London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 26th 06, 03:30 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,146
Default South West Trains retain franchise

In article . com,
(John B) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article
.com,
(MIG) wrote:

Come to think of it, the 166s are quite long and wider still,
and cover the Redhill to Gatwick bit.


I very much doubt that they are 23m long (or indeed ,longer than
20m) though.


23.5m, according to their owners:
http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/datashe...ail.aspx?ID=10

I suppose this isn't too surprising given that (via the 168s) they
were the basis for the Turbostar.


Oh! I thought all Turbostars were 20m.

--
Colin Rosenstiel
  #2   Report Post  
Old September 26th 06, 03:40 PM posted to uk.transport.london
MIG MIG is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,154
Default South West Trains retain franchise


Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article . com,
(John B) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article
.com,
(MIG) wrote:

Come to think of it, the 166s are quite long and wider still,
and cover the Redhill to Gatwick bit.

I very much doubt that they are 23m long (or indeed ,longer than
20m) though.


23.5m, according to their owners:
http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/datashe...ail.aspx?ID=10

I suppose this isn't too surprising given that (via the 168s) they
were the basis for the Turbostar.


Oh! I thought all Turbostars were 20m.




It was only checking for this discussion earlier that made me realise
that they are longer than Electrostars. (And that diesel Networkers,
sorry Network Turbos, are longer than electric Networkers.)

  #3   Report Post  
Old September 26th 06, 11:18 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,146
Default South West Trains retain franchise

In article .com,
(MIG) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article . com,
(John B) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article
.com,
(MIG) wrote:

Come to think of it, the 166s are quite long and wider
still, and cover the Redhill to Gatwick bit.

I very much doubt that they are 23m long (or indeed ,longer
than 20m) though.

23.5m, according to their owners:
http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/datashe...ail.aspx?ID=10

I suppose this isn't too surprising given that (via the 168s)
they were the basis for the Turbostar.


Oh! I thought all Turbostars were 20m.


It was only checking for this discussion earlier that made me
realisethat they are longer than Electrostars. (And that diesel
Networkers, sorry Network Turbos, are longer than electric Networkers.)


Interesting. I clearly failed to notice for all these years that all the
Super Sprinters were 23m.

--
Colin Rosenstiel
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
South Central franchise - key points [email protected] London Transport 2 November 3rd 08 05:58 PM
South Central franchise - key points Paul Corfield London Transport 0 November 3rd 08 05:40 PM
South Central Franchise consultation Paul Scott London Transport 2 May 22nd 08 01:06 PM
South West franchise winner to accept Oyster pay-as-you-go TravelBot London Transport News 0 March 24th 06 08:24 AM
South West Trains over District Line south of East Putney Martin J London Transport 2 February 17th 04 06:40 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017