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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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