On 23.06.16 21:41, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\06\23 21:18, wrote:
On 23.06.16 14:04, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:15:02PM -0000, Recliner wrote:

Parry hasn't managed to sell any more People Movers.

I'm not particularly surprised. They seem to be the sort of thing that
would only be useful on lines that are on the brink of closure.


Perhaps they could find some use on the Island Line?

Aren't they too tall for the tunnel?

Dunno.

In article ,
() wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 21:39:46 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2016\06\23 21:34, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 23.06.16 10:27, Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:15:02 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Yes, there are two similar Class 139 PPM60 vehicles, both LPG
powered, with 2.3l four cylinder industrial engines used to spin up
the flywheel:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_139



As a matter of interest, does anyone know if they'd be allowed on
lines that also had conventional heavy rail vehicles? I'd assume not.

Do they live on the branch? Where are they fuelled? Where are they
cleaned? Where are they maintained? Where do the drivers clock on?

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4348166

I think they can run on and of the branch using a connection behind the
camera in that view.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 09:18:19PM +0100, wrote:
On 23.06.16 14:04, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:15:02PM -0000, Recliner wrote:
Parry hasn't managed to sell any more People Movers.
I'm not particularly surprised. They seem to be the sort of thing that
would only be useful on lines that are on the brink of closure.
Perhaps they could find some use on the Island Line?

I think the Island Line is too long for them. The PPM seems to be very
low capacity. It can shift half a million people a year in Stourbridge
because it's a very short line so it can operate a very frequent shuttle
service. It couldn't on the Island Line, at least not without an awful
lot of vehicles in service at any time. That would require more staff,
presumably a big signalling upgrade, and so on.

Also, I'd not be surprised if the PPM was too tall for the Ryde tunnel!

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

In this episode, R2 and Luke weld the doors shut on their X-Wing,
and Chewbacca discovers that his Ewok girlfriend is really just a
Womble with its nose chopped off.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:30:29 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 09:18:19PM +0100, wrote:
On 23.06.16 14:04, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:15:02PM -0000, Recliner wrote:
Parry hasn't managed to sell any more People Movers.
I'm not particularly surprised. They seem to be the sort of thing that
would only be useful on lines that are on the brink of closure.
Perhaps they could find some use on the Island Line?

I think the Island Line is too long for them. The PPM seems to be very
low capacity. It can shift half a million people a year in Stourbridge
because it's a very short line so it can operate a very frequent shuttle
service. It couldn't on the Island Line, at least not without an awful
lot of vehicles in service at any time. That would require more staff,
presumably a big signalling upgrade, and so on.

I was in the IOW back in April. When we got the train its was actually quite
full. A PPM would be no substitute and a high frequency would require more
than just new signalling, most of the route is single track.

--
Spud

On 16/06/2016 12:26, Recliner wrote:
[...]
It has a high speed train service from London and Cambridge and is right
next door to the M11. I don't call that poor transport links.

The service isn't fast, frequent or reliable, and nor does it operate
for the full airport working day. Given that you've probably never
used public transport to Stansted (have you ever even used the
airport?), I'm not sure you're an expert on the subject.


Eh? The Stansted Express is frequent, and I don't think it has
particular reliability problems either.

On 16/06/2016 12:12, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 10:03:41 on Thu, 16 Jun
2016, d remarked:
FWIW, Stansted was built as the overflow airport for London. Apparently
that was future proofing air travel. Either they lied or they were
stupid, take your pick.

They failed (like so many others) to anticipate the effect on the market
of then-nonexistent low-cost airlines. Which is one of the reasons I
think that unpredictable things will happen if the UK detaches itself
from EU airspace policy.

I appreciate you wrote that before the day of judgement, but nonetheless
I'm pretty sure that the UK will remain part of the European Common
Aviation Area.

On 17/06/2016 08:09, tim... wrote:
[...]
Luton's main disadvantage is the need to get on a bus between the
airport and the station.

The station isn't any further from the check-in than many long term
car parks. The scandal is they have the nerve to charge for the bus
(although airport workers are carried free).

I'll take your word on that, having never in my life ever used an airport
long-term car park. All airports should have good public transport
access.
It's a blot on Luton that its is so poor.

It's not that poor.

There are plenty of airports with worse. Bristol, Leeds/Bradford,
Liverpool, Glasgow, just to name a few in the UK.

The bus (and the charge) is an annoyance, but it hardy pushes the PT
score down to 2/10.


The current major traffic jams at peak times for the roads accessing
Luton airport terminal area, partly a result of the popularity of the
airport, and partly a result of major upgrade works going on at the
moment, do not I understand make Luton a charming experience at present.
Everything gets caught up in this, including the shuttle buses from the
long and mid term car parks.

However, the access road is being dualled (using space originally set
aside for a possible light rail system), once that's done things should
improve.

The proposed 'monorail' link (that won't of course be a monorail, but
elevated light rail systems inevitably attract that moniker) would be a
significant improvement. That said, running better quality buses for the
shuttle service from Parkway would be an improvement. The current ones
aren't very swish.

In message , at 23:12:45 on Mon, 4 Jul 2016,
Mizter T remarked:
FWIW, Stansted was built as the overflow airport for London. Apparently
that was future proofing air travel. Either they lied or they were
stupid, take your pick.

They failed (like so many others) to anticipate the effect on the market
of then-nonexistent low-cost airlines. Which is one of the reasons I
think that unpredictable things will happen if the UK detaches itself
from EU airspace policy.

I appreciate you wrote that before the day of judgement, but
nonetheless I'm pretty sure that the UK will remain part of the
European Common Aviation Area.

Meanwhile, Easyjet say they are looking at moving their HQ from Luton to
somewhere on the continent.
--
Roland Perry

Mizter T wrote:

On 16/06/2016 12:26, Recliner wrote:
[...]
It has a high speed train service from London and Cambridge and is right
next door to the M11. I don't call that poor transport links.

The service isn't fast, frequent or reliable, and nor does it operate
for the full airport working day. Given that you've probably never
used public transport to Stansted (have you ever even used the
airport?), I'm not sure you're an expert on the subject.


Eh? The Stansted Express is frequent, and I don't think it has
particular reliability problems either.


It's certainly not fast or frequent by 'airport shuttle' standards, and
it's eye-wateringly expensive. Stansted is an absolutely awful airport in
almost every way, but their most amazing achievement has to be making
getting on a National Express coach feel like blessed relief.

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 21:50:39 on Tue, 5 Jul 2016, Clank
remarked:

Eh? The Stansted Express is frequent, and I don't think it has
particular reliability problems either.

It's certainly not fast or frequent by 'airport shuttle' standards, and
it's eye-wateringly expensive.

It's quite a long way. And the single is £3.50 more than either Gatwick
or Luton (noise level really, for a flight).
--
Roland Perry