|
broadgage
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: October 23, 2017, 10:39:30 » |
|
A contract is a contract.....
Unless with network rail for electrification. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU▸ is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
|
|
|
|
SandTEngineer
|
|
« Reply #76 on: October 23, 2017, 10:40:46 » |
|
A contract is a contract.....
.....but contracts can always be varied if required (and the cash is available.....  ). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WelshBluebird
|
|
« Reply #77 on: October 23, 2017, 10:44:56 » |
|
A contract is a contract.....
So who on earth thought it was a good idea to make the contract for a set date, rather than take into consideration other rolling stock? Surely it isn't that difficult to have had the contract say the HST▸ 's leave GWR▸ whenever GWR get x number of 800's in active service? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stuving
|
|
« Reply #78 on: October 23, 2017, 10:57:54 » |
|
A contract is a contract.....
So who on earth thought it was a good idea to make the contract for a set date, rather than take into consideration other rolling stock? Surely it isn't that difficult to have had the contract say the HST▸ 's leave GWR▸ whenever GWR get x number of 800's in active service? Difficult? Yes, and costly. The HST leases were flexible while there was no following use for them. When a new life was worked out for them, it involved a big rework job, and it's the timing of that work (on power cars and carriages) that can't easily be shifted. At some stage (probably a year or maybe two ahead) all sides had to commit to the timings, including the end of lease. But I don't think this scheduling issue has a lot to do with there being a contract between separate companies. I can imagine that if one part of a big unitary railway business asked another to make such a change the answer would be "no - impossible". And appealing upwards to the "lowest common manager" would probably reaffirm the same answer. And anyway, what kind of service can you offer with a rake of Mk 3s and no power cars? A bit slow, I'd have thought. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IndustryInsider
|
|
« Reply #79 on: October 23, 2017, 11:07:35 » |
|
Especially with no drivers either.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To view my GWML▸ Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/ |
|
|
|
stuving
|
|
« Reply #80 on: October 23, 2017, 11:22:36 » |
|
Especially with no drivers either.
Don't GWR▸ management schedule their missing drivers to drive* their missing trains? * or "to not drive", if you prefer |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
hassaanhc
|
|
« Reply #81 on: October 23, 2017, 18:27:04 » |
|
There seem to be no short forms posted on JourneyCheck this evening! But the list was quite long in the morning, with a Bedwyn diagram being 2 coaches instead of 3, plus another diagram being formed of 2 coaches instead of 5 and a 4 coaches instead of 5.
I've noticed that this week (at least) the 2R47 1512 London Paddington to Reading (due 1611) and 2K70 1612 Reading to Newbury are combined as the 2K70 1512½ London Paddington to Newbury.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
NickB
|
|
« Reply #82 on: October 23, 2017, 18:58:30 » |
|
The 17.49 Padd-Worcester was a 5 car adelante as opposed to an HST▸ which appeared to come as a surprise to the driver who needed a couple of PA▸ nudges to go to the train.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
hassaanhc
|
|
« Reply #83 on: October 23, 2017, 20:47:33 » |
|
The 17.49 Padd-Worcester was a 5 car adelante as opposed to an HST▸ which appeared to come as a surprise to the driver who needed a couple of PA▸ nudges to go to the train.
I've heard a few announcements at Paddington calling drivers by name to go to their train. Wonder if the union has said anything  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phile
|
|
« Reply #84 on: October 23, 2017, 20:51:50 » |
|
There seem to be no short forms posted on JourneyCheck this evening! But the list was quite long in the morning, with a Bedwyn diagram being 2 coaches instead of 3, plus another diagram being formed of 2 coaches instead of 5 and a 4 coaches instead of 5.
I've noticed that this week (at least) the 2R47 1512 London Paddington to Reading (due 1611) and 2K70 1612 Reading to Newbury are combined as the 2K70 1512½ London Paddington to Newbury.
Posting short forms on Journey check can often be hit and miss |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bobm
|
|
« Reply #85 on: October 23, 2017, 21:56:48 » |
|
so it's the same with industry managers (lots of "out of office" messages this week) Nothing wrong with out of office messages - they alert you to a possible delay in a reply, but when they suggest you contact someone else and you also get an out of office message from them you start to wonder as I did today. They weren't railway related people so you realise it isn't just restricted to one industry! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #86 on: October 24, 2017, 15:04:55 » |
|
An HST▸ an coaches left for Ely Sidings yesterday, reported on another forum. Wabtec is full, and went to storage.
So an HST that could have run this morning sits in Cambridgeshire whilst services here get cancelled because GWR▸ don't have enough rolling stock to run the full HSS▸ timetable today. What a way to run a railway. From journey check today. (My naughty edit!) 15:00 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads due 16:38
15:00 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads due 16:38 will be cancelled.
This is due to more trains than usual needing repairs being sent to the Fens and Scotland at the same time. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
|
phile
|
|
« Reply #87 on: October 24, 2017, 16:50:33 » |
|
The HSTs▸ being sent to Scotland (via the Fens) have got to be sent by the agreed date. Unlike anything internal arrangements could probably be made with the DFT▸ to delay and transfers but as Scotrail is run by Transport for Scotland and not the DFT the contracted release and transfer dates have to be adhered to.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
hassaanhc
|
|
« Reply #88 on: October 24, 2017, 19:58:23 » |
|
An HST▸ an coaches left for Ely Sidings yesterday, reported on another forum. Wabtec is full, and went to storage.
So an HST that could have run this morning sits in Cambridgeshire whilst services here get cancelled because GWR▸ don't have enough rolling stock to run the full HSS▸ timetable today. What a way to run a railway. From journey check today. (My naughty edit!) 15:00 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads due 16:38
15:00 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads due 16:38 will be cancelled.
This is due to more trains than usual needing repairs being sent to the Fens and Scotland at the same time. It is only fair if you also have the following variation: Facilities on the 19:50 London Paddington to Banbury due 21:26.
This is due to more trains than usual needing repairs at the same time being sent to Bristol too early.
Will be formed of 2 coaches instead of 3. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Timmer
|
|
« Reply #89 on: October 24, 2017, 20:40:38 » |
|
Touché
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
