|
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
New NR press release describing significantly smaller depot for Hornsey
site: http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...egoryID-8.aspx Should it therefore be assumed that there will be some existing facilities expanded on the existing MML route to compensate? IIRC there was some debate about why they would need such a major development on the GN side for what would be the lesser section of 'Thameslink North', IYSWIM... Paul S |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
Would not the depot north of Cricklewood be a better place?
On 25/01/2011 5:20 PM, Paul Scott wrote: New NR press release describing significantly smaller depot for Hornsey site: http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...egoryID-8.aspx Should it therefore be assumed that there will be some existing facilities expanded on the existing MML route to compensate? IIRC there was some debate about why they would need such a major development on the GN side for what would be the lesser section of 'Thameslink North', IYSWIM... Paul S |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
On Jan 25, 5:20*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: New NR press release describing significantly smaller depot for Hornsey site: http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...NEW-PLANS-FOR-... Should it therefore be assumed that there will be some existing facilities expanded on the existing MML route to compensate? *IIRC there was some debate about why they would need such a major development on the GN side for what would be the lesser section of 'Thameslink North', IYSWIM... Paul S Three Bridges Richard |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
"Fat richard" wrote in message ... On Jan 25, 5:20 pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: New NR press release describing significantly smaller depot for Hornsey site: http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...NEW-PLANS-FOR-... Should it therefore be assumed that there will be some existing facilities expanded on the existing MML route to compensate? IIRC there was some debate about why they would need such a major development on the GN side for what would be the lesser section of 'Thameslink North', IYSWIM... Three Bridges Thanks, that definitely seems to be the case, and since posting I discovered this morning via the Thameslink site news pages that they are currently applying to expand the Three Bridges site, (that was agreed last year). I wonder if the Crawley planners will go for the expansion, job creation or views this time? http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk...epotggedit.pdf I suppose it is important to realise that there is a difference between the facilities required for overnight maintenance and stabling and the actual depot that does the really detailed exam stuff and repairs - this is exactly how Siemens maintain the SWT Desiro fleet - every unit is allocated to Northam (Southampton) and visits there on rotation but there are a significant number of other locations for overnight stabling, tanking, toilets etc. Paul S |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
Three Bridges Must admit because I had been thinking the plan now of more Three Bridges and less Hornsey was known in the public domain I had not mentioned it. -- Nick |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
On 26/01/2011 11:14, Paul Scott wrote:
I suppose it is important to realise that there is a difference between the facilities required for overnight maintenance and stabling and the actual depot that does the really detailed exam stuff and repairs - this is exactly how Siemens maintain the SWT Desiro fleet - every unit is allocated to Northam (Southampton) and visits there on rotation but there are a significant number of other locations for overnight stabling, tanking, toilets etc. The impressive thing about Northam is that it caters for a large fleet of trains on a very compact site. They are fortunate in having the old docks branch lines as a capacious head shunt. Must admit I was surprised that they didn't opt for a part of Eastleigh works though. -- 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 |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
On Jan 26, 1:16*pm, Graeme Wall wrote:
I suppose it is important to realise that there is a difference between the facilities required for overnight maintenance and stabling and the actual depot that does the really detailed exam stuff and repairs - this is exactly how Siemens maintain the SWT Desiro fleet - every unit is allocated to Northam (Southampton) and visits there on rotation but there are a significant number of other locations for overnight stabling, tanking, toilets etc. The impressive thing about Northam is that it caters for a large fleet of trains on a very compact site. *They are fortunate in having the old docks branch lines as a capacious head shunt. *Must admit I was surprised that they didn't opt for a part of Eastleigh works though. I suggest Northam works exactly because it is not located in London. If you operate Londoncentric services, either as a terminal (SWT) or a through route made up of 2 (future 3) routes back-to-backed like TL, you don't plonk your depot in the middle, you locate it on the outer sections of the core routes. Any TL operator rotating a huge fleet of units via Hornsey would have something of a daily traffic control nightmare. Northam works exactly because of its location, and this is why Northampton is better than Bletchley, Aylesbury is better than Marylebone, Crown Point is better than Stratford/Thornton, and so on. Sure they all have ECS work, and there are special moves between Northam and London area but translate that to the TL core do you really want engineers ECS moves as well as service trains even off peak , even with the short OLE extension they were planning to get between MML and GNML.** 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. ** whats happened to that, maybe axed as an economy move and whats been driving the depot changes ? -- Nick |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
On 26/01/2011 13:31, D7666 wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:16 pm, Graeme wrote: I suppose it is important to realise that there is a difference between the facilities required for overnight maintenance and stabling and the actual depot that does the really detailed exam stuff and repairs - this is exactly how Siemens maintain the SWT Desiro fleet - every unit is allocated to Northam (Southampton) and visits there on rotation but there are a significant number of other locations for overnight stabling, tanking, toilets etc. The impressive thing about Northam is that it caters for a large fleet of trains on a very compact site. They are fortunate in having the old docks branch lines as a capacious head shunt. Must admit I was surprised that they didn't opt for a part of Eastleigh works though. I suggest Northam works exactly because it is not located in London. [snip explanation] Don't disagree but that wasn't my point. I was commenting on putting the operation on a physically constrained site. If you were going for a small site then I would have thought Bournemouth might have been a better option with reduced ECS movements required. Though Northam had access to a pool of trained labour with the then run-down of Eastleigh works. -- 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 |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
... The impressive thing about Northam is that it caters for a large fleet of trains on a very compact site. They are fortunate in having the old docks branch lines as a capacious head shunt. Must admit I was surprised that they didn't opt for a part of Eastleigh works though. Wasn't there a theory at the time that it was only by building elsewhere that Siemens could recruit a whole new workforce, ie mainly people who didn't work for Alstom at Eastleigh? Perhaps that might also explain why they built the LM maintenance base at Northampton rather than Bletchley... Paul |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
On 26/01/2011 13:49, Paul Scott wrote:
"Graeme Wall" wrote in message ... The impressive thing about Northam is that it caters for a large fleet of trains on a very compact site. They are fortunate in having the old docks branch lines as a capacious head shunt. Must admit I was surprised that they didn't opt for a part of Eastleigh works though. Wasn't there a theory at the time that it was only by building elsewhere that Siemens could recruit a whole new workforce, ie mainly people who didn't work for Alstom at Eastleigh? In which case why not go to Bournemouth? -- 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 |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
On Jan 26, 1:57*pm, Graeme Wall wrote:
In which case why not go to Bournemouth? Bournemouth would increase the distance of any special moves by over 60 miles (both ways) which is not something you really want to do with stock on mileage based intervals for some maintenance events. Also increased train crew hours. Probably also required a further power supply increase, Northam did for the depot, but was already in a strong area, so was smaller incremental increase. But almost certainly at the time Northam was set up, BOMO was the 442 depot and was there and remaining for 442s. I doubt there is enough room at the Branksome site to contain the existing full 442 facilities that was BOMO and add something of the same size as Northam. Suggesting now, today, that Bransksome site would have been better is using information that did exist in c.2001 or whenever it was that Siemens got the SWT contract, no-one had any plans to removes 442s at that time (this came into being with the solutions to BML RUS and the SWT re-franchise). -- Nick |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
On 26/01/2011 15:36, D7666 wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:57 pm, Graeme wrote: In which case why not go to Bournemouth? Bournemouth would increase the distance of any special moves by over 60 miles (both ways) which is not something you really want to do with stock on mileage based intervals for some maintenance events. Also increased train crew hours. But most services start/end in that direction Probably also required a further power supply increase, Northam did for the depot, but was already in a strong area, so was smaller incremental increase. Possibly so. But almost certainly at the time Northam was set up, BOMO was the 442 depot and was there and remaining for 442s. I doubt there is enough room at the Branksome site to contain the existing full 442 facilities that was BOMO and add something of the same size as Northam. Hadn't thought of the 442s as being a problem in that respect. Suggesting now, today, that Bransksome site would have been better is using information that did exist in c.2001 or whenever it was that Siemens got the SWT contract, no-one had any plans to removes 442s at that time (this came into being with the solutions to BML RUS and the SWT re-franchise). I thought they were always planned to go on the introduction of the 444s. -- 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 |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
On Jan 26, 3:45*pm, Graeme Wall wrote:
Suggesting now, today, that Bransksome site would have been better is using information that did exist in c.2001 or whenever it was that Siemens got the SWT contract, no-one had any plans to removes 442s at that time (this came into being with the solutions to BML RUS and the SWT re-franchise). I thought they were always planned to go on the introduction of the 444s. NO WAY !!! It was 458s that were to have gone. There was no intention to eliminate 442s by Desiros or Coradias or anything else by thats sort of cascade. The SWT re-franchise was a hard bottom line accounting fight against other bidders and all about numbers of seats and numbers of cars and leasing charges. Quantity of cars is exactyl the same - 120 458 cars 120 442 cars but 30 458s v. 30 442s is more felxibale, and the lease charge for a 458 was SIGNIFICANTLY less than a 442 - this is all been gone through in uk.railway at the time 442s were stopped, and is also in my 442 article in Todays Railways UK at the time. On top of that, the fleets offer 8370 seats in 458s but 8208 seats in 442s** only +1% but thats the sort of thing D(a)fT loves. Release of the 442s from the SWD to CD allowed the solution BML/SN/ GEx solution.++ The point is, BOMO was remaining as 442 depot at the time Siemens needed a site. I also dont understand what Bournemouth would increase the distance of any special moves by over But most services start/end in that direction Branksome is ~30 miles further away from London than Northam. Special moves which already exist to swap over units between London and Northam would have 60 train miles per return trip extra. Also don't forget there are several daily booked moves between Northam and the Portsmouth direct line for normal traffic: those would also have to run the extra distance, all takes extra crews, extra mileage, extra power, bigger new Forest traction supply reinforcement and so on and on. ** some pedant will be along to argue about exact seat numbers but they'll only alter thing by +/-1-2 seats per unit which does not impact the argument. ++ given the current idea of morphing 458 + 460 into one fleet I still reckon SWD keeping 442s and CD getting 458s mixed with 460s would have been better. -- Nick |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
... On 26/01/2011 15:36, D7666 wrote: Bournemouth would increase the distance of any special moves by over 60 miles (both ways) which is not something you really want to do with stock on mileage based intervals for some maintenance events. Also increased train crew hours. But most services start/end in that direction 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. Paul |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
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. Nick 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 ! Richard |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
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, thats 700+ miles per day, 5 days a week, ~50 weeks a year allowing public holidays, is 180,000 extra unit miles - which over a 10 year franchise is then 1.8 million miles. Then it'll be at least 1/2 an hour on every train crew diagram, the a.m. turn will be a different crew to the p.m. crew. And that half hour is earlier a.m. dep. and later p.m. arr., al adding up to 1 hour less on depot, etc etc. I make it Northam currently berths 14 units overnight, Branksome 19. Unknown quantity of 444/450 at Northam on heavy exams not presented for traffic , lets say 1 x 444 and 3 x 450 ??? In 2004 (because the data is on hand) i.e. before 442 changes, and it was an actual depot full maintenance and running depot BOMO berthed 22 units for traffic (not all 444, some were Cig but that is irrelevant they'd be replaced by 450) plus minimum 1 x 442 not for traffic under maintenance. I would suggest BOMO would not have had the space to have gone from 23 to 41 units along with all the space for Siemens workshops and stores and so on. -- Nick |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
On 26/01/2011 16:02, D7666 wrote:
On Jan 26, 3:45 pm, Graeme wrote: Suggesting now, today, that Bransksome site would have been better is using information that did exist in c.2001 or whenever it was that Siemens got the SWT contract, no-one had any plans to removes 442s at that time (this came into being with the solutions to BML RUS and the SWT re-franchise). I thought they were always planned to go on the introduction of the 444s. NO WAY !!! It was 458s that were to have gone. I hadn't realised the 458s were going to be replaced with 442s. Doesn't seem to be appropriate stock for the sort of services those were/are used for. There was no intention to eliminate 442s by Desiros or Coradias or anything else by thats sort of cascade. How did Coradias get into this? The SWT re-franchise was a hard bottom line accounting fight against other bidders and all about numbers of seats and numbers of cars and leasing charges. Quantity of cars is exactyl the same - 120 458 cars 120 442 cars but 30 458s v. 30 442s is more felxibale, and the lease charge for a 458 was SIGNIFICANTLY less than a 442 - this is all been gone through in uk.railway at the time 442s were stopped, and is also in my 442 article in Todays Railways UK at the time. Guess who didn't read it... On top of that, the fleets offer 8370 seats in 458s but 8208 seats in 442s** only +1% but thats the sort of thing D(a)fT loves. Release of the 442s from the SWD to CD allowed the solution BML/SN/ GEx solution.++ The point is, BOMO was remaining as 442 depot at the time Siemens needed a site. OK already :-) I also dont understand what Bournemouth would increase the distance of any special moves by over But most services start/end in that direction Branksome is ~30 miles further away from London than Northam. Special moves which already exist to swap over units between London and Northam would have 60 train miles per return trip extra. But local moves to depot and back, which, I assume, would form the greater number would be less. Also don't forget there are several daily booked moves between Northam and the Portsmouth direct line for normal traffic: those would also have to run the extra distance, all takes extra crews, extra mileage, extra power, bigger new Forest traction supply reinforcement and so on and on. Good point. -- 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 |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
On 26/01/2011 18:00, D7666 wrote:
On Jan 26, 4:32 pm, "Paul wrote: In 2004 (because the data is on hand) i.e. before 442 changes, and it was an actual depot full maintenance and running depot BOMO berthed 22 units for traffic (not all 444, some were Cig but that is irrelevant they'd be replaced by 450) plus minimum 1 x 442 not for traffic under maintenance. I would suggest BOMO would not have had the space to have gone from 23 to 41 units along with all the space for Siemens workshops and stores and so on. Fairy snuff. -- 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 |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
On Jan 26, 6:26*pm, Graeme Wall 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. 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 ? How did Coradias get into this? Because 458s (and 460s) are Coradias. Check previous uk.railway msgs on original meaning of Coradia and Juniper. -- Nick |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
"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... Paul |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
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 |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
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 |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
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?) |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
"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 |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
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 |
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
|
Thameslink - Hornsey depot new application
"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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk