http://tinyurl.com/5asy9b
http://tinyurl.com/5deoog

Now we are looking at 1,100 vehicles (equivalent to 275 EMUs in 4-car
formation), which according to the DfT is a net increase of 380
vehicles.

In message
, at
03:48:54 on Wed, 9 Apr 2008, remarked:
http://tinyurl.com/5asy9b
http://tinyurl.com/5deoog

Now we are looking at 1,100 vehicles

That's 200 more than last time Ruth Kelly announced it in July last
year:

http://www.gos.gov.uk/gose/news/news...rojectForRail/

(equivalent to 275 EMUs in 4-car formation), which according to the DfT
is a net increase of 380 vehicles.

An increase of 380 in the size of Thameslink's fleet. [1].

So is that 380 out of the "famous 1000 more", or are they 100 over their
budget already?

Nice to see this re-announced again, anyway (it confirms our
prejudices); I wonder how many more times the same thing will be
announced

[1] Is that 380 more than the original size, or 380 more than the size
of the fleet after expansion with the 48 carriages announced almost
exactly a year ago?
--
Roland Perry

On 9 Apr, 11:48, wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/5asy9bhttp://tinyurl.com/5deoog

Now we are looking at 1,100 vehicles (equivalent to 275 EMUs in 4-car
formation), which according to the DfT is a net increase of 380
vehicles.

Other interesting highlights:

* legal ownership will be structured in the conventional ROSCO way,
not as a PFI, but the tender will have to be jointly placed by the
manufacturer and the ROSCO working together

* the trains must weigh less than 32 tonnes per coach

* the bidder is required to consider the option of building a fleet
with two internal fit-outs (outer-suburban and metro. Wonder how long
that split would last in practice?)

* 45 second dwell times required

* the trains are required to deliver a 20 minute journey from Kentish
Town to London Bridge. Nitro!

* wifi and power sockets throughout

* a bit of ambiguity on bogs: all train designs must be "capable of
carrying" controlled emission toilets...

* ETMS2 required from the start

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
, at
03:48:54 on Wed, 9 Apr 2008, remarked:
http://tinyurl.com/5asy9b
http://tinyurl.com/5deoog

Now we are looking at 1,100 vehicles

That's 200 more than last time Ruth Kelly announced it in July last year:

http://www.gos.gov.uk/gose/news/news...rojectForRail/

(equivalent to 275 EMUs in 4-car formation), which according to the DfT is
a net increase of 380 vehicles.

An increase of 380 in the size of Thameslink's fleet. [1].

So is that 380 out of the "famous 1000 more", or are they 100 over their
budget already?

Nice to see this re-announced again, anyway (it confirms our prejudices);
I wonder how many more times the same thing will be announced

[1] Is that 380 more than the original size, or 380 more than the size of
the fleet after expansion with the 48 carriages announced almost exactly a
year ago?


A few more confusing numbers - I'd recommend waiting until Roger Ford gets
the real inside info and explains the figures!

Remember the latest Rolling Stock Plan (RSP) had a number (256) of EMUs for
FCC, rather than just Thameslink, in context this included the GN side as
well. However, I reckon these 'Thameslink 1100' are in addition to the 1300
in the RSP.

What clouds the issue further is the '48' and more recent '44' 377 vehicles
going to Thameslink for KO0, by all accounts they only stay until the new
units with their amazing acceleration and short dwell times arrive in time
for the 24 tph through the core route. Clearly 377s won't be able to keep
up!

Also - one other odd aspect - the Ruth Kelly sponsored press release states
1100 - but another document on the DfT site:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/th...ndoverview.pdf

says 'between 900 and 1300'. Don't they really know what they want?

In the same paragraph they say that configurations other than 20m cars are
welcomed - presumably any longer and the tunnels would have to be
straightened?

Paul

On Apr 9, 1:10*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:


What clouds the issue further

So many clouds I have given up trying to track all this.

--
Nick

On Apr 9, 1:10*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Clearly 377s won't be able to keep
up!


Dunno about that bit - a 375/377 is the same thing as a 376 except the
latter has more motors and - on DC at least - if comparing trains of
the same length - a higher current draw.

Mix and match 377 could be on the cards ... ... ... I'm saying no
more ) ... its this is one of the reason I have given up counting
cars and units.


--
Nick

"D7666" wrote in message
...
On Apr 9, 1:10 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

What clouds the issue further

So many clouds I have given up trying to track all this.

Perhaps Roland should too - we can collectively pay the Rail Press to do it
for us!

But make sure to pick the right magazine - I see Railway Magazine itself had
a 'bollock-o-gram' from Tom Harris MP after they ran a highly pessimistic
piece, suggesting that the majority of the Rolling Stock plan was simply a
reshuffle of existing stock between TOCs...

LOL

Paul

On Apr 9, 11:48*am, wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/5asy9b
http://tinyurl.com/5deoog

I love the fact that at the end of a highly detailed, demanding
technical specification for a train that is meant to be suitable for
metro-style ATO as well as Kings Lynn to Eastbourne runs, there is the
following:

"Maintenance downtimes must be significantly reduced from the current
increasing trend that has arisen due to unnecessary sophistication".

In message , at 13:20:24 on
Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Paul Scott remarked:
What clouds the issue further

So many clouds I have given up trying to track all this.

Perhaps Roland should too - we can collectively pay the Rail Press to do it
for us!

I have given up (apart from to odd heckle from the sidelines like today)
tracking the numbers. Especially when people say this 1100 might be on
top of an earlier 1300, and I was only trying to track a different 1000.

On the other hand I may still try to track the announcements, and in the
longer term whether or not anything like the promises were delivered.
--
Roland Perry

On Apr 9, 2:57*pm, EE507 wrote:


"Maintenance downtimes must be significantly reduced from the current
increasing trend that has arisen due to unnecessary sophistication".

Sounds like Henry Law could have written that !!!

--
Nick