On Mar 2, 9:04*pm, cj wrote:

On Feb 10, 9:51*pm, cj wrote:

On Feb 10, 9:58*am, Offramp wrote:

Does anyone know if the rail replacement bus still runs twice
a week on the Ealing Broadway to Wands worthRoad route?
I think I read that rail services were going to continue from
December 2009.

A question was asked in parliament in Jan regarding this service:
http://tiny.cc/fr5ig(Hansard)
I recall (from somewhere!) that the plan is to run
Wandsworth- KPA -Ealingaround 12:00, with a return back to
Wandsworth just after 13:00. Not sure what stock or where it'll
reverse etc!
~cj

The services that will put the 'ghost bus' to rest have appeared in
the timetables from 24th May as follows:

10:48 Wandsworth Road
11:11 Kensington Olympia
11:13 Shepherd's Bush
11:30 Ealing Broadway

12:07 Ealing Broadway
12:29 Shepherd's Bush
12:32 Kensington Olympia
12:50 Wandsworth Road

I'm just curious as to what stock Southern will use for this service -
seems a bit of a waste to have one of their DMUs so far off normal
territory for a good few hours. Unless dual-voltage stock is possible
for the whole route - how would it get from Ealing to Shepherd's Bush?
~cj

Interesting, thanks for the spot. Afraid I think this whole thing is
rather ridiculous.

I posit that the letter of the law about route closures is not
actually totally clear cut, rather that it's somewhat muddled, not
least because the realities of such situations are not easy to
legislate for.

Furthermore this particular case is somewhat absurd in that the
withdrawn XC service never provided a link between Wandsworth Road,
Kensington Olympia and Ealing Broadway stations - and journeys between
those stations can be quite successfully accomplished using the
existing network.

I'm minded to think that the push by Passenger Focus et al (but
notably not London Travlwatch, AFAIAA) for a proper 'parly' service
might possibly end up having negative repercussions - whilst the quasi-
enthusiast Adonis (who's done much good, I don't doubt that) decreed
to his DfT Rail servants that a train service shall run, I'm guessing
in part because he saw that as being a legal requirement [1], I can't
help but think the new mob of Cameron, Osbourne & co. won't be too
enamoured by such profligacy - and if the advice comes back that it's
required by law, then they might just change that law, and not just
the bit about route closures - think other elements of today's
railways that enjoy legislative protection as well, e.g. regulated
fares.

-----
[1] But what of Wedgwood, Barlaston and Norton Bridge?