|
devon_metro
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: January 03, 2010, 22:56:47 » |
|
Giving said 158 to FGW▸ would of course be more beneficial
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
|
« Reply #46 on: January 04, 2010, 13:17:30 » |
|
Higher utilisation of the 158 fleet. What is the current state of play on this? - ie how many extra 158's could SWT▸ put out if they really wanted to? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01
|
|
« Reply #47 on: January 04, 2010, 13:22:25 » |
|
would be interesting to see loading figures since the hourly service, i doubt there are treble workings now you may find the 158's being used to add capacity to these services
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #48 on: January 04, 2010, 15:26:22 » |
|
Higher utilisation of the 158 fleet. What is the current state of play on this? - ie how many extra 158's could SWT▸ put out if they really wanted to? I believe they have 6 or 7 of their own diagrams (since that 10 car morning service to/from Waterloo started), from 11 units, but I'm fairly sure only 3 services use 158s all day, and those are the Romsey - Salisburys. The rest are doing peak only services. That doesn't include the all day FGW▸ unit though, so effectively SWT have 10 units to play with, 9 if EMT» still have one. Of course the 30 159s aren't exactly the most stretched fleet in the land either. Would be useful to see up to date official diagrams, but no-one's been putting them online recently... Paul |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01
|
|
« Reply #49 on: January 04, 2010, 16:31:05 » |
|
probably enough to run to paignton and cover all fgw services,plus more to increase frequency apart from the paddington ones so that the fgw units can boost services elsewhere in the region, wont happen too complicated
personally i think the barnstaple line should be transfered to swt :-) being an old southern route
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
gaf71
|
|
« Reply #50 on: January 04, 2010, 19:58:24 » |
|
There is already rumour (and I stress the word RUMOUR) that FGW▸ may possibly run services to Honiton or Axminster. There has been no confirmation of this though!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #51 on: January 04, 2010, 23:42:50 » |
|
There is already rumour (and I stress the word RUMOUR) that FGW▸ may possibly run services to Honiton or Axminster. There has been no confirmation of this though!
Why on earth would FGW want to waste stock running an extra service on a line that already has an hourly service when there is the Transwilts untapped! This BETTER be a false rumour... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TerminalJunkie
|
|
« Reply #52 on: January 04, 2010, 23:48:43 » |
|
There is already rumour (and I stress the word RUMOUR) that FGW▸ may possibly run services to Honiton or Axminster. There has been no confirmation of this though!
Running Barnstaple to Axminster would be quite sensible, actually. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Daily Mail and Daily Express readers please click here. |
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #53 on: January 05, 2010, 00:15:55 » |
|
There is already rumour (and I stress the word RUMOUR) that FGW▸ may possibly run services to Honiton or Axminster. There has been no confirmation of this though!
Why on earth would FGW want to waste stock running an extra service on a line that already has an hourly service when there is the Transwilts untapped! This BETTER be a false rumour... Two possibilities:- 1. ORCATS▸ revenue raid. 2. DCC» sponsor the service and an additional unit, in the same way as the additional services on the Severn Beach line are sponsored. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
qwerty
|
|
« Reply #54 on: January 05, 2010, 10:42:51 » |
|
There is already rumour (and I stress the word RUMOUR) that FGW▸ may possibly run services to Honiton or Axminster. There has been no confirmation of this though!
Why on earth would FGW want to waste stock running an extra service on a line that already has an hourly service when there is the Transwilts untapped! This BETTER be a false rumour... Two possibilities:- 1. ORCATS▸ revenue raid. 2. DCC» sponsor the service and an additional unit, in the same way as the additional services on the Severn Beach line are sponsored. The RUMOUR that I heard was that FGW train crews would work Honiton / Axminster shuttles under contract to SWT▸ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Feckham
|
|
« Reply #55 on: January 05, 2010, 10:58:03 » |
|
There is already rumour (and I stress the word RUMOUR) that FGW▸ may possibly run services to Honiton or Axminster. There has been no confirmation of this though!
Running Barnstaple to Axminster would be quite sensible, actually. Ideal if it were ever to happen and Cranbrook open - Exeter Airport anyone! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Andy
|
|
« Reply #56 on: January 05, 2010, 11:15:54 » |
|
How far would the Cranbrook stop be from the airport?
Also, how about an occasional Okehampton to Axminster service, an East-West service to complement the North-South Barnstaple-Exmouth route?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #57 on: January 05, 2010, 16:52:41 » |
|
How far would the Cranbrook stop be from the airport?
About 2 miles by road, I reckon. Unfortunately the airport buildings are on the south of the airfield, alongside the new A30. The station site is due north of there, but the road has to go right round the houses... Paul |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FlyingDutchman
|
|
« Reply #58 on: January 06, 2010, 21:58:38 » |
|
At one stage there was talk about building a new terminal on the opposite side of the airport. on the old A30
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Whippo
Newbie
Posts: 5
|
|
« Reply #59 on: April 15, 2010, 10:04:33 » |
|
-Terminal on opposite side of airport has been proposed along with a freight terminal- don't know if it's anything to do with the rail terminal, point is, none of this is going to happen until the new roads/infrastructure for Cranbrook are in place and that looks like being on hold indefinately at the mo. If this does happen then the proposed new station would be less than a mile from the airport terminal, which is good. As far as half hr service Axminster - Exeter goes, SWT▸ have seen steady repatriation of the W of E line but the service locally has now been compromised by the new timetable due to pathing for the 'dynamic loop' at Axminster meaning Whimple, Feniton and Pinhoe see a poorer service from the investment at Axminster and this is where things go against DCC» plans to get people back on trains. Lets hope that when a new franchise plan is drawn up that the reinstatement of double track between Pinhoe and (at least) Whimple is proposed which will cater for new freight traffic and pathing of passenger services (especially late ones) between Cranbrook and pinhoe, provide improved service to the local community, and not just another cheap 'dynamic loop' that will move the problems somewhere else (if the proposed one at whimple goes ahead they may as well go the 'whole hog' to exeter and be done with it!) That would be sensible investment. I've also heard that FGW▸ could be providing the service but its all early days and i imagine it's to do with stock availiability, but it's feasible (WR units used to provide a exeter-axminster in the 80s under NSE▸ ) Perhaps Exeter -Yeovil Pen Mill anyone??!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
