Nice to see such coverage by the BBC of the final Gatwick Express 73
runs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4726395.stm

Anyone there for the run?

Alex W wrote:

> Nice to see such coverage by the BBC of the final Gatwick Express 73
> runs.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4726395.stm
> 
> Anyone there for the run?


Wanted to be, but work took precedence.

On 28 Jul 2005 16:07:15, jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:

>> Nice to see such coverage by the BBC of the final Gatwick Express 73
>> runs.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4726395.stm
>> 
>> Anyone there for the run?
>
>Wanted to be, but work took precedence.


Would have liked to, had there been some advance notice of the event!

I presume this means GatEx believe that ongoing availability of the
Class 460 units is now high enough to cover all the diagrams?

Paul Harley

-- 
Remove "eeek" to contact me!

Paul Harley wrote:

> On 28 Jul 2005 16:07:15, jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:
>>> Nice to see such coverage by the BBC of the final Gatwick Express
>>> 73 runs.
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4726395.stm
>>>
>>> Anyone there for the run?
>>
>> Wanted to be, but work took precedence.
>
> Would have liked to, had there been some advance notice of the
> event!
>
> I presume this means GatEx believe that ongoing availability of the
> Class 460 units is now high enough to cover all the diagrams?


I believe they've acquired a couple of Class 458s from SWT to provide
cover.
-- 
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:21:13, "Richard J." 
wrote:

>>
>> I presume this means GatEx believe that ongoing availability of the
>> Class 460 units is now high enough to cover all the diagrams?
>
>I believe they've acquired a couple of Class 458s from SWT to provide
>cover.


Aha!  I wonder what "frequent flyers" will think of the 3+2 seating?
Or is some internal refurbishment planned?

I guess we might see a few more SWT 450 Desiros at Reading, covering
458 diagrams.

Paul Harley

-- 
Remove "eeek" to contact me!

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:21:13 GMT, "Richard J."
 wrote:


>>
>> I presume this means GatEx believe that ongoing availability of the
>> Class 460 units is now high enough to cover all the diagrams?
>
>I believe they've acquired a couple of Class 458s from SWT to provide
>cover.


Not yet, but there is talk of it if/when SWT hand back their 458s next
year.

Paul Harley wrote:

> Aha!  I wonder what "frequent flyers" will think of the 3+2 seating?
> Or is some internal refurbishment planned?


Frequent flyers go from LGW?  I thought it was a package holiday airport...


/nsj likes Heathrow

nsj wrote:

> Paul Harley wrote:
> 
>> Aha!  I wonder what "frequent flyers" will think of the 3+2 seating?
>> Or is some internal refurbishment planned?
> 
> 
> Frequent flyers go from LGW?  I thought it was a package holiday airport...
> 

 > /nsj likes Heathrow

It depends where you live. I travel regularly on business, and live in 
South London. Gatwick is 15 minutes away by train, with maybe 5 or 6 
trains an hour and a 24 hour service. Heathrow is about one and a half 
hours away during the day, with no overnight service - important when 
your plane is delayed and you arrive at 2 or 3am, which has happened to 
me several times in the last year :-( . Never complain that trains are 
unreliable...

Unfortunately (for me), business services from Gatwick have been cut 
back in recent years and I often have to fly from Heathrow. However, BA 
still has a major operation there and most of the more important 
European destinations are served. Occasionally I will even fly on 
Easyjet if it saves me a trip to Heathrow (although Easyjet seem mainly 
to duplicate BA's routes from Gatwick, at least for the destinations I 
fly to and are often no cheaper).

Similarly, I have colleagues who live near to Luton, and will fly from 
there by preference, rather than face the long journey (often longer 
than the flight) to another airport. In fact, all the frequent fliers I 
know prefer to fly from their closest airport. I think the whole 
question of business travellers "preferring" Heathrow or anywhere else 
is a red herring. Heathrow is the London airport I use most but it 
certainly isn't my favourite.

A

nsj <stash@o2.invalid> wrote:

> Frequent flyers go from LGW?  I thought it was a package holiday airport...
> 


No, various long-haul BA services use LGW - I've had to use it on a
couple of business trips and it's a pain to get to from the North. I can
usually be at LHR in a gnat's over three hours from stepping out of
my front door (if the Tube's working normally), but to get to LGW is
usually much nearer five than four.

pete
-- 
pete@fenelon.com "There's no room for enigmas in built-up areas"

DERWENT Re: Gatwick Express BBC News story
 Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:19:25 +0100, Paul Harley 


>On 28 Jul 2005 16:07:15, jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:
>>> Nice to see such coverage by the BBC of the final Gatwick Express 73
>>> runs.
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4726395.stm
>>> 
>>> Anyone there for the run?
>>
>>Wanted to be, but work took precedence.
>
>Would have liked to, had there been some advance notice of the event!
>
>I presume this means GatEx believe that ongoing availability of the
>Class 460 units is now high enough to cover all the diagrams?
>


Nope, they were had five sets for seven diagrams (which they reduced
to six by stepping up).

PRAR
-- 
<http://www.i.am/prar/> and <http://prar.fotopic.net/>
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. --Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
 - If you must email me use the Reply to address and not prar@deadspam.com

oxo99@nospam.btinternet.com wrote:


> >I believe they've acquired a couple of Class 458s from SWT to provide
> >cover.
>
> Not yet, but there is talk of it if/when SWT hand back their 458s next
> year.


AIUI it is right to say ''not yet'' - but is far sooner than ''next
year'' as it is not connected with units going ''off lease'' as a fleet
but of 2 being sub-hired by SWT to GEx as soon as they can.

Reports indicate that 2 units (8001 and 8002) are already out of SWT
traffic but I have heard nothing so far that indicates that it will be
those 2.

Given that there are only 14 off peak diagrams for 458s (7 x2 Reading
line) plus one or two more ofr the peak, SWT already have them to
release.

--
Nick

D7666 wrote:


> AIUI it is right to say ''not yet'' - but is far sooner than ''next
> year'' as it is not connected with units going ''off lease'' as a fleet
> but of 2 being sub-hired by SWT to GEx as soon as they can.
>
> Reports indicate that 2 units (8001 and 8002) are already out of SWT
> traffic but I have heard nothing so far that indicates that it will be
> those 2.
>
> Given that there are only 14 off peak diagrams for 458s (7 x2 Reading
> line) plus one or two more ofr the peak, SWT already have them to
> release.


Though I read with some alarm in this month's Modern Railways that SWT
are considering letting the 442s go off lease and keeping the Junipers.
These would be kept on the Windsor lines to displace 450s to the
Portsmouth line, allowing 444s to take over Wessex expresses. If this
happens, I feel sorry for Portsmouth line users, who were told that the
444s would be 'their' express fleet, but may end up losing them after
less than a year!

Rupert Candy wrote:


> Though I read with some alarm in this month's Modern Railways that SWT
> are considering letting the 442s go off lease and keeping the Junipers.
> These would be kept on the Windsor lines to displace 450s to the
> Portsmouth line, allowing 444s to take over Wessex expresses.


I'd go along with that scheme.

I've not seen this MR issue yet - who wrote that piece ? Its not a Alan
Williams rant is it ?

But if I were running a TOC and had the choice between aging trains
with even more aged traction gear and new trains.

442 will become more and more expensive to maintain - 1966 traction
equipment that it. Not only that, they have been very intensively used,
more than Mk.3 LH and more than HST I suspect, and getting on for 20
years old. One of the factors that killed the Reps rather thanrefurbish
was the very high mileages. Its true the Rep trailers were past it
being old LH conversions but Rep motor coaches were new 1967/1974 but
were life expired by 1985. 442s may well be going the same way.


Yes I know 458 reliability has not been what it should be but I
understand had much improved and was nearing desired levels and the
reason few are in traffic is they just do not need to use many.

There is also some other rumour floating around that has come from ***
knows where that the 442s will go to SN for Brighton expresses but I
think this is pie in the sky specualtion.

--
Nick

D7666 wrote:

> Rupert Candy wrote:
>
> > Though I read with some alarm in this month's Modern Railways that SWT
> > are considering letting the 442s go off lease and keeping the Junipers.
> > These would be kept on the Windsor lines to displace 450s to the
> > Portsmouth line, allowing 444s to take over Wessex expresses.
>
> I'd go along with that scheme.
>
> I've not seen this MR issue yet - who wrote that piece ? Its not a Alan
> Williams rant is it ?


I'm pretty sure it's a news item, though it might be in AW's column -
no doubt someone else will have it to hand!


> But if I were running a TOC and had the choice between aging trains
> with even more aged traction gear and new trains.
>
> 442 will become more and more expensive to maintain - 1966 traction
> equipment that it. Not only that, they have been very intensively used,
> more than Mk.3 LH and more than HST I suspect, and getting on for 20
> years old. One of the factors that killed the Reps rather thanrefurbish
> was the very high mileages. Its true the Rep trailers were past it
> being old LH conversions but Rep motor coaches were new 1967/1974 but
> were life expired by 1985. 442s may well be going the same way.


Logical and sensible, but I expect most people on this group (myself
included) would miss them very much. For a multiple unit they seem to
have a remarkable fan club (and it's not hard to see why). If only they
had built them with new traction packages in the first place...


> There is also some other rumour floating around that has come from ***
> knows where that the 442s will go to SN for Brighton expresses but I
> think this is pie in the sky specualtion.


Indeed - notwithstanding my comments above, I can't see them wanting to
replace brand new units with 20+ year old non-standard stock. (Though
if they painted them chocolate and cream...)

D7666 wrote:

> 
> I've not seen this MR issue yet - who wrote that piece ? Its not a Alan
> Williams rant is it ?


It's in Alan Williams' column, but I wouldn't call it a "rant". He
mentions various possibilities but doesn't disclose his sources, which
presumably are within SWT.

-- 
John Ray, London UK.

Alex W wrote:

> Nice to see such coverage by the BBC of the final Gatwick Express 73
> runs.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4726395.stm
>
> Anyone there for the run?



>From that article:


The electro-diesel engines have been in use in the South East since
1962.

Sorry, what exactly is an electro-diesel? I presume they don't mean
diesel electric.

Cheers, James

"Rupert Candy"  wrote in message
news:1122969292.484372.161320@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>
> D7666 wrote:
> > Rupert Candy wrote:
> >
> > > Though I read with some alarm in this month's Modern Railways that SWT
> > > are considering letting the 442s go off lease and keeping the
Junipers.
> >
> > I've not seen this MR issue yet - who wrote that piece ? Its not a Alan
> > Williams rant is it ?
>
> I'm pretty sure it's a news item, though it might be in AW's column -
> no doubt someone else will have it to hand!
>
>
> > There is also some other rumour floating around that has come from ***
> > knows where that the 442s will go to SN for Brighton expresses but I
> > think this is pie in the sky specualtion.
>
> Indeed - notwithstanding my comments above, I can't see them wanting to
> replace brand new units with 20+ year old non-standard stock. (Though
> if they painted them chocolate and cream...)
>

Umber and cream, please - GWR livery has no place on the Brighton line.
It is indeed in Alan Williams column. It sounds as though someone thinks
that 377s won't do for son of GatEx, if the idea in the Brighton Line RUS
gets taken up, for combining GatEx with fast Brighton, Worthing, etc,
services, but the existing GatEx stock plus the 442s would be able to cover
at least a good proportion of the workings.
Alan Williams seems to suggest that some of this is dependent on the 2012
Olympics - and he didn't know the result of the bid when he wrote his
article.

Peter

wrote

>
> Sorry, what exactly is an electro-diesel? I presume they don't mean
> diesel electric.
>

Class 73. They are basically an electric loco, but have a small (600 hp)
diesel generator allowing them to work unelectrified sidings, also very
useful on engineering trains in 3rd rail territory, if the power's off at
the worksite. There was also a short-lived Class 74, which were converted
from Class 71 electrics at the time of the Bournemouth electrification, AIUI
mainly to work Ocean Liner trains to Southampton Docks, where the diesel
capability was needed for unelectrified lines in the docks.

Peter

Peter Masson wrote:

>  wrote
> >
> > Sorry, what exactly is an electro-diesel? I presume they don't mean
> > diesel electric.
> >
> Class 73. They are basically an electric loco, but have a small (600 hp)
> diesel generator allowing them to work unelectrified sidings, also very
> useful on engineering trains in 3rd rail territory, if the power's off at
> the worksite. There was also a short-lived Class 74, which were converted
> from Class 71 electrics at the time of the Bournemouth electrification, AIUI
> mainly to work Ocean Liner trains to Southampton Docks, where the diesel
> capability was needed for unelectrified lines in the docks.
>
> Peter



Thanx! We don't have them back in Oz (least I don't think so).

In the meantime I visited the WHSmith reading room and scanned MR - and
it is an Alan Williams item. Thought it might be, had put 2 and 2
together as his name was mentioned in connection with 458s last week.


But on the matter of 442s, which he relates, IMHO it is extremely
unlikely they will be of use to any SN or any southern electric TOC
other than SWT.

Because they are 23 m.


< set mode rant on >


23 m cars are banned from the central side of Victoria. This is the
fundamental reason behind GEx having to specify 20 m when they bought
460s , and why SN (or CSC as it was at the time) had to go for 20 m
377s.

Some time back when Roger Ford was touting for ideas as to what to do
with the LH Mk.3s off the West Coast and I came up half seriously with
using them in 442-like EMU with 2 either side a rebuilt 312 motor coach
of similar age. Even Roger then knew 23 m were no go at Victoria
central side, so one ought to suggest Mr.Williams read his own rag more
closely, or consult his fellow contributors.

Turbostars at 23 m had the same problem - it is often cited the reason
the entire Oxted line diesel service is diverted to London Bridge was
to save re-locating the exhaust extractors, but in fact it was never a
serious issue ever after the point when 171s were ordered, as they
would never get as far into the station.

There are also 23 m Mk.3 clearance issues further down the Brighton
main line. HST were never used on XC to Brighton for this reason
amongst others. I think it is Clayton tunnel - 23 m Voyager clearances
are different but even so I think there is a standing instruction that
one 220 may not pass another one insdoe the tunnel.

I doubt Victoria and other locations would get infrastructure
alterations to accept 442s. If Connex SE (for there are equal problems
with 23 m cars on that division too) and SC combined could not
influence Railtrack to have altered things to accept a potentially very
large fleet of 23 m cars in the late 1990s before they ended up
ordering 20 m 375/ 377s I would not hold any chance of SN (or SET)
getting NR to do in now, for a small fleet of ageing non standard
units.

< set mode rant off >

--
Nick

D7666 wrote:

> In the meantime I visited the WHSmith reading room and scanned MR - and
> it is an Alan Williams item. Thought it might be, had put 2 and 2
> together as his name was mentioned in connection with 458s last week.
>
>
> But on the matter of 442s, which he relates, IMHO it is extremely
> unlikely they will be of use to any SN or any southern electric TOC
> other than SWT.
>
> Because they are 23 m.
>
>
> < set mode rant on >


<snip>

One man's rant is another man's reasoned opinion. Very interesting
stuff, thanks!

"D7666"  wrote:

>
>There is also some other rumour floating around that has come from ***
>knows where that the 442s will go to SN for Brighton expresses but I
>think this is pie in the sky specualtion.


I wonder if this "new" 5-car Brighton express stock would be painted
in umber and cream, and limited to first class passengers paying a
supplement?  Kippers for breakfast, anyone?

;-)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:47:27 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:


>I wonder if this "new" 5-car Brighton express stock would be painted
>in umber and cream, and limited to first class passengers paying a
>supplement?  Kippers for breakfast, anyone?


I'd certainly cough up my Zuschlag to travel in a Wessie.  Without a
doubt the best passenger environment of any unit or hauled stock in
current UK mainline service.

As others have said, it is a pity they were not built with a newer
traction package to make them last longer.  It is also a pity that a
DMU version wasn't built[1] - the ideal InterRegio unit?

[1] The HST aside.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

>Class 73. They are basically an electric loco, but have a small (600 hp)
>diesel generator allowing them to work unelectrified sidings, also very
>useful on engineering trains in 3rd rail territory, if the power's off at
>the worksite. There was also a short-lived Class 74, which were converted
>from Class 71 electrics at the time of the Bournemouth electrification, AIUI
>mainly to work Ocean Liner trains to Southampton Docks, where the diesel
>capability was needed for unelectrified lines in the docks.



Perhaps they should be called electro-diesel-electric?

jshugg@westpac.com.au wrote:


> Sorry, what exactly is an electro-diesel? I presume they don't mean
> diesel electric.


No, electro-diesels are locos (or units, I suppose) that have both a
diesel engine and an electrical pick-up. So the class 73s (locos
hitherto used on Gatwick Express) would run off the 750V DC third rail
in normal service, but could also turn on the diesel engine if they
needed to run on unelectrified lines, or if the power was out, or if
they needed a bit more oomph at any point.

With the demise of the class 73s, I can't OTTOMH think of any electro-
diesels in service in the UK.

-- 
                          Stevie D
    \\\\\       /////     Bringing dating agencies to the
   \\\\\\\__X__///////    common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

"Stevie D"  wrote

>
> With the demise of the class 73s, I can't OTTOMH think of any electro-
> diesels in service in the UK.
>

Have SWT still got one (or two) as Thunderbirds?

Peter

Peter Masson wrote:



> "Stevie D"  wrote
> >
> > With the demise of the class 73s, I can't OTTOMH think of any electro-
> > diesels in service in the UK.


DRS = at least 4
EPS = 2
SWT = 3
GEx = 1 (long term)
Fragonsset = 2 ?
Networkrail = 2?




> Have SWT still got one (or two) as Thunderbirds?


Neither - they have 3 (73109/201/235)

--
Nick

D7666 wrote:


> DRS = at least 4


OOOps sorry, I meant GBRf, who have at least 4.

All these blue liveries.

--
Nick

wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:


>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:47:27 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:
>
>>I wonder if this "new" 5-car Brighton express stock would be painted
>>in umber and cream, and limited to first class passengers paying a
>>supplement?  Kippers for breakfast, anyone?
>
>I'd certainly cough up my Zuschlag to travel in a Wessie.  Without a
>doubt the best passenger environment of any unit or hauled stock in
>current UK mainline service.


Agree 100%.  I used to travel from Haywards Heath to Southampton 4-5
times a year on business.  I usually travelled SouthCentral via Havant
but on a few occasions I went via London and used the 442s - and was
most impressed.  The First Class accommodation was the best I have
ever used in the UK.


>As others have said, it is a pity they were not built with a newer
>traction package to make them last longer.  It is also a pity that a
>DMU version wasn't built[1] - the ideal InterRegio unit?
>
>[1] The HST aside.


The FGW Adelantes (Class 180?) were intended to fulfil this role, were
they not?  The non-driving cars look very similar to Mk3 coaches.
Also, the Voyagers and the MML and Hull Trains equivalents. 

I suspect the 180 was the closest to a DMU version of the 442.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:44:34 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:


>The FGW Adelantes (Class 180?) were intended to fulfil this role, were
>they not?  The non-driving cars look very similar to Mk3 coaches.


A good point.  I rarely get chance to use them, but they are an
evolution, from a passenger point of view, of the Mk3 coach.

That said, they need the seats bolting to the side walls and the
suspension sorting out before they will be *quite* that good.


>Also, the Voyagers and the MML and Hull Trains equivalents. 


Nearly as good, especially the Meridians, but not quite there.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Rupert Candy wrote:

> D7666 wrote:


It seems I was out of date with the situation and 442s are cleared into
central side at Victoria (as are 171s according to a different
reporter).

Something must have changed since 1995 or so then, as the Connex SC and
SE 375/377 specfications at the tender stage before ordering were
clearly 20 m not 23 m as 23 m cars were all banned for practical
purposes on the VA central side and totally from CX CS and BF.

I am not entirely convinced myself about 171s though, having had only
about 3-4 months ago a similar discussion with a respected onformed
source from the toc. 

--
Nick

Rupert Candy  wrote:

> Though I read with some alarm in this month's Modern Railways that SWT
> are considering letting the 442s go off lease and keeping the Junipers.
> These would be kept on the Windsor lines to displace 450s to the
> Portsmouth line, allowing 444s to take over Wessex expresses. If this
> happens, I feel sorry for Portsmouth line users, who were told that the
> 444s would be 'their' express fleet, but may end up losing them after
> less than a year!


Hmm... that means shuffling around maintenance in an odd way.  Am I right in
thinking the current maintenance is:

Bournemouth: 442, Lymington CIGs
Northam: 444, 450
Wimbledon: 455, 458
Salisbury: 158, 159, 170

So if the 442s disappear, Bournemouth is left with just maintaining two
3CIGs.  Could these be maintained at Northam, or is that facility tailored
for Siemens units?  Otherwise the 3CIGs would have to be maintained at
Wimbledon - but this hardly achieves the aim of minimal Mark I running on
the main lines.

Theo