On 26/01/2011 18:43, Paul Scott wrote:
"D7666" wrote in message
...
On Jan 26, 4:32 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

In fact, ECS movements are not that significant - as the vast
majority of
the fleet are stabled elsewhere overnight. There are only half a dozen
departures from Northam for the morning peak, and four are local.
Southampton Central (x2), Parkway, Eastleigh/Winchester (splits).
Basingstoke and West Byfleet are the exceptions. In the afternoon
there are
departures to Havant, Fareham and Basingstoke.

So it would seem that the overall fleet diagramming copes with the
location
quite efficiently.

Yes ... at Northam ... my point is if BOMO were used instead, that
half a dozen trains is ~a dozen untis all racking up an extra ~60
miles per day...

I make it Northam currently berths 14 units overnight, Branksome 19.

Yes - my '6 departures' is 14 units. The point I was really making for
Graeme is that Northam appears to be busy, and yet as it turns out it
only dispatches a pretty small part of the fleet each morning, and they
aren't going as far as he anticipated, anyway...


Thanks for the elucidation. There always seems always seems to be a lot
of movements happening there.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net

On 26/01/2011 18:43, D7666 wrote:
On Jan 26, 6:26 pm, Graeme wrote:

I thought they were always planned to go on the introduction of the 444s.
It was 458s that were to have gone.

I hadn't realised the 458s were going to be replaced with 442s.

No.

I never said that.

Doesn't
seem to be appropriate stock for the sort of services those were/are
used for.


Nor did I imply that.

Jumping to conclusions on my part.


Pre re-franchise the fleet was 455+450+442+444 that went to
455+450+444+458 after re-franchise. I said nothing about exactly what
type of unit was employed on what service.


Did the fact that the re-frnachised SWT altered Pompey direct from
444s to 450s, and Readings from 450s back to 458s, and so on entirely
escape you ?

Two lines I never use now so yes it probably did. The last time I used
the Reading-Waterloo service is around 30 years ago. I've been into
Pompey on a 450 but that was from Southampton.


How did Coradias get into this?


Because 458s (and 460s) are Coradias.

Ah, I knew them as Junipers, hence my confusion.


Check previous uk.railway msgs on original meaning of Coradia and
Juniper.


Cheers.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net

On Jan 26, 4:49*pm, Fat richard wrote:

On Jan 26, 1:31*pm, D7666 wrote:

Given that even with the full TL pattern the GN side only gets 1/3 of
through trains and MML side 2/3, first it makes more sense for depots
on the MML side, but even greater sense its south of the river,
towards Brighton/Sussex coastway, at least as far out of Gatwick, in
which case 3B is the ideal.

Yes it really is a no brainer. At present TL has a gaping wound south
of Cricklewood. There is no where to get units to when they go wrong
"south of the river". Lovers Walk offer C.E.T. discharge and tanking
ONLY and this is at weekends only. Selhurst is an occasional stabling
location (especially weekends) but there is NO work done on TL units
there at all and FCC fitters cannot work there except in very very
unusual circumstances. A failure there or a dumped unit is dealt with
by dragging the defective stock out North side. So apart from dumping
stock at Brighton, in the sidings at Preston Park or Gatwick (the
three places a fitter can work) it's a case of cancel the train and
run it to Cricklewood or preferably Cauldwell. Of course running
defective stock all that way is a nightmare. A Brightoon driver needs
to get to the stock and work it all the way North and then doesn't
sign Cauldwell and by the time he travels back passenger what else can
he do in a day after a P.N.B. As mentioned elsewhere there is also the
"core" through the centre of London. Running a unit on half power or
being dragged / in some form of degraded mode with a change of power
at Farringdon makes the person that organises this a nervous person.
Seeing the train clear the tunnels into Kentish Town is always a
pleasant site.

So the positives.

Cauldwell / Hornsey / Three Bridges - No brainer !

Having had dealings both GN / TL operations in the past I have to say
that the GN really is a dream. Plenty of stabling at the end of all of
the service groups (Peterborough, Cambridge, |Kings Lynn, Welwyn and
Letchworth and lots of rotating diagrams so that evven if you have
defective stock there are enough planned moves to and from Hornsey to
swap trains around and running an emty train to Hornsey from almost
anywhere on the GN to Hornsey was never really a major issue. I wonder
sometimes why I went over to TL from the GN !

I'm curious as to why Selhurst is so off-limits?
(And what are the chances of a Three Bridges depot?)

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

(And what are the chances of a Three Bridges depot?)

Very high I think - it gained its planning permission early last year,
however they now want to expand it - as I mentioned this morning, presumably
creating more jobs etc etc.

Hornsey's loss, Crawley's gain?

Paul S

On Jan 26, 7:21*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 26, 4:49*pm, Fat richard wrote:





On Jan 26, 1:31*pm, D7666 wrote:

Given that even with the full TL pattern the GN side only gets 1/3 of
through trains and MML side 2/3, first it makes more sense for depots
on the MML side, but even greater sense its south of the river,
towards Brighton/Sussex coastway, at least as far out of Gatwick, in
which case 3B is the ideal.

Yes it really is a no brainer. At present TL has a gaping wound south
of Cricklewood. There is no where to get units to when they go wrong
"south of the river". Lovers Walk offer C.E.T. discharge and tanking
ONLY and this is at weekends only. Selhurst is an occasional stabling
location (especially weekends) but there is NO work done on TL units
there at all and FCC fitters cannot work there except in very very
unusual circumstances. A failure there or a dumped unit is dealt with
by dragging the defective stock out North side. So apart from dumping
stock at Brighton, in the sidings at Preston Park or Gatwick (the
three places a fitter can work) it's a case of cancel the train and
run it to Cricklewood or preferably Cauldwell. Of course running
defective stock all that way is a nightmare. A Brightoon driver needs
to get to the stock and work it all the way North and then doesn't
sign Cauldwell and by the time he travels back passenger what else can
he do in a day after a P.N.B. As mentioned elsewhere there is also the
"core" through the centre of London. Running a unit on half power or
being dragged / in some form of degraded mode with a change of power
at Farringdon makes the person that organises this a nervous person.
Seeing the train clear the tunnels into Kentish Town is always a
pleasant site.

So the positives.

Cauldwell / Hornsey / Three Bridges - No brainer !

Having had dealings both GN / TL operations in the past I have to say
that the GN really is a dream. Plenty of stabling at the end of all of
the service groups (Peterborough, Cambridge, |Kings Lynn, Welwyn and
Letchworth and lots of rotating diagrams so that evven if you have
defective stock there are enough planned moves to and from Hornsey to
swap trains around and running an emty train to Hornsey from almost
anywhere on the GN to Hornsey was never really a major issue. I wonder
sometimes why I went over to TL from the GN !

I'm curious as to why Selhurst is so off-limits?
(And what are the chances of a Three Bridges depot?)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Selhurst is purely a stabling point for FCC, although of late there
has been some wheel turning at weekends during the booked blocks. If
you think back to how many of the 319s used to be based at Selhurst
and how much work was lost by staff you may or may not come up with a
reason that may or may not ever be accepted by anyone as the truth.
Keeping the current Southern fleet staff there up to speed on 319s,
their own workload, FCC staff working in another companies depot etc
etc may be the official reason. Finance I suspect would be another.

Three Bridges is, I suspect more than a "chance". There are proposals
for both the up and down yards to be used at Three Bridges and some of
the remaining land may well be used for another interesting project as
well. I see Three Bridges being a destination for a lot of staff over
the coming years. There are also proposals for some extra siding space
at Brighton (down side in the old yards whoise name escapes me). In
all cases cited above there are plans drawn up but whether they are on
the public facing part of the NR website I know not. A very quick scan
does not reveal much and as Paul S advises there have been some local
planning reports floating around

Richard

In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

(And what are the chances of a Three Bridges depot?)

Very high I think - it gained its planning permission early last
year, however they now want to expand it - as I mentioned this
morning, presumably creating more jobs etc etc.

Hornsey's loss, Crawley's gain?

I think Hornsey will cope. It has at least one other highly successful and
expanding business just round the corner.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Fat richard" wrote in message
...

Three Bridges is, I suspect more than a "chance". There are proposals
for both the up and down yards to be used at Three Bridges and some of
the remaining land may well be used for another interesting project as
well.

That aspect of the depot, ie being on both sides of the mainline, was
already approved AIUI from the earlier drawings that were on the Thameslink
website last year.

I see Three Bridges being a destination for a lot of staff over
the coming years. There are also proposals for some extra siding space
at Brighton (down side in the old yards whoise name escapes me). In
all cases cited above there are plans drawn up but whether they are on
the public facing part of the NR website I know not. A very quick scan
does not reveal much and as Paul S advises there have been some local
planning reports floating around

It seemed at the time, although I'm remembering from nearly a year ago, that
the Three Bridges planning application seemed to go through with no major
issues. So it would seem that the precedent for the work was set then. I'm
not expert in planning matters though, so I don't know if they have to start
from scratch again, or the changes comes under some sort of variation
procedure.

Paul