NXEC Train Just as fast as the Plane. It's Official!

[JamieLei]

There's a national shortage of stock, with no stock available from anywhere. FGW, ATW and Northern are all battling it out for control of grubby 150s. Noone seems to know who owns the 158s any more (in the previous year, I swear one set has moved from TPE, to Northern, to Central, to EMT). Grand Central are being extremely inefficient as they have empty HSTs running around - they're better off with XC.

What I meant was that I didn't really jump for joy like everyone else, who plan to spend the entire holiday riding the Great Yarmouth branch taking photos and exchanging numbers, due to the fact there's a working 47 in regular passenger service. It's a sign of the chronic shortage of stock that's currently being experienced. Only a year until the 172s displace 150s which should help the problem. Now all we need is more 158 compliments...

[EXTspotter]

At least I explained what the majority of the acronyms meant.... anyway, most of them are easy to work out - BA = British Airways, LHR = Heathrow, but with all rules, there are always exceptions - with IATA codes running out, newer airlines in particular have annoying ones: Easyjet = U2, Wizzair = W3, Cityjet = WX, (now defunct) Oasis = O8, Ryanair = FR, the list goes on....

P.S. I know that Ryanair has been around for 30 years, but they didn't get an easy code....

[teccuk]

Lol, exactly, I think most rail enthusiasts are not too bad with acronyms, except those that are trying to show off their knowledge of jargon. I certainly wouldn't use acronyms for ticket types! Anyone that does needs to go and buy a sensible coat to replace their anorak! Aviation strikes me as far worse, because they always use the codes for airports and even operators. The thing is it just makes the posts harder to read, especially for those of us that are interested in aviation but not 'enthusiasts' like me. Use of jargon excessively is always bad, especially on a site like this where people who became interested in transport as gamers may be trying to learn more about it.

Sorry I'm soapboxing. But as an academic writer I'm always aware that its good practice to introduce an acronym that isn't in common usage first, if your going to use it.

The other week the headline of local transport today was "SERA tells DfT RFA should not cover HA overspend". I actually. Understood it. That is frankly terrifying.

Crikey Jamie, you know your stuff. I didn't know it was that bad. Rolling stock shortage is a f*** joke, an absolute f*** joke, if there are spare paths or at the trains that are too short somthing should be done, DfT should step in, or TOCs should buy their own sodding stock, it really is stupid. Theres no reason for it. An extra carriage here or their is almost a marginal cost when it comes to staff and track costs. its pathetic. It makes me mad. Tbh railways make me mad. They are so confusing and esoteric

[Kevo00]

At least I explained what the majority of the acronyms meant.... anyway, most of them are easy to work out - BA = British Airways, LHR = Heathrow, but with all rules, there are always exceptions - with IATA codes running out, newer airlines in particular have annoying ones: Easyjet = U2, Wizzair = W3, Cityjet = WX, (now defunct) Oasis = O8, Ryanair = FR, the list goes on....

P.S. I know that Ryanair has been around for 30 years, but they didn't get an easy code....

Hence why you can't really use IATA codes without explaination then, because I had no idea that 'U2' on my luggage was the IATA code! And to go back to an earlier one, how on earth would we be expected to know that Czech Airlines has OK? I agree that some are obvious however.

As for the loco hauled, spare a thought for the poor users of those services stuck with that crappy old stock. At least the enthusiasts should boost the takings. And GC need to do the decent thing and hurry up and go bankrupt.

[teccuk]

As for the loco hauled, spare a thought for the poor users of those services stuck with that crappy old stock. At least the enthusiasts should boost the takings. And GC need to do the decent thing and hurry up and go bankrupt.

Apologies but who are GC? I missed that one i think...

[Kevo00]

Sorry! GC is Grand Central, the new open access operator going from Kings Cross to Sunderland. They just annoy me, because when you look up tickets to ECML destinations south of York they fill up the Trainline with their cheap tickets for pensioners that I can't use!

[JamieLei]

Use NXEC's booking engine - it's easier to use and doesn't rip you off with credit card fees. If you're just looking for fares, then try the pure NRE (National Rail Enquiries) site.

This is also very useful for finding the lowest fares, if you're as much of a cheapskate as me. However, some of the absolute lowest fares aren't available half the time, and only for the last train of the day, middle of the day to Ludlow, pensioner's train to Eastbourne etc...

There are 39 sets of 172. Why are XC not ordering some! - Their Stanstead services are packed to the brim as they're all 2-car sets. The 3-car 170s are all on the Nottingham - Cardiffs to soak up those who cant fit on the 5-car Voyagers running the same route. (4-car ones are now dedicated to Reading, and now they're overflowing...)

On average it costs £1.5 million PER COACH to build a MU train, even more if you was something that's high speed or tilty. THAT's why ROSCOs are reluctant to accept leasing contracts when they can be happy to just lease crappy old 142s which they paid pennies for. FGW can only afford to provide 3 trains per 2 hours on the Avonmouth line because Bristol Council pay for the lease of the extra train. At least SWT Island Line own the 1938-stock... (they bought it for £1) - it would be pitiful if they still had to lease them...

[Kevo00]

I am talking about the NXEC booking engine, which I believe is powered by the trainline!

As for the ROSCOs, that is exactly why we need more vertical integration in railways...

[Ameecher]

XC aren't ordering 172s because 172s would be useless on the Birmingham to Stansted route as they only have a top speed of 75 compared to the 100 of a 170.

Note also that it is Stansted without an A at the end.

The arrival of 172s will be a good thing because they will displace many 150s to other locations although I expect many will go to Arriva Trains Wales and Worst Late Western. Since there is no plan to use 172s to displace 156s this will not be much good to NatEx East Anglia who operate a fleet of 153s and 156s and although Crown Point did maintain 150s for a period having the uncommonality of a couple of 150s would not be much good.

[JamieLei]

The 172/0s will indeed have a top speed of 75mph, but the 172/2s and 172/3s which LM will use will have a top speed of 100mph. Therefore, it makes it no worse than the current 170s (in fact, they're better because they're lighter and have faster acceleration).

I guess if I'm allowed to be picky about people using apostrophes in the wrong place, you can be picky about me mis-spelling Stansted...

NXEC will probably end up getting Northern 156s, having been displaced by more 150s. It's all part of the merry-go-round of stock. No wonder Northern hardly make an effort to brand stock - there's still 153s trundling round with Northern Spirit and Arriva on them...

[teccuk]

Whoops, drunken posting the other night.

And that's my point 1.5m is sod all when your looking at costs on the railways, (in fact that sounds very cheap, are you sure?). Track and trams are costing anything up to 30m a km. Its the way the industry is set up at the moment that's the problem, Kev is right. If you bought a couple of 142's back in 1995 you'd be rolling in it from the leasing alone. FGW have just spent millions on refreshing their HST stock. But yet they don't even own it. BCC is subsidising Avonmouth to the tune of 400k a year. When you work out the price per passenger that will be a ludicrous sum per journey.

[JamieLei]

Source: http://www.moneycontrol.com/india/news/ ... cle/317412

"Twelve 2-car [Class 172 Turbostar] trains and fifteen 3-car trains worth 129 million euros"
69 cars, worth 129 million euros
€1,869,565 per coach => £1,468,131 (1 GBP = 1.27343 EUR)
So £1.5 million per coach ^_^

But that's only for the purchase. Fuel costs will shoot it through the roof...

[Kevo00]

Yep. What we need for rural routes is a Pacer for the 21st century, if thats not a Boris Johnsonism. But seriously, we need a new cheap lightweight train that is well designed, and that people are going to want to travel on, and which is compatible with present track conditions. Then the bigger stock such as the 170s could be concentrated on the lines that can actually pay for them.

On the subject of Boris Johnson, any of you living in London, do the decent thing tommorrow and don't vote for him! Vote for anyone you like, but for sure Boris' transport policies are sure to lead to disaster.

[JamieLei]

Oh god... Rentroducing Routemasters will be a disaster. He already got shot down when it turned out the cost of additional conductors would be much higher than he thought. And lastly, what will they do - go round with Oyster Card readers? - Noone pays for buses any more, especial in Central London where it's mandatory to buy tickets before getting on the bus, thus making conductors utterly _redundant_.

And why do the politicians hate Bendy Buses? - I think they're great and really speed up loading, exactly what we need in London. Just because most MPs idea of public transport is First Class Inter-City train, complete with full 3-course meal at taxpayers expense, they think they know what's the best...

For the sake of London's Public Transport, please DON'T vote for Boris. If you vote for Boris, you'll get the Conservative Party as mayor. If you vote for Ken Livingston, you'll get Ken Livingston as mayor.

[Kevo00]

Well the heritage routemasters do have conductors that brandish Oyster readers. But replacing bendies with 'new routemasters' (not even designed yet) is a non starter because it would require two routemasters plus their two conductors to get the same carrying capacity.

I think the bendies are good, especially on routes such as 512 which is a high capacity route running every 4 minutes at peak time. They can shift a lot of people and are good for short hops when you don't need to be on the bus for long. Also the accident statistics for bendies are not as bad as people like Boris try to make out. The main problem with them is that fare evasion is very high, as a lot of people get on at the back without oystering (stupid for the sake of 90p!). So more roving revenue collection might be a good idea there. But generally the Bendy Buses are a good idea - and its not like London has lost its Routemasters - thanks to heritage routes 9 and 15 they are actually running in places they weren't, such as the Aldwych, in 2005.

[Ameecher]

Come off it, Boris has got to win, yes his policies are crap and the man is a blithering fool but think of the years of satire we will get out of him! It'd be fantastic!

As for Bendy Buses, they have the disadvantage that they take up a lot of space on the road, particularily at junctions in order to get round the bends. They're not that bad but I still think a Double Decker is better.

[Kevo00]

Its precisely because we get so much satire out of him already that he shouldn't be in office!

[Parkey]

Yep. What we need for rural routes is a Pacer for the 21st century, if thats not a Boris Johnsonism. But seriously, we need a new cheap lightweight train that is well designed, and that people are going to want to travel on, and which is compatible with present track conditions. Then the bigger stock such as the 170s could be concentrated on the lines that can actually pay for them.

Seconded, although there's a fella who did a talk at the IMechE who wants to fit Mechatronics to a 142 Pacer to try to improve the ride quality. Basically an active suspension system that uses actuators to both smooth the ride and reduce the track wear. I would have thought that re-inventing railways from scratch starting with fire and the wheel would be an easier task than improving the Pacer to the point where I'd want to travel on one.

As for Boris Johnson.... just don't go there

[JamieLei]

Here's a statistic for you: Over 60% of 'Heat' magazine readers would vote for a politician based on his hairstyle rather than his policies.

I really hope that people don't vote for Boris just because he's got a funny name or that he's fun to poke fun at. Ok it worked for George Bush, but we're talking about the bigger issue here

[Ameecher]

Please bear in mind I was only joking on the Boris Johnson front.