Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I think there were more complaints with how the TPE 158 cascade was handled, compared to the LM 150 cascade with the LM 150 cascade having more DfT involvement.
I think there were more complaints with how the TPE 158 cascade was handled, compared to the LM 150 cascade with the LM 150 cascade having more DfT involvement.
But I can't see the DfT specifying how many units (of any class) should be withdrawn - that would be a commercial decision between TOCs and the ROSCOs.
This is why I wouldn't expect the DfT to stated (say) "10 Pacers will be withdrawn", I don't think that would be in their remit.
But I can't see the DfT specifying how many units (of any class) should be withdrawn - that would be a commercial decision between TOCs and the ROSCOs.
This is why I wouldn't expect the DfT to stated (say) "10 Pacers will be withdrawn", I don't think that would be in their remit.
DfT said the 7 x FGW 142s would return to Northern if they proved they had a good case for needing them, otherwise they'd go in to storage. As these are being replaced by a larger number of 150s at FGW, what's the difference between that and what may happen when 319s arrive at Northern to provide extra capacity?
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.