Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=187553&NewsAreaID=2&Navig atedFromDepartment=False
The new concessionaire will have to release stock for two routes not being transferred - what are these? Paul |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Paul Scott" wrote in message ... http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fu...7553&NewsAreaI D=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False The new concessionaire will have to release stock for two routes not being transferred - what are these? Presumably Watford Junction - St Albans and Marston Vale (Bedford - Bletchley). Although these are, AIUI, part of Silverlink County, they share stock with Silverlink Metro (150s on Marston Vale and GOBLIN - Gospel Oak - Barking, while I've lost track of what currently operates St Albans Abbey - is it 313s, or are 150s used despite the wires?) Peter |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paul Scott wrote:
The new concessionaire will have to release stock for two routes not being transferred - what are these? 150s for Bedford-Bletchley and 313s for St Albans Abbey |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Peter Masson wrote:
while I've lost track of what currently operates St Albans Abbey - is it 313s, or are 150s used despite the wires?) 313s, or if there's a shortage of them 321s are used. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paul Scott wrote:
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fu...eID=187553&New sAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False The new concessionaire will have to release stock for two routes not being transferred - what are these? Paul One route is Watford Junction to St Albans Abbey, is the other Bedford- Bletchley? -- Simon |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Darren" ] wrote in message ... Paul Scott wrote: The new concessionaire will have to release stock for two routes not being transferred - what are these? 150s for Bedford-Bletchley and 313s for St Albans Abbey Thanks Peter and Darren |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paul Scott wrote:
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fu...eID=187553&New sAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False The new concessionaire will have to release stock for two routes not being transferred - what are these? Paul And to see TFL's positive plans for these valuable routes: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=690 -- Simon |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Simon Wren wrote:
Paul Scott wrote: http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fu...eID=187553&New sAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False The new concessionaire will have to release stock for two routes not being transferred - what are these? Paul And to see TFL's positive plans for these valuable routes: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=690 This sounds like great news. Using the North London Line can be depressing. The trains are squalid and it's quite clear that Silverlink couldn't give a damn. The line is interesting from a railway point of view, but as a passenger it's certainly not a great travelling experience. The fact that Tube stations are staffed and are generally friendly and welcoming places, as opposed to many railway stations, really makes a difference to how people choose to travel, particularly in the evenings/after dark. TfL's plans staff stations, or staff them later, along with a proactive attitude to custodianship of stations and trains will really make a difference I'm sure. I doubt the NLL will ever make a profit, but thankfully that's not the objective of the Mayor. I look forward to TfL's further involvement in London's railways. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mizter T" wrote in message oups.com... Simon Wren wrote: Paul Scott wrote: http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fu...eID=187553&New sAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False The new concessionaire will have to release stock for two routes not being transferred - what are these? Paul And to see TFL's positive plans for these valuable routes: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=690 This sounds like great news. Using the North London Line can be depressing. The trains are squalid and it's quite clear that Silverlink couldn't give a damn. The line is interesting from a railway point of view, but as a passenger it's certainly not a great travelling experience. The fact that Tube stations are staffed and are generally friendly and welcoming places, as opposed to many railway stations, really makes a difference to how people choose to travel, particularly in the evenings/after dark. TfL's plans staff stations, or staff them later, along with a proactive attitude to custodianship of stations and trains will really make a difference I'm sure. I doubt the NLL will ever make a profit, but thankfully that's not the objective of the Mayor. I look forward to TfL's further involvement in London's railways. one small point - how can the Branch qualify for TFL - its 50 miles from london for heavens sake. surely make sense to electrify it !!! |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Darren" ] wrote in message
... Peter Masson wrote: while I've lost track of what currently operates St Albans Abbey - is it 313s, or are 150s used despite the wires?) 313s, or if there's a shortage of them 321s are used. Which are the ones that smell like sick? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
London Overground from 11 Nov 2007 | London Transport | |||
Silverlink Metro and Oyster | London Transport | |||
TfL to get control of Silverlink Metro | London Transport News | |||
Why are Silverlink Metro trains NEVER on time ? | London Transport |