| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#61
February 13th 17, 04:47 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak -
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:15:42 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600 wrote: "electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking rail corridor, to improve a key freight corridor and improving reliability for passengers. " And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either. Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then? No I find that hard to believe. Do you *really* not know what trains are being built for the line? Unlike you I have a job to do and don't spend my life researching every little piece of obscure information about railways. With your expert knowledge of LO, the Goblin, UK railfreight and electric traction, you must be right. But the people actually putting up the money thought differently. If only they had had access to some expert consulting from you! Ah yes, the people putting in the money. The ones who made sure specs were being followed in the installation of the wiring. Would those be the guys? -- Spud |
|
#62
February 13th 17, 04:50 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak - Barking
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:29:45 +0000
David Walters wrote: On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:04:48 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600 And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either. Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then? I find that hard to believe. TfL are buying 45 four-car 710s for use on the West Anglia Routes and the Watford DC, GOBLIN and Romford to Upminster lines I should have guessed. Another pointless new EMU design costing extra when there's already perfectly servicable one in the 378. I guess shiny new toys are more important than saving money and having interoperability with existing equipment when its someone elses money you're spending. -- Spud |
|
#63
February 13th 17, 05:17 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak - Barking
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:29:45 +0000 David Walters wrote: On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:04:48 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600 And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either. Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then? I find that hard to believe. TfL are buying 45 four-car 710s for use on the West Anglia Routes and the Watford DC, GOBLIN and Romford to Upminster lines I should have guessed. Another pointless new EMU design costing extra when there's already perfectly servicable one in the 378. I guess shiny new toys are more important than saving money and having interoperability with existing equipment when its someone elses money you're spending. By that impeccable logic, they should have ordered some new-build 313s, not shiny new 378s. |
|
#64
February 13th 17, 05:17 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak -
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:15:42 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600 wrote: "electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking rail corridor, to improve a key freight corridor and improving reliability for passengers. " And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either. Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then? No I find that hard to believe. Do you *really* not know what trains are being built for the line? Unlike you I have a job to do and don't spend my life researching every little piece of obscure information about railways. With your expert knowledge of LO, the Goblin, UK railfreight and electric traction, you must be right. But the people actually putting up the money thought differently. If only they had had access to some expert consulting from you! Ah yes, the people putting in the money. The ones who made sure specs were being followed in the installation of the wiring. Would those be the guys? You seem to have, even by your standards, a rather poor understanding of the difference between putting up the money, and on-the-ground engineering. I suppose, as always, ignorance is your defence. |
|
#65
February 13th 17, 05:32 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak -
|
|
#67
February 13th 17, 06:26 PM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak - Barking
In article , d () wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:29:45 +0000 David Walters wrote: On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:04:48 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600 And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either. Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then? I find that hard to believe. TfL are buying 45 four-car 710s for use on the West Anglia Routes and the Watford DC, GOBLIN and Romford to Upminster lines I should have guessed. Another pointless new EMU design costing extra when there's already perfectly servicable one in the 378. I guess shiny new toys are more important than saving money and having interoperability with existing equipment when its someone elses money you're spending. They aren't a new design, just a variant of the class 345 Aventras being bought for Crossrail/Elizabeth Line. Likewise the 378s were just another variant of the Electrostar. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
|
#68
February 14th 17, 09:46 AM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak - Barking
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:17:15 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:29:45 +0000 David Walters wrote: On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:04:48 +0000 (UTC), d wrote: On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600 And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either. Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then? I find that hard to believe. TfL are buying 45 four-car 710s for use on the West Anglia Routes and the Watford DC, GOBLIN and Romford to Upminster lines I should have guessed. Another pointless new EMU design costing extra when there's already perfectly servicable one in the 378. I guess shiny new toys are more important than saving money and having interoperability with existing equipment when its someone elses money you're spending. By that impeccable logic, they should have ordered some new-build 313s, not shiny new 378s. The last 378 car only rolled off the production line a couple of years back. A slight difference in timescale. But no, lets spec out a new vehicle which is most likely incompatabile in interoperatibility, driver operation, components and quite possibily any ATO signalling for ... err, what reason exactly? If there's a major flaw found in these trains will the 378s be able to operate the goblin? Or if there's a shortage of 378s will the 710s be able to run on the NLL and ELL? Probably not. -- Spud |
|
#69
February 14th 17, 09:47 AM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak -
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:17:15 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:15:42 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 08:15:01 -0600 wrote: "electrification of the Gospel Oak to Barking rail corridor, to improve a key freight corridor and improving reliability for passengers. " And 378s won't be used on GOBLIN either. Are they planning on buying a whole new set of EMUs just for the goblin then? No I find that hard to believe. Do you *really* not know what trains are being built for the line? Unlike you I have a job to do and don't spend my life researching every little piece of obscure information about railways. With your expert knowledge of LO, the Goblin, UK railfreight and electric traction, you must be right. But the people actually putting up the money thought differently. If only they had had access to some expert consulting from you! Ah yes, the people putting in the money. The ones who made sure specs were being followed in the installation of the wiring. Would those be the guys? You seem to have, even by your standards, a rather poor understanding of the difference between putting up the money, and on-the-ground engineering. I suppose, as always, ignorance is your defence. Ah ok. So TfL shouldn't have bothered checking how things were progressing or putting any men on the ground to double check the work? You should apply for a job there, you'd be a shoe in. -- Spud |
|
#70
February 14th 17, 09:48 AM
posted to uk.transport.london
|
|||
|
|||
|
Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak -
On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:32:59 -0600
wrote: In article , (David Cantrell) wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 09:54:35AM +0000, d wrote: So there's no freight on southern region then? What little of it I see is diesel hauled. Apart from engineering trains, I suspect you're right. There is a little work for class 73s. They all seem to have been sent up north in another intelligent move. Whats the best place to send a 3rd rail equipped electro-diesel? Scotland! Genius! -- Spud |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak - | London Transport | |||
| Network Rail "incorrectly designed" the Gospel Oak - | London Transport | |||
| Gospel Oak-Barking | London Transport | |||
| SPECS installation in Gospel Oak? | London Transport | |||
| Gospel Oak - Barking | London Transport | |||
Linear Mode
