 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
|
|
16
|
Journey by Journey / London to Reading / Re: Class 387 coming to Thames Valley - ongoing discussion
|
on: May 06, 2017, 13:08:02
|
However, I suspect it is more complex than that. All other things being equal, a mix of 2 and 3 car trains on a route enables a close tailoring of demand in that you can have any length of train from 2 onwards. For diesels, other than the additional cost of the cabs, there isn't much difference in the cost, as every coach is powered. However, for emus, the traction equipment is one per train, so (as an example), 2 x 2 car sets costs a lot more than 1 x 4 car set, and would be overpowered. Therefore the balance swings more to having longer trains with fewer sets.
Modern 2-car EMU▸ sets are such a rarity that the electrification of the Marlow Branch is pretty much dead in the water. |
|
|
|
|
18
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Refurbished waiting room opened at Swindon Station
|
on: December 24, 2016, 13:08:10
|
I do find it strange GWR▸ went for dots across the windows and not lines as that would match the brand.
There's a Health & Safety at Work regulation that refers to doors and windows being appropriately marked so that they are "apparent" (so you don't walk through a closed glass door thinking that it's open). This is commonly achieved using frosted dots at eye level, so it could be a case of just "going with the flow". |
|
|
|
|
20
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Great Western Main Line electrification - ongoing discussion
|
on: November 10, 2016, 22:29:59
|
Looks like everything left to do has been scoped into CP6▸ .
In a way this is unbelievable, a nightmare scenario, I remember when the ECML▸ was electrified in the 1980s everything seemed to happen quickly and the total cost was under budget. I suspect, although I do not know, that the GW▸ scheme has been massively over-engineered. My suspicion is that our old friend Health & Safety is probably at the root of it all.
Let's put this thought forward: The GW scheme hasn't been massively over-engineered. The GW scheme has been engineered on a basis of building something that will work, work well, and that can be rolled out across the rest of the electrified railway network. What would have been interesting was whether productivity had been increasing. I doubt it would now, as it's been knifed. |
|
|
|
|
22
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption elsewhere - ongoing, since Oct 2014
|
on: October 18, 2016, 20:08:55
|
Presumably this will get worse as more of the new signalling is installed ?
An industry expert has stated a couple of pages back that the new signalling equipment is "less robust and has a shorter life" than the old stuff.
We also learn that axle counters were chosen over track circuits on the grounds of lower cost, because fewer are needed.
It seems to me that either the new equipment IS working as intended, with the failure rate being normal and that this is "the new normal" in which case better get used to it.
Or perhaps the equipment is not working correctly. And might improve at least in theory. Who supplied and installed it ?
Nice bit of selective quoting there. |
|
|
|
|
25
|
Journey by Journey / London to Reading / Re: Disabled customer "humiliated by GWR staff"
|
on: September 24, 2016, 17:38:45
|
According to the report, she only ended up at Burnham because no-one had helped her off the train at Slough, despite informing staff at Paddington prior to departure.
I do wish posters would absorb all the primary details reported upon before commenting.
The report skipped around a bit in it's timeline, but putting it back into sequence, it goes: - Staff at Burnham refused* to help her board (helped by friend and member of public)
- No staff helped her off the train when it arrived at Paddington
- On return journey staff encouraged her to get off at Slough, as Burnham does not have step-free access
- Left on train at Slough as no staff to help her off
- Continued to Burnham
- Staff at Burnham initially refused to help her off the train, but were eventually persuaded.
* "refused" being the wording in the article. Burnham isn't a great station for the able-bodied let alone ones with mobility issues, and the National Rail site states there is no step-free access, and no ramps. I suspect that the DMUs▸ that service the station don't carry ramps either, so getting a wheelchair or mobility scooter on and off the train will be a matter of manual lifting - and that's before bringing the steps to and from the platform into consideration. Therefore, it's no surprise to me that the staff at Burnham would be unwilling to help. I'm ignoring the claims of rudeness. |
|
|
|
|
26
|
Journey by Journey / London to Reading / Re: Disabled customer "humiliated by GWR staff"
|
on: September 24, 2016, 00:21:06
|
Having been a regular user of Burnham station in the past, when I saw it mentioned in conjunction with wheelchairs my first thought was that there would be tears before bedtime... Small island platform on an embankment accessed by stairs. If I remember correctly, it was quite a step between the platform and the train as well. That's one wheelchair-unfriendly station. Here's a thought - perhaps the staff at Burnham being "unhelpful" may have been due to it being a really bad idea to get a wheelchair (or mobility scooter) off the train, as they don't have a ramp*, and would then be faced with getting wheelchair and occupant down the stairs. Meanwhile, both Slough and Maidenhead both have lifts, ramps and level access. I've a feeling that a wheelchair user would be faced with a similar situation if they were travelling northbound to my local station - once they got off they'd be faced with a serious footbridge to negotiate up and down. Easier to go to the next station up and use the (relatively recently installed) lifts to switch to the southbound platform and catch the next southbound-stopper. * http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/BNM/details.html |
|
|
|
|
27
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption elsewhere - ongoing, since Oct 2014
|
on: September 03, 2016, 14:20:00
|
|
This is purely supposition on my part, but how about this - the person that they would normally have used to cover this sort of occurrence was on leave, or covering another position? Don't forget, it is still "holiday season", and signallers are allowed to go on holiday.
Of course, you could ramp up the staffing levels to ensure that there will always be cover under every circumstance, but ensuring that the competence levels were kept up to standard would be a nightmare, and there would be an outcry over signallers being paid to sit around "just in case".
|
|
|
|
|
28
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption elsewhere - ongoing, since Oct 2014
|
on: August 28, 2016, 13:27:46
|
Just noticed that the 1121 Didcot – Padd stopper was allowed to precede the 1125 Didcot – Bournemouth XC▸ from Didcot on the UM. The outcome was the stopper was waiting time at Tilehurst and the XC was 11 late arriving at Reading.
I’m sure there was a good reason for this regulation – I can’t think what it could be but maybe someone has some suggestions….
The XC was only 3 late leaving Reading, however, as it had a stop scheduled there that's longer than operationally needed. Had the 11:21 been held back to (say) 11:28 at Didcot, the knock-on beyond Reading would have potentially been greater that the delay beyond Reading on the Cross Country service. I suggest there was no "right" decision to be made on the regulation of these two trains. Well… the stopper also has a long scheduled stop at Reading, from 1147 to 1154. It didn’t do the Pangbourne stop, which probably saved 2 minutes (hence arriving early at Tilehurst). If it had left Didcot at 1128 (ie 7 late) following the XC it should have got to Reading by 1152. It could have departed on time at 1154, as could have the XC at 1151. Edit later: Maybe being flippant, but if there had been a southbound Freightliner coming round Didcot East Curve at 1125 that would OF COURSE have been allowed to precede the stopper, notwithstanding any delays beyond Reading! Sorry, couldn't really unpick all the quotes in the above, but the reasoning behind giving a theoretical Freightliner in front of the stopper is because the stoppers can accelerate better than the freight - so allowing the freight to have all greens (and thus not having to slow down for yellows and reds) will let the freight keep to time. A following stopper may be able to either make up the time, or at least maintain the same delay. Can't explain the stopper/xc decision though. |
|
|
|
|
29
|
Journey by Journey / Thames Valley Branches / Re: Marlow line electrification
|
on: June 21, 2016, 19:37:25
|
...with the crossings turned into under bridges, the risk of a mast catching the 25kV would be pretty well eliminated - and indeed the crossing would be safer, and open at all times rather than inconsiderately blocked when "The Electric Donkey" passes. If the Bourne End > Marlow level crossings were replaced with under bridges, they'd require submarines during the winter...  |
|
|
|
|
30
|
Journey by Journey / Thames Valley Branches / Re: Marlow line electrification
|
on: June 18, 2016, 21:19:56
|
A bit in that which caught my eye: The suggested all-day 2tph service by changing trains at Bourne End will not be attractive to passengers, given that a high proportion (30%) of Marlow branch customers travel to and from Marlow
I was thinking that the proportion would be nearer 100%, unless there are an exceptionally large amount of one-way journeys. Edit note: Link to document amended, for ease of use. CfN. |
|
|
|
|
