Zilch in my view.

[The Silver Jar...]

Post by Five Cats
Please explain why it's more practical to have to lean out of a window
to open a door rather than press a button, and why it's more practical
to have to put everything down to struggle to open said window to get
said door open and to then find said window cannot be shut - or indeed
when said window will not stay shut, so the vestibule is full (in
winter) of cold air which rushes into the seated area each time the door
in between opens.

Well at least those doors don't fail...

Ever been on a 14X when the doors have been refusing to cooperate with
the guard?

That would never have happened on a slamdoor. That and some of us like
fresh air when we have to stand up.

Mathew.

[Ross]

On 27 Jun 2004 09:01:23 -0700, The Silver Jar... wrote in
<***@posting.google.com>, seen in uk.railway:

[...]

Post by The Silver Jar...
Ever been on a 14X when the doors have been refusing to cooperate with
the guard?
That would never have happened on a slamdoor.

I presume you've never been on a slam door DMU when the bodyshell has
warped and the doors won't fit in the frame.

It wasn't all that unusual on the XCity during DMU days if there was
disruption [1]: the definition of crush loading was "The maximum
number of people you could fit on *without* the bodyshell warping".


[1] such as the infamous "total systems failures" at new Street PSB.

[R McPheat]

Post by Five Cats
Please explain why it's more practical to have to lean out of a window
to open a door rather than press a button,

I'd rather do that than have to put down my bag, push a button, wait 5
seconds for the door to creep open, pick up my bag & walk past the toilet,
repeat at the next door, forward 1/2 a metre, repeat at the next door,
just to get to the next coach.

Robert

[Five Cats]

Post by R McPheat

Post by Five Cats
Please explain why it's more practical to have to lean out of a window
to open a door rather than press a button,

I'd rather do that than have to put down my bag, push a button, wait 5
seconds for the door to creep open, pick up my bag & walk past the toilet,
repeat at the next door, forward 1/2 a metre, repeat at the next door,
just to get to the next coach.

I push the buttons with my elbow... Plus push-button internal doors
stop that infernal business of them constantly opening & shutting
because someone is stood on the pressure mat. Plus it's not the fault
of push-button doors that someone has gone a bit OTT with them
internally.

Post by R McPheat
Robert

[David Hansen]

On 27 Jun 2004 10:04:49 GMT someone who may be ***@aol.com
(EverettPet) wrote this:-

Post by EverettPet
I've noticed the female half of the population seem to prefer the newer trains

IIRC there was a posting here last week from a person of the female
persuasion. Her feet do not touch the floor on a 22x and so she now
avoids the train whenever possible. Perhaps this is one of the
reasons why there are so many scumbags putting their feet on the
seats now.

As a person of the male persuasion I generally prefer the 22xs. The
lighting is a great improvement, there are more trains and the
vibration isn't too bad (yet, I think it will get worse like it did
in the 158s). If they could make Radio 4 work I would prefer them
even more. The only thing I really dislike on them are the utterly
useless internal doors. I would be happy to be a member of the
firing party dealing with the idiot(s) that came up with them.

[Veronica]

Post by EverettPet
I've noticed the female half of the population seem to prefer the newer trains
while those of us in the other half seem to prefer older (and more practical)
stuff.

I don't think it's a simple as that. I travel in and out of Liverpool
St and given the choice will avoid the 170s - they feel claustrophic,
the decor is tasteless, they vibrate and I don't like the smoked
glass. All in all not good when trying to repair one's make up (there
- was that stereotypical enough for you?).

Didn't think much of the 158s I was on a week ago, either.

Given a choice, the HSTs that I've used on and off over about 30 years
have been my favourite form of travel. I think my son would opt for
the Deltic hauled services out of KX - he was quite young at the time.

But against all that, never to travel again on a 101 will be quite
soon enough.

Veronica

[Jon Porter]

Post by Philip
I agree. This does not mean that Voyagers and Meridians are unsuitable
replacements for HSTs, if you are going to replace HSTs with new
deisel trains. The Voyagers have proved very popular with passengers
according to surveys by the RPC and the National Passenger Survey
wether enthusiasts like it or not.
Philip.

But then they don't see the bills for maintaining them, popular or not,
in aircraft, cars, and most trains the man hours required for
maintenance have gone down as new generations of vehicles have come
along, with the UK high speed dmu fleet the opposite has happened.
There's a popular misconception that by simply plugging in a laptop
these trains will tell the engineer what is wrong and the problem fixed
by a simple turn of a screwdriver or a spanner. Not true. The laptop
approach is used and can be effective in finding the possible component
at fault, or in finding the crew error which caused the problem, but the
component still has to be taken off and examined, tested, replaced etc.
Sometimes one fault can cause a cascade effect into other areas which
need looking into and not just fixing the first item found and
pronouncing the train fit for service. Then we have the doors. If there
is one area which seems to soak up manpower and money it's the sliding
doors on the outside of the trains. When one reads of IE units running
for 6 years before they had a single door failure (latest MR) it makes
me think Bombardier and Alstom need to recruit some Japanese engineers
to re-design this part of the UK fleet, then watch the mpc soar and the
costs come down.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 10:38:47 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Jon

Post by Jon Porter
Then we have the doors. If there
is one area which seems to soak up manpower and money it's the sliding
doors on the outside of the trains.

Just after Operation Princess started I saw one delayed for several
minutes at Edinburgh Waverley. The cause was a banana skin. An empty
banana skin on the step. Had I realised that it was delaying the
train I would have pointed the banana skin out to the staff, but my
imagination wasn't vivid enough to imagine that it could be causing
the delay. However, as soon as it was removed by a member of staff
the doors closed properly and the train departed.

[Richard]

Post by Philip
I agree. This does not mean that Voyagers and Meridians are unsuitable
replacements for HSTs, if you are going to replace HSTs with new deisel
trains. The Voyagers have proved very popular with passengers according to
surveys by the RPC and the National Passenger Survey wether enthusiasts
like it or not.

Agreed. It just seems the argument is starting from the wrong starting
point.

A starting point of initial costs and ignorance of long-term costs is
ridiculous.

Richard

[David Thornhill]

Post by Philip
The Voyagers have proved very popular with passengers according to
surveys by the RPC and the National Passenger Survey wether enthusiasts
like it or not.

Central Trains always scores highly on the customer satisfaction surveys.
One of life's mysteries.

David

[Ian G Batten]

Post by Richard
The Voyager/Meridian concept is unsatisfactory for wholesale replacement of
high volume high speed routes, because it is diesel.

So what would you do, then? Tell everyone living in Bristol and Exeter
that it's elderly trains for them until the wholesale electrification of
the former GWR lines takes place? Does the phrase ``the best is the
enemy of the good'' have any resonance?

ian

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:21:48 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian G

Post by Ian G Batten
So what would you do, then? Tell everyone living in Bristol and Exeter
that it's elderly trains for them until the wholesale electrification of
the former GWR lines takes place?

The so-called Strategic Rail Authority has been around for a number
of years, in shadow and real form. It could by now have made the
strategic decision to go for a rolling programme of electrification,
if only as a means of ensuring diversity of fuel supplies.

Design and construction need not take a long time, though one would
want to avoid the problems of the partial electrification of the
ECML.

[Ian G Batten]

Post by David Hansen
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:21:48 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian G
The so-called Strategic Rail Authority has been around for a number
of years, in shadow and real form. It could by now have made the
strategic decision to go for a rolling programme of electrification,
if only as a means of ensuring diversity of fuel supplies.

But it didn't. So rather than saying ``if a thing which didn't happen
had happened, we'd do something different'', what would you do _today_.

Post by David Hansen
Design and construction need not take a long time, though one would

Yeah. They said that about thw WCML upgrade, too.

ian

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:02:43 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian G

Post by Ian G Batten

Post by David Hansen
The so-called Strategic Rail Authority has been around for a number
of years, in shadow and real form. It could by now have made the
strategic decision to go for a rolling programme of electrification,
if only as a means of ensuring diversity of fuel supplies.

But it didn't. So rather than saying ``if a thing which didn't happen
had happened, we'd do something different'', what would you do _today_.

Today we have to work harder and spend more money to get to the
place we need to get to. That is what happens when those in charge
fail to take decisions and make the wrong ones.

Post by Ian G Batten

Post by David Hansen
Design and construction need not take a long time, though one would

Yeah. They said that about thw WCML upgrade, too.

From memory the partial electrification of the ECML went faster than
anticipated. The locomotives were delivered to the accelerated
programme, but delivery of the trains could not be speeded up. Bad
old BR (and its suppliers/contractors) again.

[Andy Bunbury]

Post by David Hansen
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:02:43 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian G
From memory the partial electrification of the ECML went faster than
anticipated. The locomotives were delivered to the accelerated
programme, but delivery of the trains could not be speeded up. Bad
old BR (and its suppliers/contractors) again.

and the 140mph-capable locos are retricted to 125mph and Network Rail is
having to spend milions patching and mending the very poor quality of the
original budget-concious work

AB

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:41:48 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be

Post by Andy Bunbury
and the 140mph-capable locos are retricted to 125mph

That is due to one of the major failings of BR, the failure to
introduce something better than AWS despite there being ample
opportunity and several projects that were not continued with.

Post by Andy Bunbury
and Network Rail is
having to spend milions patching and mending the very poor quality of the
original budget-concious work

We are told that only in a small set of locations is the mast
spacing, in the light of experience, too great. For the rest it
depends on one's view of headspan construction for quadruple track.

[Paul Hutchinson]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:01:10 +0100, David Hansen

Post by David Hansen
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:21:48 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian G

Post by Ian G Batten
So what would you do, then? Tell everyone living in Bristol and Exeter
that it's elderly trains for them until the wholesale electrification of
the former GWR lines takes place?

The so-called Strategic Rail Authority has been around for a number
of years, in shadow and real form. It could by now have made the
strategic decision to go for a rolling programme of electrification,
if only as a means of ensuring diversity of fuel supplies.

Unfortunately if oil supplies were to dry up for what ever reason,
Electricity would be in very short supply for probably the next 25 years.
It would probably make more sense for the SRA to commence a build of new
nuclear power stations to safeguard the existing electrified lines.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:36:20 +0100 someone who may be "Paul

Post by Paul Hutchinson
Unfortunately if oil supplies were to dry up for what ever reason,
Electricity would be in very short supply for probably the next 25 years.

I'm not convinced. There are few oil powered power stations.

However, gas supply is a serious potential problem. One can blame
the Tories for this as they are responsible for the dash for gas.

[Paul Hutchinson]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:18:15 +0100, David Hansen

Post by David Hansen
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:36:20 +0100 someone who may be "Paul

Post by Paul Hutchinson
Unfortunately if oil supplies were to dry up for what ever reason,
Electricity would be in very short supply for probably the next 25 years.

I'm not convinced. There are few oil powered power stations.
However, gas supply is a serious potential problem. One can blame
the Tories for this as they are responsible for the dash for gas.

Unfortunately as Oil would no longer be available for heating or industry,
demand for electricity would considerably exceed supply and rationing
would be inevitable.
In the economic winter that followed it is unlikely that much of the
intercity passenger network would survive.
Certainly High Speed Passenger services to Devon and Cornwall would not be
a government priority.

Paul

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:06:24 +0100 someone who may be "Paul

Post by Paul Hutchinson
Unfortunately as Oil would no longer be available for heating

Not a lot of oil is used for heating. Even as long ago as the 1980s
most large boilers in industry and commerce were capable of running
on gas or oil, I converted several installations. The gas tariff
structure made this very sensible.

Post by Paul Hutchinson
or industry,

Not a lot of oil is used in industry outside the petrochemical
industry. Neither electricity or gas can be turned into plastic.

Post by Paul Hutchinson
demand for electricity would considerably exceed supply and rationing
would be inevitable.

That would be the case, if oil was used extensively for things like
heating. It is not, but gas is and that is why I made the comments
that I did.

[John Ruddy]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:01:10 +0100, David Hansen

Post by David Hansen
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:21:48 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian G

Post by Ian G Batten
So what would you do, then? Tell everyone living in Bristol and Exeter
that it's elderly trains for them until the wholesale electrification of
the former GWR lines takes place?

The so-called Strategic Rail Authority has been around for a number
of years, in shadow and real form. It could by now have made the
strategic decision to go for a rolling programme of electrification,
if only as a means of ensuring diversity of fuel supplies.
Design and construction need not take a long time, though one would
want to avoid the problems of the partial electrification of the
ECML.

I dont think we necessarily need electrification down here (shock!)
but if they had put some concrete plans together for HST2, with some
upgrading of the infrastructure...

[Andy Bunbury]

Post by David Hansen
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:21:48 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian G

Post by Ian G Batten
So what would you do, then? Tell everyone living in Bristol and Exeter
that it's elderly trains for them until the wholesale electrification of
the former GWR lines takes place?

The so-called Strategic Rail Authority has been around for a number
of years, in shadow and real form. It could by now have made the
strategic decision to go for a rolling programme of electrification,
if only as a means of ensuring diversity of fuel supplies.
Design and construction need not take a long time, though one would
want to avoid the problems of the partial electrification of the
ECML.

it could have, but it is not its decision, it is for the government to
have that policy, the foresight and, most importantly, the money, which it
most certainly does not. It is not for the SRA to think electric or any
other idea that spends more money than the Treasury gives it and goes
beyond the remit the government gives it. Much as I agree with your theme,
it is not going to happen, ever.

AB

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:39:49 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be

Post by Andy Bunbury
It is not for the SRA to think electric or any
other idea that spends more money than the Treasury gives it and goes
beyond the remit the government gives it.

It is precisely to make such strategic decisions that the SRA is
supposed to exist for.

Post by Andy Bunbury
Much as I agree with your theme, it is not going to happen, ever.

Ever? A brave assertion.

[Mike D]

snip

Post by Colin Redman
The failure of Grand Central means that more HSTs will be consigned to
store.
Considering the versatility of this type of train, it is a tragedy,
and I am surprised that Porterbrook and the SRA are not working
together on developing refurbishment options as there are no
replacements in the pipeline.

Why not use them for Liverpool - Newcastle and Middlesborough - Man Airport?

In shortened form (say 1 first class, 3 2nd, 1 buffet) they would give more
capacity on this busy route, and they would be much better on the sections
North of York where current stock regularly uses the slow lines and ends up
running at 65mph for most of way to Northallerton.

I fear that this will still be a problem when the new stock is introduced on
this route, as it is only 100mph, and with the volume of GNER and Virgin
services it will still end up being 'in the way' and shunted on to the slow
lines, so HST would probably be the best solution for this route even after
the new stock is delivered.

I would have thought that the performance of a 5 coach HST would be more
than adequate on the TPX route, and I still think that the HST is some of
the best stock as far as passenger comfort is concerned, even after 25+
years and probably millions of miles it still rides well is quick, and
spacious.

As for the MK3 carriages marry them up with some surplus locos and use them
so that all 14x can be sent to the scrap yard they are being used on routes
for which they are not suitable and really are the most uncomfortable things
on the railway. Yesterday my girlfriend traveled from Hull to Thirsk, 14x
all the way (train from Hull forms the Middlesborough departure from York),
why are they being used on relatively long journeys like this (1h 30m ish
Hull Thirsk)

[Tim Rogers]

Post by Mike D
snip

Post by Colin Redman
The failure of Grand Central means that more HSTs will be consigned to
store.
Considering the versatility of this type of train, it is a tragedy,
and I am surprised that Porterbrook and the SRA are not working
together on developing refurbishment options as there are no
replacements in the pipeline.

Why not use them for Liverpool - Newcastle and Middlesborough - Man Airport?
In shortened form (say 1 first class, 3 2nd, 1 buffet) they would give more
capacity on this busy route, and they would be much better on the sections
North of York where current stock regularly uses the slow lines and ends up
running at 65mph for most of way to Northallerton.
I fear that this will still be a problem when the new stock is introduced on
this route, as it is only 100mph, and with the volume of GNER and Virgin
services it will still end up being 'in the way' and shunted on to the slow
lines, so HST would probably be the best solution for this route even after
the new stock is delivered.
I would have thought that the performance of a 5 coach HST would be more
than adequate on the TPX route, and I still think that the HST is some of
the best stock as far as passenger comfort is concerned, even after 25+
years and probably millions of miles it still rides well is quick, and
spacious.
As for the MK3 carriages marry them up with some surplus locos and use them
so that all 14x can be sent to the scrap yard they are being used on routes
for which they are not suitable and really are the most uncomfortable things
on the railway. Yesterday my girlfriend traveled from Hull to Thirsk, 14x
all the way (train from Hull forms the Middlesborough departure from York),
why are they being used on relatively long journeys like this (1h 30m ish
Hull Thirsk)

Unfortuneately we are in the era of the 'throw away train'. The operators
think the public will like to be wedged into their shiney new noisy units
instead of refurbished (and maybe re-engined) HST's. Just look at what has
happened on VXC. Madness!

Tim
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.711 / Virus Database: 467 - Release Date: 25/06/2004

[EverettPet]

Post by Mike D
so that all 14x can be sent to the scrap yard they are being used on routes

Or converted into cycle carrying vehicles on stopping services.

Post by Mike D
The operators
think the public will like to be wedged into their shiney new noisy units

Couldn't agree more. Meridians and Voyagers are probably superior technically
due to new engines and modern designs but the Voyagers are definately cramped
and the engine noise is tiring. (Can't give an opinion on Meridians as I
haven't had the pleasure/pain yet!)

At least the engine noise of from an accelerating HST makes it sound like it's
the fastest thing around!

[Jon Porter]

Post by Colin Redman
The failure of Grand Central means that more HSTs will be consigned to
store.
Considering the versatility of this type of train, it is a tragedy,
and I am surprised that Porterbrook and the SRA are not working
together on developing refurbishment options as there are no
replacements in the pipeline.

They are, as are Angel and the various operators along with some major
engineering concerns. Much of the exercise will not appear in any sort
of public forum for a while yet so I will not/cannot go into detail.
Suffice to say HST may yet have some interesting times to come.

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 22:04:11 UTC, ***@hotmail.com (Colin
Redman) wrote:

: Just why is it that no one can make the right decisions on stock and
: traction policy.

How come you know what the right decisions are?

Ian
--

[Ian G Batten]

Post by Ian Johnston
: Just why is it that no one can make the right decisions on stock and
: traction policy.
How come you know what the right decisions are?

Trainspotters can pontificate on stock decisions for the same reason the
LibDems can pontificate on matters of national government: there's no
chance of them actually having the power, so their proposed decisions
can rarely be shown to be wrong.

I don't know how should make stock decisions for the railways, but we've
already seen that ``railwaymen'' are pretty bad at it. _How_ many
different sorts of short-run, untested diesels did they buy in the
1960s?

ian

[4973]

Post by Ian G Batten

Post by Ian Johnston
: Just why is it that no one can make the right decisions on stock and
: traction policy.
How come you know what the right decisions are?

Trainspotters can pontificate on stock decisions for the same reason the
LibDems can pontificate on matters of national government: there's no
chance of them actually having the power, so their proposed decisions
can rarely be shown to be wrong.
I don't know how should make stock decisions for the railways, but we've
already seen that ``railwaymen'' are pretty bad at it. _How_ many
different sorts of short-run, untested diesels did they buy in the
1960s?

Oh strewth, Ian's on his hobby horse again. When will he learn that BR's
people did not want to buy those. It was pressure from politicians and
non-engineers (driven by the manufacturers claiming they needed the 'export
window') that caused that.

We've got the same problem in patent law coming up with the new proposals on
software patents - driven primaily by the patent examiners and patent
lawyers claiming the current situation in Europe generally is 'unclear' -
how unclear can 'not allowed' be , and who is going to benefit from
allowing such things.

[Ian G Batten]

Post by 4973
Oh strewth, Ian's on his hobby horse again. When will he learn that BR's
people did not want to buy those. It was pressure from politicians and
non-engineers (driven by the manufacturers claiming they needed the 'export
window') that caused that.

Tell us about how the diesel hydrauilics got bought, 4973? Was that not
purely because the GWR spirit had to live on?

ian

[4973]

Post by Ian G Batten

Post by 4973
Oh strewth, Ian's on his hobby horse again. When will he learn that BR's
people did not want to buy those. It was pressure from politicians and
non-engineers (driven by the manufacturers claiming they needed the
'export window') that caused that.

Tell us about how the diesel hydrauilics got bought, 4973? Was that not
purely because the GWR spirit had to live on?

A reasonable experiment bearing in mind the relative relieability of
electrical and hydraulic transmissions.

The biggest problem was the reliance on introduction of fully braked
freights that BTC promised then reniged on.

Any way that was nothing compared to all the variant rubbish on the electric
transmission side driven by manufacturers and insistence on speed of
conversion at the top level (usually non railwaymen). Just how many classes
were introduced and quickly withdrawn as unreliable, I can think of quite a
few - all with electric transmission.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:43:58 +0100 someone who may be 4973

Post by 4973
The biggest problem was the reliance on introduction of fully braked
freights that BTC promised then reniged on.

That is certainly why the planned hydraulics for South Wales were
replaced by class 37s. The class 35 was a far better locomotive in
almost all respects than the 37 or 31.

[Tim Fenton]

Post by 4973

Post by Ian G Batten
Tell us about how the diesel hydrauilics got bought, 4973? Was that not
purely because the GWR spirit had to live on?

A reasonable experiment bearing in mind the relative relieability of
electrical and hydraulic transmissions.

Had it been an experiment, and restricted to the D6xx and D8xx, then the
assertion would be a sound one.

However, the "experiment" was allowed to continue to include 74
Westerns, 101 Hymeks, and 58 of those bloody awful NBL Type 2s. Having
found the door to be open, the WR (still believing themselves to be the
GWR, and therefore superior to other railwaymen) went on a boot-filling
orgy that wasted plenty of time and money, but no doubt kept many in
useful employment. And it seems that the Great and Good Doctor, as Gerry
Fiennes called Beeching, had little effect on them.

Post by 4973
Any way that was nothing compared to all the variant rubbish on the electric
transmission side driven by manufacturers and insistence on speed of
conversion at the top level (usually non railwaymen). Just how many classes
were introduced and quickly withdrawn as unreliable, I can think of quite a
few - all with electric transmission.

All the unsuccessful electric designs were introduced by 1959 and mostly
not perpetuated in any numbers [1], barring the Claytons, which were
indeed a disaster, which came out in 1962. However, the Class 14, a D-H
class which was a total waste of yet more time and money, was allowed to
see the light of day as late as 1964, showing that the WR was still G,
and that they could have another 56 useless locos built, because they
could.

[1] The BTH Type 1 managed a build of 44, and the equally bloody awful
NBL Type 2 managed another 58 electric examples, but the Baby Deltics
(10), the Metrovick Co-Bo (20) and NBL Type 1 (10) don't really compare
to the numbers of production hydraulics.

--
Tim

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:27:18 +0100 someone who may be "Tim Fenton"

Post by Tim Fenton
However, the "experiment" was allowed to continue to include 74
Westerns, 101 Hymeks, and 58 of those bloody awful NBL Type 2s.

Of the hydraulic classes mentioned above only the latter were
unsuccessful. Rather like those locomotives with electric
transmission the latter designs were successful. Note the passenger
trains that had to be slowed down when 31s replaced 35s.

Post by Tim Fenton
However, the Class 14,

Was a mistake introduced because the 08 was too slow to operate
trips between yards and a replacement for the various pannier tanks
was needed. I wouldn't use that to describe the whole programme as a
mistake.

Note that hydraulic transmission made a big comeback on BR from the
1980s and there is a lot of it about now.

[Jack Taylor]

Post by David Hansen
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:27:18 +0100 someone who may be "Tim Fenton"

Post by Tim Fenton
However, the Class 14,

Was a mistake introduced because the 08 was too slow to operate
trips between yards and a replacement for the various pannier tanks
was needed. I wouldn't use that to describe the whole programme as a
mistake.

It wasn't exactly a mistake - just a victim of bad timing. By the time that
the things had been constructed and delivered a large part of the trip
working that they had been designed for had been abandoned, rendering them
surplus to requirements. There was never an issue over the quality of the
design. Indeed, their extensive industrial use (particularly with NCB and
British Steel, where they were popular workhorses) proves their suitability
and reliability for the tasks for which they were designed. Although many of
them have now passed to preservation sites and private railways there is
still over a third of the class extant.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:56:07 +0100 someone who may be "Jack Taylor"

Post by Jack Taylor

Post by David Hansen

Post by Tim Fenton
However, the Class 14,

Was a mistake introduced because the 08 was too slow to operate
trips between yards and a replacement for the various pannier tanks
was needed. I wouldn't use that to describe the whole programme as a
mistake.

It wasn't exactly a mistake - just a victim of bad timing.

That is a different way of putting it. It was a mistake to introduce
them as the work they were intended for dried up.

Post by Jack Taylor
There was never an issue over the quality of the
design. Indeed, their extensive industrial use (particularly with NCB and
British Steel, where they were popular workhorses) proves their suitability
and reliability for the tasks for which they were designed.

Agreed.

[Jack Taylor]

Post by David Hansen
That is a different way of putting it. It was a mistake to introduce
them as the work they were intended for dried up.

Possibly so - but lead time on construction (design, ordering components,
construction) is two to three years and a lot can happen in that time.
Particularly true in the transitional times of the 1960s, where several
classes perished as a result of rationalisation, where more reliable designs
were able to be cascaded to replace more troublesome ones. The decision to
cut back on the work that the 14s were designed for was made whilst the
locomotives were being delivered. Had it been made earlier, then no doubt
the order would have been reduced or even cancelled.

[Tim Fenton]

Post by David Hansen

Post by Tim Fenton
However, the "experiment" was allowed to continue to include 74
Westerns, 101 Hymeks, and 58 of those bloody awful NBL Type 2s.

Of the hydraulic classes mentioned above only the latter were
unsuccessful. Rather like those locomotives with electric
transmission the latter designs were successful.

It is reassuring to know that time and money have been wasted
successfully.

Post by David Hansen

Post by Tim Fenton
However, the Class 14,

Was a mistake introduced because the 08 was too slow to operate
trips between yards and a replacement for the various pannier tanks
was needed. I wouldn't use that to describe the whole programme as a
mistake.

To build 56 locomotives that turn out not to be needed could be
described in many ways. The use of the term "mistake" would be to err on
the cautious.

Post by David Hansen
Note that hydraulic transmission made a big comeback on BR from the
1980s

Perhaps you are unaware that hydraulic transmission had been used in
first generation multiple units, notably those that operated out of St.
Pancras. So its use in later multiple units was hardly a "comeback".

Post by David Hansen
and there is a lot of it about now.

Not in locomotives there isn't.

--
Tim

[Terry Harper]

Post by Tim Fenton
To build 56 locomotives that turn out not to be needed could be
described in many ways. The use of the term "mistake" would be to err on
the cautious.

How many class 67 are lying around idle?

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:28:34 +0100 someone who may be "Tim Fenton"

Post by Tim Fenton
Perhaps you are unaware that hydraulic transmission had been used in
first generation multiple units, notably those that operated out of St.
Pancras.

I was not unaware of this.

Post by Tim Fenton
So its use in later multiple units was hardly a "comeback".

After many years of not being used in new designs hydraulic
transmission started to be used again. Call it what you like, but I
will call it a comeback.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:18:34 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian G

Post by Ian G Batten
I don't know how should make stock decisions for the railways, but we've
already seen that ``railwaymen'' are pretty bad at it. _How_ many
different sorts of short-run, untested diesels did they buy in the
1960s?

Do tell us about how bad the decision to buy the HSTs and Sprinters
was.

[Five Cats]

Post by Ian G Batten

Post by Ian Johnston
: Just why is it that no one can make the right decisions on stock and
: traction policy.
How come you know what the right decisions are?

Trainspotters can pontificate on stock decisions for the same reason the
LibDems can pontificate on matters of national government: there's no
chance of them actually having the power, so their proposed decisions
can rarely be shown to be wrong.

LOL!

Post by Ian G Batten
I don't know how should make stock decisions for the railways, but we've
already seen that ``railwaymen'' are pretty bad at it. _How_ many
different sorts of short-run, untested diesels did they buy in the
1960s?

Enthusiasts are probably as bad at it as railwaymen...

(ducks, searches for asbestos undies....)

[John Ruddy]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:18:34 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten

Post by Ian G Batten
I don't know how should make stock decisions for the railways, but we've
already seen that ``railwaymen'' are pretty bad at it. _How_ many
different sorts of short-run, untested diesels did they buy in the
1960s?

Thats was the result of a politcial decision made by the Government,
and enacted in the Act of 1953 that the individual regions should have
control over the design and construction of locomotives.

[Ian G Batten]

Post by John Ruddy
Thats was the result of a politcial decision made by the Government,
and enacted in the Act of 1953 that the individual regions should have
control over the design and construction of locomotives.

You mean Great Western Men, with `Swindon' through them like a stick of
rock, wanted to buy national standard stock, but were forced into being
different by the government?

ian

[Peter Masson]

Post by Ian G Batten
You mean Great Western Men, with `Swindon' through them like a stick of
rock, wanted to buy national standard stock, but were forced into being
different by the government?

The story goes that in the late 1960s the WR Chief S&T Engineer got wind of
a BRB edict that in future all semaphore signals would be upper quadrant. So
he got in stock enough lower quadrant ones to last the WR till eternity.
Peter

[John Ruddy]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:22:49 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten

Post by Ian G Batten
You mean Great Western Men, with `Swindon' through them like a stick of
rock, wanted to buy national standard stock, but were forced into being
different by the government?
ian

No, each region was allowed to be different. Thats why each region
ordered its own set of diesel locomotives and multiple units. The
western region wasnt alone in this. Why did the Southern Region order
type 3's from BR&C, when the EE ones were doing sterling work on the
ER ? Why were there 5 type designs, with the Midland favouring one
type of EE type 4, over the Eastern which favoured a different one?

The answer is that there was no central control. Not that one region
wanted to relive the glory days.

[Ian G Batten]

Post by John Ruddy
No, each region was allowed to be different. Thats why each region

There was, however, nothing stopping them from getting together in a
room and agreeing to be the same. They did not. Just as light rail is
now dead in the water, with no projects on the books, because councils
just can't stomach buying an off the shelf design, the railways had to
choose between spending money on toys to amuse themselves and spending
money on effective revenue earning equipment and went for the former.

Post by John Ruddy
The answer is that there was no central control. Not that one region
wanted to relive the glory days.

And this, boys and girls, is the ``efficient'' nationised railway that
we are supposed to regard as the golden age.

ian

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:47:06 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ian G

Post by Ian G Batten
Just as light rail is
now dead in the water, with no projects on the books, because councils
just can't stomach buying an off the shelf design

The trams on the Midland Metro, to take an example close to you,
were an off-the-shelf design.

[Charlie Hulme]

Post by Ian G Batten
I don't know how should make stock decisions for the railways, but we've
already seen that ``railwaymen'' are pretty bad at it. _How_ many
different sorts of short-run, untested diesels did they buy in the
1960s?

Was it 999?

Charlie