On 9 Jan, 22:52, "Paul Scott" wrote:
How many 150s are currently used? Does 9 two car units allow for the
possibility of running in pairs? The West Midlands 2 and 3 cars are going to
have end gangways, apparently the Overground ones won't...

4 peak, 3 off-peak. I think they have 6 of them in total (plus 2 on
loan to FGW). End-to-end journey is 35 minutes, so you need 5 or 6 for
the planned 15 minute frequency. Having 9 would cover an hourly run to
Clapham Junction, though I've no idea if that's the intention.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Mr Thant wrote:

4 peak, 3 off-peak. I think they have 6 of them in total (plus 2 on
loan to FGW). End-to-end journey is 35 minutes, so you need 5 or 6 for
the planned 15 minute frequency. Having 9 would cover an hourly run to
Clapham Junction, though I've no idea if that's the intention.

I thought that the two that have passed to fGW were off-lease with TfL and
are now part of the "official" fGW fleet?

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:44:15 GMT, "Jack Taylor"
wrote:

Mr Thant wrote:

4 peak, 3 off-peak. I think they have 6 of them in total (plus 2 on
loan to FGW). End-to-end journey is 35 minutes, so you need 5 or 6 for
the planned 15 minute frequency. Having 9 would cover an hourly run to
Clapham Junction, though I've no idea if that's the intention.

I thought that the two that have passed to fGW were off-lease with TfL and
are now part of the "official" fGW fleet?

As an aside, as 2 were required for Bedford-Bletchley, does that mean
Silverlink had 100% utilisation of DMUs? It's amazing there weren't
more cancellations if that's true.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On 11 Jan, 06:27, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:44:15 GMT, "Jack Taylor"
I thought that the two that have passed to fGW were off-lease with TfL and
are now part of the "official" fGW fleet?

Not entirely sure what the arrangement is. I'm fairly sure TfL at
least briefly had all 8.

As an aside, as 2 were required for Bedford-Bletchley, does that mean
Silverlink had 100% utilisation of DMUs? *It's amazing there weren't
more cancellations if that's true.

Silverlink had 8 of them, which left two spare every day. AIUI, in
November London Midland got none, so must be using their ex-Central
Trains units for Bedford-Bletchley.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Mr Thant wrote:

Silverlink had 8 of them, which left two spare every day. AIUI, in
November London Midland got none, so must be using their ex-Central
Trains units for Bedford-Bletchley.

Correct - which is why a pair have gone off-lease and transferred to fGW.

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:48:28 GMT, "Jack Taylor"
wrote:

Mr Thant wrote:

Silverlink had 8 of them, which left two spare every day. AIUI, in
November London Midland got none, so must be using their ex-Central
Trains units for Bedford-Bletchley.

Correct - which is why a pair have gone off-lease and transferred to fGW.

So TfL now have 6, then, not 4?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Neil Williams wrote:

So TfL now have 6, then, not 4?

Correct. Most of them now inappropriately named for the Tottenham and
Hampstead route!

150 120 "Gospel Oak - Barking 2000"
150 123 "Richard Crane"
150 128 "Bedford-Bamberg 30"
150 129 "Marston Vale"
150 130 "Bedford - Bletchley 150"
150 131 "LESLIE CRABBE"


;-)

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:08:14 -0800 (PST), Mr Thant
wrote:

Silverlink had 8 of them, which left two spare every day. AIUI, in
November London Midland got none, so must be using their ex-Central
Trains units for Bedford-Bletchley.

They're using Network West Midlands-branded ones from Brum. This is
probably appreciated by the passengers, as they're in far better
condition than the ones that had been around the Goblin, but that has
resulted in slightly reduced reliability as if one fails they've got
to wait for another one to come down from Brum, meaning that at least
one return trip gets cancelled.

I wonder if they're Brum drivers and guards these days, to save the
Bletchley crews from needing to train on units they're unlikely to
need to use?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

It appears that the technological advantage that we have here in the United States is no longer going to sustain us without further advances. Previously our work in aerodynamics during and after WWII, our industrial capacity and our ongoing capitalization of the aerospace industry was enough to keep us ahead of the game. Currently in the US we see job losses in the aerospace mount in cities like Everett, WA and Wichita, KS. We see other areas trying to carve out a niche in the aviation manufacturing market cities like Albuquerque, NM and Centennial, CO. Yet in reality there are few niches, which do not have many competitors. One new market the mini-Business Jet, seems to be a potential as many companies are building these under 1 million dollar jets. Even so we are seeing the small business jet opening market as a long term positive in the private jet market, but a short-term problem for the small single engine turbo prop and piston markets of Beechcraft, Cessna and others. Long Term will be good because these are considered starter jets attracting new buyers to the market, however short term they will pull buyers away from the higher priced turbo cabin class singles of 4-8 seats. They may also pull buyers away from popular models such as the Beechcraft Bonanza, Cessna 210, Piper Malibu, Saratoga, etc.