It is clearly not beyond economical repair as Beacon have signed a contract to lease it to ScotRail. Beacon will expect it back in an acceptable condition as per the lease - EMR have to repair it.
When units start going off-lease, the ones chosen for withdrawal tend to be those either with serious defects or running out of hours before a costly exam to the train / engines etc.
It's the first one going because it's non-standard as are 101-103, then the rest should be going in number order. It won't be anything to do with the condition they're in
why would they go in number order if some units with a lower unit number have longer to go before major exam compared to a higher number unit with major exams looming?
It's just what I've been told by others more in the know. You or I won't know which unit is due an exam and when, or if they really will leave in a certain order (hence my use of the word 'should', not 'will')
Or send it back with a very large bag of compensation money
At least its in a section where the slow lines can be used to pass, somewhat better than the Market Harborough breakdowns recently!
Yes, E.g. 1C32 0935 Sheffield to London St Pancras has just passed through Luton Airport Parkway on the slow line sandwiched between two Thameslink services.
Fatality on Sunday
Along with the majority of the UK network I gather.
This especially annoys me - it's obvious that those trains were going to end up going somewhere, given the UK wide diesel trains shortage (another topic) - so why does the system of contracts and ownership result in them being run into he ground with passengers paying the same level of fares to ride in increasingly tatty trains with multiple features that don't work very well / reliably? They might as well have commenced renovation whoever was going to take them on.
It may be "obvious" but when you're spending several £million on refurbishment you need a contract signed guaranteeing a return on the investment. If you were Eversholt/Beacon's commercial director, would you sign that refurbishment contract without a lease signed up?This especially annoys me - it's obvious that those trains were going to end up going somewhere, given the UK wide diesel trains shortage (another topic) - so why does the system of contracts and ownership result in them being run into he ground with passengers paying the same level of fares to ride in increasingly tatty trains with multiple features that don't work very well / reliably? They might as well have commenced renovation whoever was going to take them on.
All the funding for that work would have ultimately been tax payer funded whoever won the 2024 general election, so that work could have been commenced at a suitable rate some years ago, safe in the knowledge that the train sets would have a future on some service or other in the UK at an appropriate point.
Or did someone in charge think these Meridian trains were part of the Wessex Electrics fleet?
Maybe not - but then that is the fault of the 'guiding mind' of the railway - which is the govt - who could remove that risk from the commercial director's mind - and should have done in the best interest of the taxpayer - who are paying for all this and the passenger, who has to put up with declining service quality for the same or higher fares.
The joys of cost plus 2% contracts, where the DfT determines what costs you incur. Going forward, we will probably see a lot of cost taken out of the railway. A take it or lose it position.
Go and speak to Porterbrook about the 350s and 458s, or Angel about the 175s and come back and say it is "risk free".
Is that £500,000 covering the frequent maintenance costs of a 40 year old unit?
