Random Transport Chatter

Geo Ghost · PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 7:37 pm

Redirect Left wrote:

I'm going to guess that

Quote:

and is almost certainly never going to be fit for use on the network again.

is accurate though. They won't do a Flying Scotsman and get it back in service for special Back to the 80s excursions?

Sadly not I'd have thought

It would be amazing to see, but the sheer amount of money, time, and work that would need to be done makes it simply not worth it I imagine.

Redirect Left · PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2017 9:08 pm

Genuine shame, I'd have loved to bombed down to London on an APT-P excursion trip

Pilot · PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2017 7:21 am

Ameecher wrote:

Haha the Cumbrian coast and it's brilliant 13 mile long block section. You want to run more trains? Buy some signals!

You got the issue I was having in one! Trying to get a path down there with a maximum speed of 30 mph (at points) is a pain in the backside. I blame Dr. Beeching, no doubt this was all his fault!

Redirect Left wrote:

Class 151

I don't really know about whether I like the look of them, looks very dated. Like an '80s vision of the future that obviously never came.

Ameecher · PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2017 7:58 am

Pilot wrote:

Ameecher wrote:

Haha the Cumbrian coast and it's brilliant 13 mile long block section. You want to run more trains? Buy some signals!

You got the issue I was having in one! Trying to get a path down there with a maximum speed of 30 mph (at points) is a pain in the backside. I blame Dr. Beeching, no doubt this was all his fault! .

I think it was actually BR just taking a minimalist attitude to maintenance, when something broke it was just removed. Certainly a hopeless but if track that is tediously slow and has track in all the wrong places.

Doorslammer · PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2017 12:22 pm

Redirect Left wrote:

Class 151

I don't really know about whether I like the look of them, looks very dated. Like an '80s vision of the future that obviously never came.[/quote]

I wish they got a better chance than they did, really

Redirect Left · PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2017 12:42 pm

Yeah. 2 were made, but fraught with gearing issues, causing shocks and jerks across the chassis, instead of replacing it ,they ended up getting canned entirely.

Shame, they'd be a nice cheap little DMU to run these days i imagine.

Pilot · PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2017 1:23 pm

Redirect Left wrote:

Shame, they'd be a nice cheap little DMU to run these days i imagine.

They'd probably only be the same as the 150s are today. I doubt they would have remained as 3-Car units beyond the Prototype stage either (same happened with the 150s). Interestingly enough, the 151s were nearly saved and brought back into Passenger use, but scrapped in '04 due to Vandalism and other factors.

Ameecher · PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2017 1:32 pm

What was the point in persisting when they were competing designs? 2 prototypes of each were built, one was better than the other so that one got ordered. That's a good tendering process. If both had been ordered you need more traincrew knowledge, more maintenance knowledge. More spares. The list goes on.

supermop · PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2017 3:45 pm

Ameecher wrote:

What was the point in persisting when they were competing designs? 2 prototypes of each were built, one was better than the other so that one got ordered. That's a good tendering process. If both had been ordered you need more traincrew knowledge, more maintenance knowledge. More spares. The list goes on.

I do like the industrial design - for the time - of the the 151 cab shell, and certainly retro-futurist nostalgia of the last few years would see it getting some love again now, but I have to agree that the point of design competitions is to select the most fit for purpose contender. It's admirable that they put the losing prototypes to work at all really. Surely there were dozens more concepts for the RFP that never even made it as far as design development, and would be a bit absurd to build and operate every feasible idea that was conceived.

Furthermore, while I like the industrial design, this was a train that would need to serve in an un-glamorous, quotidian role for 30-40 years, if not more. Surely by the late 80s, early 90s, the ambitious face would have come to look very dated to the commuters who rode it everyday, and BR would have had no idea that it might become cool again sometime later. For a state-run service, something that is noticeably in style quickly becomes noticeably out of style, and thus cements in the public's mind an impression of an outdated, inefficient, uncaring bureaucracy, re-enforcing any other negative connotations they may have about the service. By comparison, the more 'boring' 150 has proved to be rather timeless and adaptable - easily looking fresh with a new livery, and fooling the casual observer as to the true age of it's design.

Redirect Left · PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2017 6:50 pm

Pilot wrote:

Redirect Left wrote:

Shame, they'd be a nice cheap little DMU to run these days i imagine.

Interestingly enough, the 151s were nearly saved and brought back into Passenger use, but scrapped in '04 due to Vandalism and other factors.

Yeah. That's what annoys me most, they were meant to be refurbed, dodgy gears swapped out and brought into service, but the vandals ruined it.

Ah well. Shame i'm not an eccentric billionaire, else i'd knock up a few*
*pay others to do it for me.

I might have a google around, see if any manuals or working documents of that train exist to see what exactly i could do should i ever get rich, its good to dream...

Redirect Left · PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 10:02 pm

Labour have posted 3 different leaflets through my door whilst I was away in Glasgow over the past 3 days, an average of one a day. Costing them a lot.

Anyway to the point, each of these featured rather prominently the "Renationalisation of the Railways!".
Now this sounds all lovely, but everyone here knows that this is not going to work as amazingly well and/or cut prices like the general public seem to think it is. Surely by now they know they're misleading a public that don't understand just how hard and expensive to achieve this will be...

Any thoughts on the Labour plan to do that?

Ameecher · PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 7:20 am

The Railway is nationalised already, it's just the trains that aren't.

Chris · PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 7:23 am

Roll the franchises back in as they run out what eg. East Coast. Should be cost neutral

Pilot · PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 8:01 am

A question for those of you who know more than myself on this front. As the Majority of trains are owned by the ROSCOs, are they legally obliged to supply trains to a nationalised (BR-like) railway? If not, what's to say that they don't just sell them all to another country (especially if they are getting more money)?

Chris wrote:

Roll the franchises back in as they run out what eg. East Coast. Should be cost neutral

What about the likes of DB Cargo, Freightliner, GBRF, etc, which aren't franchised?

Chris · PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 6:15 pm

I don't know the specifics but from my understanding nationalisation would only be bringing in passenger services?

Dave · PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 11:59 pm

This poses a huge problem for labour, who talk about renationalising railways without a single mention f freight beyond "public freight services"

The freight side of BR was sold outright. Buying it back wouldn't be a cheap endeavour.

Pilot · PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 7:56 am

Dave wrote:

"public freight services"

So that's just DRS then, and other than the Flasks and a few container trains, they don't appear to have a lot of (freight) work.

Chris wrote:

I don't know the specifics but from my understanding nationalisation would only be bringing in passenger services?

As far as I can tell, Labour have never said "renationalise the passenger railways", they appear to only be saying "renationalise the railways", which to me would indicate the whole lot, including freight services. Of course, your general member of the public isn't going to know the situation with all the freight traffic, and isn't likely to care, having the opinion of "Oh, it can all go on the roads", not realising how much extra traffic that would put on the roads.

Another one, how would they go about bringing Open Access operators under the nationalised banner? Hull Trains have access rights until 2029, whilst Grand Central have them until 2026 (2028 for their new Blackpool - Euston service). I imagine you can't just turn around and ban them from operating? Also, I imagine the Competitions Commission would have a field day with a nationalised railway (if, of course, they were allowed to, however, I imagine rules are different if it's the Government doing it).

Redirect Left · PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 1:43 pm

Pilot wrote:

A question for those of you who know more than myself on this front. As the Majority of trains are owned by the ROSCOs, are they legally obliged to supply trains to a nationalised (BR-like) railway? If not, what's to say that they don't just sell them all to another country (especially if they are getting more money)?

I asked this question to a member of TPE staff earlier today whilst they were farting around trying to get their ticket machine working on the platform next to where i was gardening, ROSCOs are under no obligation, and it'd be up to the Government to either buy the trains outright and give them to Network Rail (or create another public entity for publically owned trains), or negotiate with the ROSCOs. In his words "They won't make it cheap for the Government" - probably due to what you said, if someone abroad offers a higher price, the UK is sadly a country that believes in personal wealth over helping fellow citizens, so they'd just say "nope" to the Government and go elsewhere.

Dave · PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2017 12:40 am

Pilot wrote:

Dave wrote:

"public freight services"

So that's just DRS then, and other than the Flasks and a few container trains, they don't appear to have a lot of (freight) work.

Chris wrote:

I don't know the specifics but from my understanding nationalisation would only be bringing in passenger services?

As far as I can tell, Labour have never said "renationalise the passenger railways", they appear to only be saying "renationalise the railways", which to me would indicate the whole lot, including freight services. Of course, your general member of the public isn't going to know the situation with all the freight traffic, and isn't likely to care, having the opinion of "Oh, it can all go on the roads", not realising how much extra traffic that would put on the roads.

Another one, how would they go about bringing Open Access operators under the nationalised banner? Hull Trains have access rights until 2029, whilst Grand Central have them until 2026 (2028 for their new Blackpool - Euston service). I imagine you can't just turn around and ban them from operating? Also, I imagine the Competitions Commission would have a field day with a nationalised railway (if, of course, they were allowed to, however, I imagine rules are different if it's the Government doing it).

It's actually impossible under EU law to re-establish a state monopoly - some still exist with grandfather rights. Even in Germany there's some privatisation.

Of course since we're leaving...

Geo Ghost · PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 10:45 pm

Well, I've just managed to tick off 3 Railway achievements in one go!

- Break a Class 387.
- Completely fail a train and need assistance.
- Get to place detonators on the line and run them over :mrgreen:

Transport Tycoon Forums

Random Transport Chatter

Who is online