 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 20
|
|
106
|
Journey by Journey / London to South Wales / Re: What route would it take?
|
on: August 09, 2021, 17:26:59
|
|
The really brutal bit is that the Cardiff to Portsmouth that should have been 5 minutes behind that one was cancelled between Cardiff and Westbury, removing both the alternative option from South Wales to Bristol Parkway and the option for people at Bristol Parkway wanting to go east to change at Bath.
|
|
|
|
|
107
|
Journey by Journey / Wales local journeys / Re: Overcrowding on Holyhead services
|
on: July 25, 2021, 13:37:59
|
Elsewhere in that article TfW were quoted as saying that all their trains were in operation.
If that is correct, it does leave me wondering if the withdrawal of the Pacers, limitations in use of the 153s with derogations expired and perhaps later than planned entry into service of class 230 and a bumpy start with low availability on 769s may have lead to them simply not having enough trains to run services to meet current socially distanced needs. "We are using all our trains" is far more positive than "we don't have enough trains available ..." It's a shame that the 442s are being scrapped. Having them hauled by 67s around Wales would be quite fun. |
|
|
|
|
108
|
Journey by Journey / Wales local journeys / Re: Storage siding for trains during major everts
|
on: July 25, 2021, 13:31:22
|
During the Pope's visit to Cardiff many years ago, some trains were stabled on the slow* lines between Radyr and Taffs Well. Hard to imagine now that this line, and Park Junction to Risca, were four-tracked. * I'm sure someone on this forum has the correct designation  The correct designation (south of Trefforest Junction) is the predictably GWR▸ -sounding relief lines. As far as I'm aware, only the down relief (i.e. towards Cardiff) actually had platforms that passenger trains could stop at. Between Trefforest Junction and Pontypridd Junction, they were designated as the goods lines. |
|
|
|
|
109
|
All across the Great Western territory / The Wider Picture in the United Kingdom / Re: Tram crash - Sheffield, 23 July 2021
|
on: July 25, 2021, 12:55:16
|
Is there likely to be any hard evidence as to whom was at fault ? Forward facing camera on the tram for example, or traffic monitoring cameras.
South Yorkshire Police's statement makes it pretty clear whom they think was at fault: A 60-year-old man from Sheffield has been reported for failing to stop at a traffic signal, driving without due care and attention and driving with an insecure load.
***
Police were called at 12.11pm today (23 July) to reports of a collision on Cricket Inn Road, Sheffield involving a tram and an HGV.
One person, a woman in her 20s, was taken to hospital with minor injuries.
Several passengers from the tram were treated at the scene for minor injuries and road closures remain in place.
The skip company, however, seem to be rather vociferously contesting it: Good Evening
I’m sure a lot of you will have seen that one of our vehicles was involved in a RTC this lunchtime with a supertram on Cricket Inn Road.
Thankfully neither our driver or the supertram driver was hurt and only a few minor injuries were encountered by the tram passengers.
We have offered our full cooperation with the investigation into the causes of the accident, as at this stage it is not clear as to who was at fault for the incident.
Initial telemetry from our vehicle shows that it was travelling at 19mph at the time of the accident and there was no harsh acceleration or deceleration at any point on the lead up to the accident indicating that the driver did not deliberately attempt to jump any red lights etc as has been reported. We are working with the police and will be reviewing all dashcam footage to ascertain what may have caused today’s unfortunate accident.
In the meantime I will be making a formal complaint to SYP regarding some posts that they sent out after the accident saying that our driver had been arrested due to jumping a red light, driving without due care and attention and driving a dangerous vehicle.
This is simply a false statement which is why it has already been edited a number of times today! The facts are that our driver was not arrested and he passed all of the expected drink and drug tests carried out by the police after the accident. He was not on his phone or distracted in any other way either.
The vehicle wasn’t speeding and the vehicle is serviced every 8 weeks by the main dealer and has no known defects. The brakes were not defective and the vehicle was not overloaded or carrying an insecure load.
I will be asking SYP for a retraction of their comments and an apology to our driver for the suffering it has caused him due to subsequent comments from the public based on their post.
Accidents unfortunately happen and thankfully on this occasion nobody was seriously hurt. Now is the time for us to work with the authorities, the Council and Supertram to establish the cause of the accident and look to prevent another accident happening in future.
Bradwells will be offering our full support to our driver during what must be a very difficult time for him and his family .
|
|
|
|
|
110
|
All across the Great Western territory / Across the West / Re: Problems with IET trains from April 2021
|
on: July 21, 2021, 09:31:29
|
Maybe we should do what Midland Mainline did with their useless half-length Meridians: they shuffled intermediate cars between sets to end up with a decent number of 7-car units. If my maths is right, we could reform the IETs▸ either as: - 69x 8-car trains
- 1x 5-car train
- 23x redundant pairs of cab cars
Or as: - 83x 7-car trains
- 1x 6-car train
- 9x redundant pairs of cab cars
|
|
|
|
|
113
|
All across the Great Western territory / Looking forward - after Coronavirus to 2045 / Re: Patterns of returning passengers?
|
on: July 13, 2021, 13:08:59
|
My company has put the return to the office back to September. Couple of reasons for this including the need to return the building and facilities back to normal, still working on what hybrid/flexible working means for a lot of teams and also the general vagueness of the government advice. A lot of staff still don't feel comfortable on public transport.
Yours seems to be moving at lightning speed. Mine has been trying to do a phased return from September, but basically working on the assumption that 50% of work will continue to be done from home. The scale of the task in this size of organisation means that it's been made pretty clear that the September phase doesn't mean us, and January 2022 might be a more realistic time to be thinking about the odd day in the office. |
|
|
|
|
116
|
All across the Great Western territory / The Wider Picture in the United Kingdom / Re: On train announcements - number to be reduce??
|
on: June 29, 2021, 21:45:08
|
1 - Yes - cut the "See it, say it, sorted" type of announcement. And even more so TfW's awful epic pre-recorded bilingual announcement exhorting people to wash their hands, keep their distance, pay their fares, tuck their shirt in, avoid having their luggage blown up by the British Transport Police, and mind the gap between the train and the platform. If they got Reginald Bosanquet to read it, it might end up in the charts. I had forgotten about Wales. Perhaps the Welsh version could be set to Cwm Rhondda? Cedwch bellter, golchwch ddwylo, Prynwch docyn, byddwch saff, Cedwch afael yn eich bagiau Rhag ffrwydriadau'r camera craff. Gwyliwch wagle, gwyliwch wagle! Bob un orsaf i Gaerdydd! Bob un orsaf i Gaerdydd! |
|
|
|
|
117
|
All across the Great Western territory / The Wider Picture in the United Kingdom / Re: On train announcements - number to be reduce??
|
on: June 28, 2021, 23:10:57
|
1 - Yes - cut the "See it, say it, sorted" type of announcement. And even more so TfW's awful epic pre-recorded bilingual announcement exhorting people to wash their hands, keep their distance, pay their fares, tuck their shirt in, avoid having their luggage blown up by the British Transport Police, and mind the gap between the train and the platform. If they got Reginald Bosanquet to read it, it might end up in the charts. |
|
|
|
|
120
|
Sideshoots - associated subjects / The West - but NOT trains in the West / Re: Boundary Commission - review of constituencies for 2023
|
on: June 12, 2021, 12:48:24
|
Anyone got a quick explanation as to why Wales has historically had so many of the apparent excess of MPs▸ , as compared to say Scotland? Is it just about gradual depopulation that no-one had accounted for over a long period?  Paul It's a combination of factors: - It's been easier for people to justify grossly undersized constituencies in parts of Scotland (which was mainly sorted in 2001) and Wales than it has been in England, because of a greater concentration of smaller counties (e.g. Powys having two small constituencies being less bad than one large one) and because of the greater ease at which special geographical considerations could be invoked (e.g. how Gwynedd ended up with tiny constituencies)
- That each of the four Commissions worked out their own quota – the average electorate of a constituency that they would use to work out how many constituencies each county was entitled to – separately. This had two major effects: (1) the "ratchet effect", that undersized constituencies in one of the four constituent countries would drag down that country's average and cause its counties to be awarded extra constituencies at the next review (e.g. how Dyfed went from 4 constituencies to 5); and (2) that England's population growth relative to the rest of the UK▸ would allow its constituencies to become generally oversized (and it's worth remembering it's that way round – constituencies started out at around 55,000 electors after the war)
- The English Commission made a conscious effort to apply the rule that there should be "not substantially more than 523" constituencies in England, becoming extremely reluctant to award counties extra constituencies (e.g. the Isle of Wight)
|
|
|
|
|
