Firesprite
Member
However he's dead so I'm not really sure why this is relevant?
It was asked who was 'Tricky Dicky'?
However he's dead so I'm not really sure why this is relevant?
Not quite. And in the context of the quoted text, it was clear that Richard Nixon would not be the appropriate answer.It was asked who was 'Tricky Dicky'?
However he's dead so I'm not really sure why this is relevant?
You've interpreted "who's Tricky Dicky" as 'who was', whereas I think most people would interpret it as 'who is'.It was asked who was 'Tricky Dicky'? Nixon is the only one that I know of who had that nickname.
.
.The problem is in my experience many of those LM services are indeed full and standing.
Would a TOC want to take trains that have a history of reliability problems that will surely only get worse and are not quick enough off the mark given the number of station stops / speed restrictions? Not only are you in danger of losing business to the M1 with longer journey times but where does the improved passenger capacity come from over an EMU, especially given that you get rid of the loco and the DVT? How do the track access charges compare to EMU's?
I'm not claiming they're ideally suited to the MML; I'm claiming that they may well be the best stock available for the job.
We aren't getting more Meridians, the DMU stock coming off-lease isn't 125mph, and the HSTs aren't compliant beyond 2019. It likely doesn't make sense to order new 125mph stock for the short period between 2020 and electrification, which leaves you with two options: make the HSTs compliant at great cost for a short period (this is, after all, unquestionably a shorter period than the ScotRail ones), or use the Mk4 stock, presumably with 67s.
For 125mph running, top-and-tail is likely the easiest way to achieve it with whatever locomotives you choose. I don't think there's much concern about two 67s?
Perhaps First Hull Trains would take some one with a Class 68/88 as the head of the train to replace Class 180's?
Would the Mk4s need a complete re-wire to work with something other then a class 91?
I'm aware that you are very much not in favour of the 225s on the MML, to be fair, neither am I, but given the timescales of the wires on MML, running some 225s from Derby and Nottingham from around 2021 and from Sheffield from around 2022 then replacing them with the cascaded 390s from 2026 sounds a very attractive proposition for me.
I'd love to see new EMUs across the MML, but the reality is that something like the 387s will service the southern destinations from Corby, from about 2018, it's entirely possible to end up with a fleet expansion to service Leicester, so we are only looking further north, with 222s continuing for a few more years under wires and HSTs replaced by 225s - a small fleet at best.
Post HS2 some of the services currently run with 390s may be run with classic-compatible sets instead, freeing up some 390s.Where are the 390s coming from? In no way is the WCML going to see a reduction in passenger service.
Would the Mk4s need a complete re-wire to work with something other then a class 91?
G'day everyone,
Assuming that Virgin takes delivery of it's new class 800s / 801s on time in December 2018 can we expect to see the first IC225s going for scrap in early 2019?
From what I understand Virgin would like to retain half a dozen sets for relief work etc so can we expect them to retain the trains with the lowest mileage / best condition?
Your thoughts would be very welcome!
It was asked who was 'Tricky Dicky'?
It's from 1 Jan 2020. But unless they get a derogation, they must either be amended to be compliant (and the EMT ones are the furtherest from compliant currently; need the doors to be sorted, call-for-aid buttons by the wheelchair spaces, universally accessible toilets, saloon doors wide enough for a wheelchair, and a PIS) or replaced.
It would be sad to see the MKIV's go when they still have life left in them. I wonder if there is life left in the 91's
For 125mph running, top-and-tail is likely the easiest way to achieve it with whatever locomotives you choose. I don't think there's much concern about two 67s?
It's from 1 Jan 2020. But unless they get a derogation, they must either be amended to be compliant (and the EMT ones are the furtherest from compliant currently; need the doors to be sorted, call-for-aid buttons by the wheelchair spaces, universally accessible toilets, saloon doors wide enough for a wheelchair, and a PIS) or replaced.
By then the VTEC sets will have been replaced, so since they're both Stagecoach outfits, they could just go a swap over.
Fit selected HST power cars (selected for best condition) with Chiltern style ETS generators in the luggage compartment, refit the power cars with TDM control gear.
Mate them with existing Mark 4 rakes.
Job done.
As an alternative, fit static converters for loco hauled ETS into the luggage compartment using the existing 415V hotel supply.
Fit TDM control gear
Mate them with existing Mark 4 rakes
Job done.
All likely to be far cheaper than a full reconstruction of many Mark 3 rakes.
Where are the 390s coming from? In no way is the WCML going to see a reduction in passenger service.
Same deal, where are the 387s coming from? Only six more units will be likely to be freed up in the near future, from c2c.
No any locomotive could haul a rake of Mk4s (as long as there is a TSOE/DVT in the formation) and any locomotive that is equipped with ETS could provide ETS to the rake. Any locomotive equipped with TDM (which is not many these days possibly just 91s and 90s) could be driven from the DVT as well.
The Mk4, unlike the HST Mk3s, is just another loco hauled coach in the same way that Mk1, 2 or 3 are.
Given also that the southern section of the MML to Corby will "feature" 110mph Class 387 EMUs, just how much of the MML is left that has 125mph running and could that be compensated for by running more Mk4s than the current number of Mk3s ? Accept that use, some services are a few minutes slower, but with the benefit of extra seat space. I realise it's not a calculation any of us are able to do or if we could, unable to publish. But certainly an aspect that will need ruling out if new EMUs are to be economically justified.
So essentially, a Class 68 would haul one quite happily - and with considerably higher tractive effort probably reach 100mph far quicker than a 91 on a like-for-like stretch.
Just need to update the DVT with AAR equipment.
So essentially, a Class 68 would haul one quite happily - and with considerably higher tractive effort probably reach 100mph far quicker than a 91 on a like-for-like stretch.
Higher tractive effort but significantly lower horsepower, which is what counts for acceleration at higher speeds. So the 68 would get away a bit quicker but the 91 would most likely get to 100mph first.
How many trains will be running to Corby per hour compared to all the other trains going much further North? Just because two trains per can only run at 110 mph that's no reason to suggest that everything else has to run at the same speed.
Between Bedford and London I think you'd have to assume that those 387's would be running on the slow lines and not holding up any 125 mph units. Not only that but there is plenty of work going on in the Kettering area at the moment to reinstate the old slow lines which those Corby trains will be running not mention the existing slow lines north of Bedford.
Once the media got hold of the fact that after months / years of disruption the East Midlands will be rewarded with slower trains the negative publicity will be awful.
No ROSCO will fund EMUs that will run for less than a decade with no sensible home afterwards because of the HS2 impacts.
So essentially, a Class 68 would haul one quite happily - and with considerably higher tractive effort probably reach 100mph far quicker than a 91 on a like-for-like stretch.
Just need to update the DVT with AAR equipment.