Search results

Of course. Class 86s might last another 5-10 years, Class 90s another 20? Class 60s might have 10-12 more years, 20 or so for the Class 66s? All of these locos will need replacement eventually. Even the 68s in 35-40 years time.

So. Let's assume the APT had actually been successful, and had entered service in the 80s as planned. What consequences would this have had with regards to cascading of other stock? -We likely wouldn't have had the Mk3b DVTs, FOs and BFOs, or the Class 90 locomotives. -We might well not have...

I always thought these trains ran with the sleepers in the middle and the seating cars at the ends, so as to have a brake compartment at each extreme - but that rule might not be in force anymore?

True, although I read the post I quoted as concerning loco-hauled Stock, where one vestibule at each end has been the norm (for long-distance use), With the exceptions I mentioned.

It is pretty common on the Continent for dining and sleeping cars to only have a vestibule at one end. Some dining cars even are without vestibules completely. In the US, virtually all single-deck long-distance coaching Stock had only one vestibule since at least the 1940s.

Sure your not getting your classes mixed up here? I have a bit of trouble imagining a Peak at 100 mph...

Great Heck

Would this really free up any coaches? AFAIK all EC HSTs at that point were 2+8 (2 TF, TRFB, 4 TS, TGS), and I assume they were kept that way when they went to the Western Region? Although the HSTs transferred to XC would likely have gotten reduced to 2+7 (one less TF) - did TFs get converted to TS?