Search results

So TfW couldn't of ordered your hated 197s?

I just checked and spookily the planning application for mineral extraction was approved yesterday. One of the clauses states:

Your are right to be confused because the reasoning by WG/TFW for getting them is confused. Trams are meant to be cheaper but they aren't cheaper if you operate them as heavy rail EMUs. Equally in the future expansion you have compromised yourself because of the constraints, high floor, 25kv...

You could change at Harrow On the Hill or Wembley Park or Finchley Road if the Jubilee was desired.

The CEGB bought some surrounding land to expand the coal storage areas and maybe with thoughts of an Ironbridge C. This untouched land stands on large sand and gravel deposits it is these which Haworth want to extract it also provides a nice level area for more houses once the extraction is...

They are for fixing wood to steel framing

But it doesn't future proof it you need to build expensive 'stations' on the light rail areas and by retaining guards and drivers you aren't obtaining the savings now.

Well MkIVs are heavier and have indifferent bogies.

Quite, the Transport secretary at the the time had to formally overrule his civil servants to 'waste money' by including a requirement to just replace the Pacers in the franchise agreement.

About the same seating capacity as a 150 but no accessible toilet. 915mm entrance height so any street running sections will require the building of expensive platform structures.

Moderator note: Split from https://railforums.co.uk/threads/underload-spads-stadler-745emu-755bmu.237144/ With the braking distance of a train being so long what effect do these instantly applied emergency brakes actually serve? Could this function not be replaced with lidar/radar tech for self...

Although reopening the line via Market Drayton is over the top it does need to acknowledged that the public transport in Market Drayton is terrible. The 64 which is every two hours off peak linking with Shrewsbury and Stoke with some peak extras to Shrewsbury plus an every 30 mins town circular.

It isn't insanely expensive even if you do it the over the top Network Rail Great Western Electrification Programme way. The rest of Europe can do it for a much more reasonable cost per km. We need to just get on and do it. Running diesels, even 40 year old 15x on the WHL or HOWL is fine for...

On the Uxbridge branch?

We are talking about segregating the fast and slow lines to allow 25kv OHL electrification of the fasts for use by Chiltern/NR services. There would be a commensurate increase in non LUL capacity to serve Aylesbury, Amersham, Chesham etc. Regards the spare S-stock, Croxley, District to...

It would free up some S-stock for use elsewhere.

There aren't that many Met fasts anyway so I don't believe the sky would fall in if you segregated the line and gave the fast line and the Aylesbury branch north of Moor Park to NR\Chiltern.

It is convention that Ministers issue such a memo they have been doing so for years. Occasionally they are 'leaked' to the press and story can be made out of it. Here is a similar story from 14 years ago. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/nov/17/liam-byrne-minister-diva-news

This isn't a requirement. If DfT deem the 168 Hybrid a success and there is budget they may allow the conversion of the remainder before moving onto to the 175s

More impressive is the issue. The 'rumble' of a 68 travels further than the general 'rattle' of a 16x. The local residents don't appreciate the buttery biscuit bass. As railways can't be prosecuted for noise the same residents have cottoned on to the 'pollution' problem of the 68s to try and...