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

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

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

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
news
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

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, 4:32*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

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

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

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

"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