INBOX
From: Ricp Subject: Rolling stock strategy
If this estimate for the number of additional vehicles is right, it takes us back about 60 years to the early years of the Modernisation Plan and the end of steam. The problem is that since then, BR and its successors have been forced to sell off various parcels of land that once accommodated carriage sidings, so the next interesting question that will have to be looked at is where do we put these extra trains, and maintain them. The depots have been sold off too!
And, as mentioned many times, with only Derby as our classic production unit, and Newton Aycliffe a kit assembly factory for Japanese products, someone needs to have faith and re-establish a production facility here. It’s a pity Alstom did not have the faith to retain the excellent facility at Washwood Heath, i.e. Metro Cammell, which until Alstom took over made trains like Siemens – they worked out of the box, from 101s to 156s, EMUs to Tube stock, they did the lot. Thanks to the government, this producer was starved of business, and Alstom walked away.
From: Joel Kosminsky Subject: ‘New Tube for London’
Hang on a minute – the Central Line stock is barely 20 years old, only halfway through its design and costed life. Are Londoners (precept-payers) and other taxpayers to be asked to subsidise premature rolling stock replacement for an ‘estimated’ 4.2:1 benefi t:cost gain? You can’t
do an accurate B:CR until you know the full cost of the programme and its implications. Suppose, just, that this has more to do with removing staff from trains and stations than ‘effi ciencies’ of operation and suddenly a big chunk of that B:CR comes into view.
The Piccadilly and Bakerloo Lines have severe curves too – a composite compatible carriage for all lines has to account for those – but if it did, we’re back to ‘Standard’ Stock and 1938 stock days, something in principle (IN PRINCIPLE! Not retain the trains!) we should never have left. Nice plan but let’s see some reality costs fi rst.
From: Simon Subject: ‘New Tube for London’
The Central Line 1992 tube stock trains are knackered; they need so much spending on them to make them last another 20 years that it will prove more cost effective to replace them.
I still remember what happened in early 2003, when the problems with the motors falling off became so severe that the entire fl eet was taken out of service for several months whilst the trains were rebuilt. I think it was something like 4-5 months before they had all been reintroduced to service, and even now their reduced higher speeds extends journey times.
Whilst Crossrail is expected rail technology magazine Feb/Mar 14 | 17
to reduce some of the severe overcrowding on the Central Line (especially from the east) these trains will also be almost full from day one. I use this route and at Stratford often see homeward passengers unable to board the trains! (Although that might also be because whilst in 1980 there were 21 trains in the busiest evening peak hour, there are now just 16 trains in the same timeframe.)
Waterloo & City Line trains are essentially the same as the Central Line’s, albeit with different electric train control systems.
From: Gerard Hennessy Subject: London to Amsterdam services
The high speed rail link between Brussels and Amsterdam has had a very troubled history. And, while the main problem has been rolling stock rather than track, there are likely to be spin-off complications. Currently the Brussels to Amsterdam high-speed service has been mothballed while the rail companies in both countries pursue fi nancial compensation from the train manufacturer. In these circumstances, Eurostar
©Eurostar
are wise to let things settle down before commencing their own service on the Brussels- Amsterdam line.
[Editor’s note: Deutsche Bahn has postponed its plans for London to Amsterdam services for a range of reasons – certifi cation problems for its ICE trains, access costs on France’s high-speed network, and strict UK Border Agency pre-clearance rules for UK- bound travellers. Eurostar plans through-trains to Amsterdam from December 2016, assuming its Siemens-built stock can complete certifi cation.]
From: P.N. Jarvis Subject: Birmingham’s HS2 station plans
I can’t see on the sketches the Hardwick 1838 building for Robert Stephenson’s
London
& Birmingham Railway. It is a handsome and historic structure and I hope it is not being pushed in the corner of a vast shopping mall. The concept put before us in the sketches is impressive (sketches usually are), but one wonders about its compatibility with its notable predecessor.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132