This evening I have come across a strong rumour about the loss of Pendolinos
on the North Wales Coast being replaced by LHCS from next week.

We can only wait and see!   Is this the beginning of the end?   or  Are they
trying to put an half hourly service to Lime St.?

KW......... Calm down now!   It's only a rumour!

"Ken Ward"  wrote in message 
news:hAtMe.11137$Mf6.5182@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...

> This evening I have come across a strong rumour about the loss of 
> Pendolinos
> on the North Wales Coast being replaced by LHCS from next week.
>
> We can only wait and see!   Is this the beginning of the end?   or  Are 
> they
> trying to put an half hourly service to Lime St.?
>
> KW......... Calm down now!   It's only a rumour!
>

But confirmed by staff at Crewe today, who looked quite releived at the 
prospect ...

Ken Ward wrote:

> This evening I have come across a strong rumour about the loss of Pendolinos
> on the North Wales Coast being replaced by LHCS from next week.
> 
> We can only wait and see!   Is this the beginning of the end?   or  Are they
> trying to put an half hourly service to Lime St.?


The rumour I've heard is that it's because Alstom have threatened to 
withdraw the warranty on the Pendolinos if they continue to loco-haul 
them regularly.

-- 
<><|"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."
....|   -- President Merkin Muffley
ScR|http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scot-rail/
Pix|http://photos.eatnet.org.uk/Latest <- Highland Spoons & Tractors

"turbo"  wrote in message 
news:xQtMe.90363$G8.15354@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> "Ken Ward"  wrote in message 
> news:hAtMe.11137$Mf6.5182@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> This evening I have come across a strong rumour about the loss of 
>> Pendolinos
>> on the North Wales Coast being replaced by LHCS from next week.
>>
>> We can only wait and see!   Is this the beginning of the end?   or  Are 
>> they
>> trying to put an half hourly service to Lime St.?
>>
>> KW......... Calm down now!   It's only a rumour!
>>
> But confirmed by staff at Crewe today, who looked quite releived at the 
> prospect ...


Following on from the earlier IOW thread. Could this be the result of the 
"shunter" going on holiday?  I wonder.

KW

Ewan wrote:

> Ken Ward wrote:
> > This evening I have come across a strong rumour about the loss of Pendolinos
> > on the North Wales Coast being replaced by LHCS from next week.
> >
> > We can only wait and see!   Is this the beginning of the end?   or  Are they
> > trying to put an half hourly service to Lime St.?
>
> The rumour I've heard is that it's because Alstom have threatened to
> withdraw the warranty on the Pendolinos if they continue to loco-haul
> them regularly.
> 


Sounds about right for an Alstom Warranty!

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:47:27 +0100, Ewan  wrote:


>The rumour I've heard is that it's because Alstom have threatened to 
>withdraw the warranty on the Pendolinos if they continue to loco-haul 
>them regularly.


Will that mean the end of the weekly drags, then?

Will it also mean the end, in due course, of the Holyhead services
full stop?

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.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
news:4302e261.2046733@news.tesco.net...

> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:47:27 +0100, Ewan  wrote:
>
>>The rumour I've heard is that it's because Alstom have threatened to
>>withdraw the warranty on the Pendolinos if they continue to loco-haul
>>them regularly.
>
> Will that mean the end of the weekly drags, then?
>
> Will it also mean the end, in due course, of the Holyhead services
> full stop?


I was under the impression that a small number of 4 car 221's were built for 
the Holyhead run. Are these NOT being used?

KW.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:18:27 GMT, "Ken Ward" 
wrote:


>I was under the impression that a small number of 4 car 221's were built for 
>the Holyhead run. Are these NOT being used?


No, largely for political reasons but also because the capacity is not
sufficient.  This is because the service frequency hasn't increased
substantially, while the original plan was for a 2-hourly service
alternating between VT and NWT, both using 4 or 5-car DMUs.

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.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
news:4302e44b.2536917@news.tesco.net...

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 07:18:27 GMT, "Ken Ward" 
> wrote:
>
>>I was under the impression that a small number of 4 car 221's were built
>>for
>>the Holyhead run. Are these NOT being used?
>
> No, largely for political reasons but also because the capacity is not
> sufficient.  This is because the service frequency hasn't increased
> substantially, while the original plan was for a 2-hourly service
> alternating between VT and NWT, both using 4 or 5-car DMUs.


I remember now... The "If they have them we have to have new shiney trains
to London syndrome", coupled with the idea that...............   You can
double the frequency without falling over each other.. maybe?   maybe not!

KW

Ewan wrote:

> The rumour I've heard is that it's because Alstom have threatened to
> withdraw the warranty on the Pendolinos if they continue to loco-haul
> them regularly.


Does that mean an end to planned weekend drags?

There's only 2 or 3 drags each way every day to Holyhead - sureley
there's just as many at weekends on other routes.

pete

Ken Ward wrote:

> This evening I have come across a strong rumour about the loss of Pendolinos
> on the North Wales Coast being replaced by LHCS from next week.
>


Does this mean yet another LHCS farewell?

I'm getting farewell fatigue.

I've grown old saying goodbye in North Wales.

Ewan wrote:

> The rumour I've heard is that it's because Alstom have threatened to
> withdraw the warranty on the Pendolinos if they continue to loco-haul
> them regularly.
>


ISTR that the original route groups for the 390 didn't include Holyhead
and that the loco haul capability on 390s is for "diversionary running
and rescue purposes. IMHO Holyheads don't fit into this
category................

>
> Does this mean yet another LHCS farewell?
>
> I'm getting farewell fatigue.
>
> I've grown old saying goodbye in North Wales.
>

Try a 'welcome back' celebration then...

"Ken Ward"  wrote in message 
news:hAtMe.11137$Mf6.5182@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...

> This evening I have come across a strong rumour about the loss of 
> Pendolinos
> on the North Wales Coast being replaced by LHCS from next week.
>

Thank goodness that someone has seen sense at last. It never made sense to 
haul a Pendolino as the time gained from Euston to Crewe was offset by the 
time lost buggering about with the software at Crewe after having attached 
the 57. And Pendolinos are a scarce resource.

The original plan was for 4-car 221s which made even less sense looking at 
the type of traffic (not enough first, no proper restaurant, diesels under 
the wires).

I have always said that the Holyhead service shoul be conventional 
loco-hauled (90s + Mark 3 to Crewe, 57 forward). Although the performance is 
less than a 390, running non-stop between Euston & Crewe should allow for 
easy pathing.

Peter Fox

Peter Fox wrote:


> The original plan was for 4-car 221s which made even less sense looking at 
> the type of traffic (not enough first, no proper restaurant, diesels under 
> the wires).
> 
> I have always said that the Holyhead service shoul be conventional 
> loco-hauled (90s + Mark 3 to Crewe, 57 forward). Although the performance is 
> less than a 390, running non-stop between Euston & Crewe should allow for 
> easy pathing.


Do the remaining Mk3 sets still have a workable kitchen, though?

Charlie

"Peter Fox"  wrote in message 
news:de05ou$918$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>
> "Ken Ward"  wrote in message 
> news:hAtMe.11137$Mf6.5182@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> This evening I have come across a strong rumour about the loss of 
>> Pendolinos
>> on the North Wales Coast being replaced by LHCS from next week.
>>
> Thank goodness that someone has seen sense at last. It never made sense to 
> haul a Pendolino as the time gained from Euston to Crewe was offset by the 
> time lost buggering about with the software at Crewe after having attached 
> the 57. And Pendolinos are a scarce resource.
>
> The original plan was for 4-car 221s which made even less sense looking at 
> the type of traffic (not enough first, no proper restaurant, diesels under 
> the wires).
>
> I have always said that the Holyhead service shoul be conventional 
> loco-hauled (90s + Mark 3 to Crewe, 57 forward). Although the performance 
> is less than a 390, running non-stop between Euston & Crewe should allow 
> for easy pathing.
>
> Peter Fox


Alternatively, use some of the off-lease HSTs - no need for the time and 
cost consuming traction change.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:13:18 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Peter
Fox"  wrote this:-


>I have always said that the Holyhead service shoul be conventional 
>loco-hauled (90s + Mark 3 to Crewe, 57 forward). Although the performance is 
>less than a 390, running non-stop between Euston & Crewe should allow for 
>easy pathing.


Not 140mph tilting trains. As such banned from the fast lines under
the Virgin/Railtrack/Franchising Director (remember them?) deal.
They could however travel on the Tardis slow lines, along with all
the other trains.

I seem to remember the Franchising Director and party politicians
telling us how wonderful this deal was, an example of how much
better the brave new railway was going to be compared to bad old BR.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

John Tattersall wrote:

> "Peter Fox"  wrote in message 
> news:de05ou$918$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> 
>>"Ken Ward"  wrote in message 
>>news:hAtMe.11137$Mf6.5182@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>>>This evening I have come across a strong rumour about the loss of 
>>>Pendolinos
>>>on the North Wales Coast being replaced by LHCS from next week.
>>>
>>
>>Thank goodness that someone has seen sense at last. It never made sense to 
>>haul a Pendolino as the time gained from Euston to Crewe was offset by the 
>>time lost buggering about with the software at Crewe after having attached 
>>the 57. And Pendolinos are a scarce resource.
>>
>>The original plan was for 4-car 221s which made even less sense looking at 
>>the type of traffic (not enough first, no proper restaurant, diesels under 
>>the wires).
>>
>>I have always said that the Holyhead service shoul be conventional 
>>loco-hauled (90s + Mark 3 to Crewe, 57 forward). Although the performance 
>>is less than a 390, running non-stop between Euston & Crewe should allow 
>>for easy pathing.
>>
>>Peter Fox
> 
> 
> Alternatively, use some of the off-lease HSTs - no need for the time and 
> cost consuming traction change.
> 


I'd still like to think they could avoid running long distance diesels 
under the wires (in fact, in these enlightened anti-global-warming days, 
there ought to be a law against it !), plus there's the bad PR of 
returning back to what was used pre-Pendo.

Shirley rather than Loco+DVT, you could have "something like" [1] a 90 
one end and 57 at the other with some "Mallardised" MK3s ?

[1] weasel words as I'm sure there are control issues to be worked out 
:-)  Didn't we discuss this before on this ng ?

John Tattersall wrote:

> "Peter Fox"  wrote in message
> news:de05ou$918$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> >
> > "Ken Ward"  wrote in message
> > news:hAtMe.11137$Mf6.5182@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> >>>
> Alternatively, use some of the off-lease HSTs - no need for the time and
> cost consuming traction change.


They're spoken for.

"matt"  wrote in message 
news:de09po$jbj$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>>>I have always said that the Holyhead service shoul be conventional 
>>>loco-hauled (90s + Mark 3 to Crewe, 57 forward). Although the performance 
>>>is less than a 390, running non-stop between Euston & Crewe should allow 
>>>for easy pathing.
>>>
>>>Peter Fox
>>
>>
>> Alternatively, use some of the off-lease HSTs - no need for the time and 
>> cost consuming traction change.
>>
>
> I'd still like to think they could avoid running long distance diesels 
> under the wires (in fact, in these enlightened anti-global-warming days, 
> there ought to be a law against it !), plus there's the bad PR of 
> returning back to what was used pre-Pendo.


That'll be the bad PR of running trains that worked. The reliablilty of the 
London - Holyhead service nosedived once the 47s took over from HSTs, and 
hasn't really improved since.


> Shirley rather than Loco+DVT, you could have "something like" [1] a 90 one 
> end and 57 at the other with some "Mallardised" MK3s ?
>
> [1] weasel words as I'm sure there are control issues to be worked out :-) 
> Didn't we discuss this before on this ng ?


Well, 90039 did a test run to Llandudno :-)

In all seriousness, you could "Mallardise" the HST Mark 3s just as easily as 
the loco-hauled variant..

Ken Ward wrote:

> This evening I have come across a strong rumour about the loss of Pendolinos
> on the North Wales Coast being replaced by LHCS from next week.
>
> We can only wait and see!   Is this the beginning of the end?   or  Are they
> trying to put an half hourly service to Lime St.?
>
> KW......... Calm down now!   It's only a rumour!



One word: HST's!


Basically what virgin needs is a high speed diesel train capable of
carrying the same amount of passengers as their pendolinos, the HST is
the only train on the market that can do this. It would even be able to
keep to the timetable unlike the 110mph loco hauled trains. HST's would
look very smart indeed in the new virgin silver livery, they should
never have rid them from this route in the first place.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:13:18 +0000 (UTC), Peter Fox wrote:

> It never made sense to haul a Pendolino as the time gained from Euston
> to Crewe was offset by the time lost buggering about with the
> software at Crewe after having attached the 57.


Tried this last week from Rugby to Chester. Some problem south of MKC
led to a +16 departure from Rugby, which in turn became a +11 arrival at
Crewe, but the 57 was attached pretty quickly, and we were only +4 into
Chester. I thought that quite a good run. No evidence of time wasted.

There were warnings about not using the tiolets or laptop power points
while the changeover was effected, but no other sign of much going on. 

And surely such a changeover will generally be quicker than swapping an
electric loco for a diesel - there's fewer things to do.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632967.html
(43 125 at London Paddington, 1978)

wrote in message 
news:1124314584.691006.322280@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> John Tattersall wrote:
>> "Peter Fox"  wrote in message
>> news:de05ou$918$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> >
>> > "Ken Ward"  wrote in message
>> > news:hAtMe.11137$Mf6.5182@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> >>>
>> Alternatively, use some of the off-lease HSTs - no need for the 
>> time and
>> cost consuming traction change.
>
> They're spoken for.
>


In that case, what about some of those 9 car meridians that are 
currently lying spare.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:18:29 GMT, Chris Tolley 
wrote:


>Tried this last week from Rugby to Chester. Some problem south of MKC
>led to a +16 departure from Rugby, which in turn became a +11 arrival at
>Crewe, but the 57 was attached pretty quickly, and we were only +4 into
>Chester. I thought that quite a good run. No evidence of time wasted.


Rugby-BNS at the weekend provided no issues whatsoever.  Banged them
together, and off we went.

It does seem that Alstom are clutching at straws to avoid paying out
on warranty issues, which does seem to be the action of either a car
dealer[1] or more likely a doomed business.

[1] many of whom IMX act in such an unscrupulous manner until proven
wrong.

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.

"David Hansen"  wrote in message 
news:3l87g1ttqhtcc9sm694lkt25qn8eoul84q@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:13:18 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Peter
> Fox"  wrote this:-
>
>>I have always said that the Holyhead service shoul be conventional
>>loco-hauled (90s + Mark 3 to Crewe, 57 forward). Although the performance 
>>is
>>less than a 390, running non-stop between Euston & Crewe should allow for
>>easy pathing.
>
> Not 140mph tilting trains. As such banned from the fast lines under
> the Virgin/Railtrack/Franchising Director (remember them?) deal.


Rubbish.

Peter Fox

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:09:40 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Peter
Fox"  wrote this:-


>> Not 140mph tilting trains. As such banned from the fast lines under
>> the Virgin/Railtrack/Franchising Director (remember them?) deal.
>
>Rubbish.


Care to elaborate on your assertion?


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In article ,
  wrote:

>
>Ken Ward wrote:
>> This evening I have come across a strong rumour about the loss of Pendolinos
>> on the North Wales Coast being replaced by LHCS from next week.
>>
>> We can only wait and see!   Is this the beginning of the end?   or  Are they
>> trying to put an half hourly service to Lime St.?
>>
>> KW......... Calm down now!   It's only a rumour!
>
>
>One word: HST's!
>
>
>Basically what virgin needs is a high speed diesel train capable of
>carrying the same amount of passengers as their pendolinos, the HST is
>the only train on the market that can do this. It would even be able to


Except they'd be confined to the slow lines all the way from Euston
to Crewe. That would not make for an attractive service, time-wise
(the same would apply to 222s, if the 9-coach units were considered).
Fast lines are tilt-only, which is why ICwC got a special build of
221s instead of 220s for the NW coast service.

The sensible answer in a co-ordinated railway system (OK, I know..)
is the one which now seems to be getting talked about for the future 
of ICEC: make the main-line service electric-only and serve the 
non-electrified routes by connections. That would give a high-speed
service from London to Crewe in 390s, with onwards connections
(connection guarenteed, cross-platform) from Crewe along the
coast in whatever type of DEMU or DMU was regarded as suitable
(170+, 185, 220...) with no need to worry about tilt-capability.

-- 
Andy Breen ~    Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales....   
Nieveler's law: "Any USENET thread, if sufficiently prolonged and not
                Godwinated, will eventually turn into a discussion about 
                alcoholic drinks."




-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:


> The sensible answer in a co-ordinated railway system (OK, I know..)
> is the one which now seems to be getting talked about for the future 
> of ICEC: make the main-line service electric-only and serve the 
> non-electrified routes by connections. 


The sensible answer for people like us who don't mind running
around Crewe station looking for connections, maybe.

Why not electrify to Holyhead?

Charlie

In article <de1nol$o4p$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk>,
Charlie Hulme   wrote:

>Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>
>> The sensible answer in a co-ordinated railway system (OK, I know..)
>> is the one which now seems to be getting talked about for the future 
>> of ICEC: make the main-line service electric-only and serve the 
>> non-electrified routes by connections. 
>
>The sensible answer for people like us who don't mind running
>around Crewe station looking for connections, maybe.


A little less snippage would have retained the statement that
connections should be cross-platform... You don't have to do
a lot of running around if your connection is at the other face of
a platform :)

This might be awkward with Crewe-as-it-is, but the place is long
overdue a major refit [1]


>Why not electrify to Holyhead?


I don't see that as justified in the current climate, not when
GWML and MML are still unwired. If it was a major diversionary
link then OK (but it isn't) and if it served major cities
then it might (but it doesn't). The only way I could see it
happening this side of the Fall Revolution (ob. Ken McLeod)
would be if .ie persuaded .eu to pay for it. And I suspect the
time when that might have happened has come and gone - there are
more pressing needs for improving transport links to to old 
WarPac states.

[1] That's a major refit in the Rugby sense, as in "flatten the place
and try and replace it with something respectible"

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:26:27 +0100, Charlie Hulme  
 wrote:


> Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>
>> The sensible answer in a co-ordinated railway system (OK, I know..)
>> is the one which now seems to be getting talked about for the future of  
>> ICEC: make the main-line service electric-only and serve the  
>> non-electrified routes by connections.
>
> The sensible answer for people like us who don't mind running
> around Crewe station looking for connections, maybe.
>
> Why not electrify to Holyhead?
>
> Charlie



I would suggest that for a through service to be reasonably viable there  
has to be a traffic flow from both ends of the route. I can see that there  
may in this case be sufficent market for through trains from London and  
the South East as far as Chester but I'd be very doubtfull that a market  
exists any further along the coast. The through trains exists for  
historical reasons but the fact is that people no longer travel to Ireland  
by train from London nor do they go on holiday to prestatyn.

Id suggest that Andys connection plan is the immediate way forward. Id  
like to think you could consider electrification as far as Chester in the  
medium term connecting with a DMU service from Manchester along the coast.  
However if you were looking for strategic routes to electrify I have to  
say this wouldnt be one of my national priorities.

The recent rejection of the GNER proposals for Leeds would seem to rule  
out any electrification projects in the short term.

Paul




-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

In article <op.svpaz9fmo3mvp0@paul-nn189bzj1r>,
paul Hutchinson  wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:26:27 +0100, Charlie Hulme  
> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>>
>>> The sensible answer in a co-ordinated railway system (OK, I know..)
>>> is the one which now seems to be getting talked about for the future of  
>>> ICEC: make the main-line service electric-only and serve the  
>>> non-electrified routes by connections.

>> Why not electrify to Holyhead?

>Id suggest that Andys connection plan is the immediate way forward. Id  
>like to think you could consider electrification as far as Chester in the  
>medium term connecting with a DMU service from Manchester along the coast.  
>However if you were looking for strategic routes to electrify I have to  
>say this wouldnt be one of my national priorities.


Well, it's based on ideas coming out of at least one corner of the
industry:

http://www.interfleet.co.uk/IndustryIssues/Articles/HST2.asp

they're talking about the ECML when they say:

"Clearly, if through running is required on the East Coast Mainline 
between London and Inverness, then HST2 will be necessary. However, 
perhaps we should be looking to follow the French model of the high-speed 
core network with good inter-connecting services to the extremities. High 
Speed Electric Trains could serve the mainline between London and 
Edinburgh, with DMUs serving the branches to Harrogate and Hull and the 
longer legs to Inverness and Aberdeen."

but certainly Dundee and Aberdeen are much larger traffic sources
than anything on the North Wales line, and the same goes for Harrogate
and Hull.

Making the connections simple and easy to use is key to the idea
working, though.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

jon.porter1@lycosmax.co.uk wrote:

>
> > Alternatively, use some of the off-lease HSTs - no need for the time and
> > cost consuming traction change.
>
> They're spoken for.


Jon
Can you tell us more about this?  Are all the currently spare HSTs and
those that are likely to become spare from MML spoken for?  I guess
likely destinations are GNER and FGW but could they use all of them?
Grand Central seem to prefer 222s now, so do you have another
organisation in mind?  Do tell.

Regards
Brian Milner

Charlie Hulme wrote:


> Why not electrify to Holyhead?
>


Unless a fleet of EMUs was acquired then there would still be a lot of
diesel running under the wires.
Also several bridges and tunnels may need altering to accomodate the
electrification (e.g. Conwy Bridge)

The loss of Pendolinos would definately be bad PR as wasn't some work
necessary between Chester and Crewe to allow them to use the route?

Surely if a Pendolino can be hauled by a 57 for diversionary work then
more use shouldn't cause any long term problems unless there is a
design problem.

peter

"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message 
news:de1nol$o4p$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...

>>
> Why not electrify to Holyhead?
>


Remind me if I remember this correctly. A good number of years ago didn't 
Brussels offer BR the cash to do just that? But Thatcher was in charge then 
and made it known if BRB accepted the money, she would reduce government 
funding to BRB by the same amount. Electrification didn't happen and now we 
have Blair in charge, so no change there then.

David

naked_draughtsman wrote:


> Charlie Hulme wrote:
> 
> 
>>Why not electrify to Holyhead?
>>
> 
> 
> Unless a fleet of EMUs was acquired then there would still be a lot of
> diesel running under the wires.


OK, so acquire a fleet of EMUs. Electrify Warrington to Manchester as
well while you are at it. Running to Cardiff would be a problem, but who
from North Wales really wants to go there? Oh yes, I forgot - a few
Assembly Members.


> Also several bridges and tunnels may need altering to accomodate the
> electrification (e.g. Conwy Bridge)


Of course. But Conwy bridge has plenty of headroom as far as I can see.


> 
> The loss of Pendolinos would definately be bad PR as wasn't some work
> necessary between Chester and Crewe to allow them to use the route?
> 


And elsewhere too. But who cares about somehting like that?

Charlie

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:


> Making the connections simple and easy to use is key to the idea
> working, though.


And how do you expect the British railway industry to do that? You
expect them to run the same service into the same platform every
day, and on time? Asking for the moon there.

Charlie

On 18 Aug 2005 12:13:06 +0100 someone who may be azb@aber.ac.uk
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote this:-


>A little less snippage would have retained the statement that
>connections should be cross-platform... You don't have to do
>a lot of running around if your connection is at the other face of
>a platform :)


That depends how wide the platform is...


>[1] That's a major refit in the Rugby sense, as in "flatten the place
>and try and replace it with something respectible"


The station at Rugby was fine, though the roof needed to be
maintained. Far better than most "modern" stations.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:


> A little less snippage would have retained the statement that
> connections should be cross-platform... You don't have to do
> a lot of running around if your connection is at the other face of
> a platform :)


You've clearly not spent much time at Crewe if you think they'd be able to 
organise this on a consistent basis.

Alan

paul Hutchinson wrote:


> The recent rejection of the GNER proposals for Leeds would seem to rule
> out any electrification projects in the short term.


I seem to have missed that one. Who rejected the plan, and when?


-- 
Regards

Mike

paul Hutchinson wrote:


> I would suggest that for a through service to be reasonably viable 
> there  has to be a traffic flow from both ends of the route. 


Which there is, in the case of London to Holyhead.


> I can see 
> that there  may in this case be sufficent market for through trains from 
> London and  the South East as far as Chester but I'd be very doubtfull 
> that a market  exists any further along the coast. The through trains 
> exists for  historical reasons but the fact is that people no longer 
> travel to Ireland  by train from London nor do they go on holiday to 
> prestatyn.


I travelled back from Dublin two weeks ago on the 12:15 Swift sailing and there 
were around 80 foot passengers transferring from the ferry to the railway 
station. All those who spoke to me were enquiring about direct trains to London 
and were shocked that the last direct service of the day left at 14:14, just as 
the boat was docking. There were no rail staff in evidence.

Making connections holds few fears for the likes of us, but consider the foreign 
tourist unfamiliar with our network, the youth groups with a block of seat 
reservations bound for Snowdonia or Ireland, elderly passengers needing 
assistance and so on. They'd probably take the direct National Express service 
instead.

Alan

In article <de22pt$t01$1@fantastix.bangor.ac.uk>,
A.C.P. Crawshaw  wrote:

>Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>
>> A little less snippage would have retained the statement that
>> connections should be cross-platform... You don't have to do
>> a lot of running around if your connection is at the other face of
>> a platform :)
>
>You've clearly not spent much time at Crewe if you think they'd be able to 
>organise this on a consistent basis.


Au contraire. Via Crewe was my usual SW-NE route for many years, until
the 22xs settled in properly on ICXC, and I still go around that way
sometimes. Organising consistent use of platforms shouldn't be beyond
the wit of man (they've been known to manage it in Barad-Dur Hbf., 
even..), particularly if the station layout has been redesigned to
make it easy.

It might, at the least, be fractionally more likely than knitting 
going up all the way to Caergybi.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
		Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
		 money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

A.C.P. Crawshaw wrote:

> Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
> 
>> A little less snippage would have retained the statement that
>> connections should be cross-platform... You don't have to do
>> a lot of running around if your connection is at the other face of
>> a platform :)
> 
> 
> You've clearly not spent much time at Crewe if you think they'd be able 
> to organise this on a consistent basis.


I'd go as far as to say that the 1985 'rationalisation' was designed
on the basis that last-minute platform changes would be normal,
as this allowed the number of platform lines to be reduced.

The assumption of the designers seems to have been that a
a Crewe - North Wales shuttle would operate from Platform
9, which was extended for the purpose. This would be
fine, although with quite a long walk along the platform for many 
passengers, except that sometimes the two 'northbound' platforms
6 and 11 are occupied by trains which are out of course or
cannot depart for some reason, causing reversibly-signalled
Platform 5 to be brought into use and the famous announcement about 
crossing 'in a calm manner' comes into play...

Charlie

> Not 140mph tilting trains. As such banned from the fast lines under
> the Virgin/Railtrack/Franchising Director (remember them?) deal.
> They could however travel on the Tardis slow lines, along with all
> the other trains.


Well, the EWS Executive train, with a class 67 + Coaches + DVT did it
on Tuesday, so did the class 90 + Mk3s + DVT covering for a 390 the
same day.

> Except they'd be confined to the slow lines all the way from Euston
> to Crewe. That would not make for an attractive service, time-wise
> (the same would apply to 222s, if the 9-coach units were considered).
> Fast lines are tilt-only, which is why ICwC got a special build of
> 221s instead of 220s for the NW coast service.


The EWS Executive train, with a 67 Diesel on the rear, as well as a
Class 90/Mk3s covering for a 390 ran on the fast lines this Tuesday
just gone.

"Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote in message 
news:de1lbr$66li$1@central.aber.ac.uk...

> In article ,
>  wrote:
>>
>>Ken Ward wrote:
>>> This evening I have come across a strong rumour about the loss of 
>>> Pendolinos
>>> on the North Wales Coast being replaced by LHCS from next week.
>>>
>>> We can only wait and see!   Is this the beginning of the end?   or  Are 
>>> they
>>> trying to put an half hourly service to Lime St.?
>>>
>>> KW......... Calm down now!   It's only a rumour!
>>
>>
>>One word: HST's!
>>
>>
>>Basically what virgin needs is a high speed diesel train capable of
>>carrying the same amount of passengers as their pendolinos, the HST is
>>the only train on the market that can do this. It would even be able to
>
> Except they'd be confined to the slow lines all the way from Euston
> to Crewe. That would not make for an attractive service, time-wise
> (the same would apply to 222s, if the 9-coach units were considered).
> Fast lines are tilt-only, which is why ICwC got a special build of
> 221s instead of 220s for the NW coast service.


Except that an HST already uses the fast lines: the NMT. Furthermore I 
thought that it was now believed possible to use the fast lines for this 
relatively small number of trains if fewer stops were made, without 
penalising Pendolinos.

The ban on fast line running shows how low-spec the WCML upgrade has been. 
We've spent billions of pounds on it, but the speed increase is limited to a 
(very) restricted fleet of trains and the railway is less flexible than it 
was prior to the rebuild. In many ways the WCML still isn't up to GW and 
ECML standards of 25 years ago. Forgive me if I'm somewhat underwhelmed.

John Tattersall wrote:


> Except that an HST already uses the fast lines: the NMT. Furthermore I
> thought that it was now believed possible to use the fast lines for this
> relatively small number of trains if fewer stops were made, without
> penalising Pendolinos.


The Holyheads, nuisance that they are, have always been given special
treatment.  When the WCML upgrade was at the PUG 1 & 2 stages provision
was made for a 125mph path on what was to otherwise be a 140mph
railway.  This, in turn, forced the Silverlink fast services onto the
slow lines (and Silverlink did seriously explore the possibility of
high-speed units, were the paths available).


>
> The ban on fast line running shows how low-spec the WCML upgrade has been.
> We've spent billions of pounds on it, but the speed increase is limited to a
> (very) restricted fleet of trains and the railway is less flexible than it
> was prior to the rebuild. In many ways the WCML still isn't up to GW and
> ECML standards of 25 years ago. Forgive me if I'm somewhat underwhelmed.


A 15mph speed increase for selected trains isn't terribly impressive,
is it?  And the way things have been done rules out NoL Eurostar
(should it ever have been seen as viable).

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:07:43 +0100 someone who may be "John
Tattersall"  wrote this:-


>Furthermore I 
>thought that it was now believed possible to use the fast lines for this 
>relatively small number of trains if fewer stops were made, without 
>penalising Pendolinos.


If that decision has been made I'm glad to hear it.

On the electrified portion of the ECML the HSTs are generally used
on trains which stop in few places, to keep them out of the way of
the electric trains which accelerate far more quickly.


>The ban on fast line running shows how low-spec the WCML upgrade has been. 


Of course the theory was that there would be double the number of
expresses, travelling at 140mph. Had that been achieved then there
would have been difficulty getting slower trains on the fast lines
south of Rugby. Was the ban just south of there I wonder? This
difficulty led to Railtrack's idea of the Tardis slow lines, which
distorted time and space in order to get an amazing variety of
trains along the line.

The slower running not only provides more time for other trains, but
also reduces the number of services that can be run. The SRA did say
they would provide extra trains to compensate, but that promise
didn't last long (though there are now some lower speed EMUs as a
fig leaf).

I gather that the far less intensive (compared to the plans for the
lines out of Euston) service out of Paddington means the main lines
are now restricted (or perhaps largely restricted) to 125mph trains.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"David Hansen"  wrote in message 
news:3ig9g1hfp1p0mftenu1iv8ha665lh0ka5e@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:07:43 +0100 someone who may be "John
> Tattersall"  wrote this:-
>
>>Furthermore I
>>thought that it was now believed possible to use the fast lines for this
>>relatively small number of trains if fewer stops were made, without
>>penalising Pendolinos.
>
> If that decision has been made I'm glad to hear it.
>
> On the electrified portion of the ECML the HSTs are generally used
> on trains which stop in few places, to keep them out of the way of
> the electric trains which accelerate far more quickly.
>
>>The ban on fast line running shows how low-spec the WCML upgrade has been.
>
> Of course the theory was that there would be double the number of
> expresses, travelling at 140mph. Had that been achieved then there
> would have been difficulty getting slower trains on the fast lines
> south of Rugby. Was the ban just south of there I wonder? This
> difficulty led to Railtrack's idea of the Tardis slow lines, which
> distorted time and space in order to get an amazing variety of
> trains along the line.
>
> The slower running not only provides more time for other trains, but
> also reduces the number of services that can be run. The SRA did say
> they would provide extra trains to compensate, but that promise
> didn't last long (though there are now some lower speed EMUs as a
> fig leaf).
>
> I gather that the far less intensive (compared to the plans for the
> lines out of Euston) service out of Paddington means the main lines
> are now restricted (or perhaps largely restricted) to 125mph trains.


Largely so, but 90mph Turbos still appear on the fast Oxfords on a regular 
basis. The point I was trying to make, probably badly, was that the WCML 
upgrade has raised line speed to 125mph, but for certain types of trains 
only, irrespective of any pathing constraints. On GWML and ECML any 125mph 
train can run at that speed, where permitted. HSTs and the like are, AFAIAA, 
unable to run at 125mph on West Coast.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:48:05 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>>> Not 140mph tilting trains. As such banned from the fast lines under
>>> the Virgin/Railtrack/Franchising Director (remember them?) deal.
>>
>>Rubbish.
>
>Care to elaborate on your assertion?


Silverlink operate on the fasts on occasions.  We're talking about a
service with approximately a 3-hour frequency; that wouldn't be
difficult to fit in.

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.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:13:35 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:


>The station at Rugby was fine, though the roof needed to be
>maintained. Far better than most "modern" stations.


I think its present design combines the old and the new quite nicely,
though the entrance subway is downright awful.

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.

On 18 Aug 2005 04:46:35 -0700, "naked_draughtsman"
 wrote:


>Unless a fleet of EMUs was acquired then there would still be a lot of
>diesel running under the wires.


If funding was to be obtained for scrapping of the Pacers, a fleet of
EMUs could be procured then all the diesel fleets cascaded to remove
them.

Alternatively, North Wales Coast fast services could be operated using
E-Loks, Mk3s and DVTs.  If they're good enough for Anglia...

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.

Matt Wheeler (spam@007jbond.freeserve.co.uk) said:

>  wrote in message
> news:1124314584.691006.322280@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > John Tattersall wrote:
> > > "Peter Fox"  wrote in
> > > message
> > > news:de05ou$918$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Ken Ward"  wrote in message
> > > > news:hAtMe.11137$Mf6.5182@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> > > > > >
> > > Alternatively, use some of the off-lease HSTs - no
> > > need for the time and
> > > cost consuming traction change.
> >
> > They're spoken for.
> >
>
> In that case, what about some of those 9 car meridians
> that are currently lying spare.


Which MML have their sights set firmly on to replace some of the HST 
sets.

-- 
Andrew

John Tattersall (43096@valenta.org.uk) said:

> "David Hansen"  wrote in
> message news:3ig9g1hfp1p0mftenu1iv8ha665lh0ka5e@4ax.com...
> > I gather that the far less intensive (compared to the
> > plans for the lines out of Euston) service out of
> > Paddington means the main lines are now restricted (or
> > perhaps largely restricted) to 125mph trains.
>
> Largely so, but 90mph Turbos still appear on the fast
> Oxfords on a regular basis.


Turbostars are 100mph.

-- 
Andrew

"Andrew Bell"  wrote

> >
> > Largely so, but 90mph Turbos still appear on the fast
> > Oxfords on a regular basis.
>
> Turbostars are 100mph.
>

But they don't operate on FGWL. The fast Oxfords are usually now Adelantes
or HSTs, but some *Network Turbos* (Class 166) are diagrammed, and they are
limited to 90 mph. About the only time that trains from the Turbostar
family, actually Chiltern 168s, have been diagrammed on the Paddington to
Oxford route was when Bicester to Aynho was being redoubled, and there were
some through Chiltern workings to Paddington via Oxford. But in those cases
the 168 was often coupled to a Thames 166 between Oxford and Paddington, so
the whole train was limited to 90 mph.

Peter

Andrew Bell wrote:

> Which MML have their sights set firmly on to replace some of the HST 
> sets.


Well then, use the HSTs that will become spare when the 9-car 222s go 
into service with MML

Andrew Bell wrote:

> John Tattersall (43096@valenta.org.uk) said:
 >
>>Largely so, but 90mph Turbos still appear on the fast
>>Oxfords on a regular basis.
> 
> Turbostars are 100mph.


I think he meant class 165s.

"Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote in message 
news:de1lbr$66li$1@central.aber.ac.uk...

> In article ,
>  wrote:
>>
>>Ken Ward wrote:
>>> This evening I have come across a strong rumour about the loss of 
>>> Pendolinos
>>> on the North Wales Coast being replaced by LHCS from next week.
>>>
>>> We can only wait and see!   Is this the beginning of the end?   or  Are 
>>> they
>>> trying to put an half hourly service to Lime St.?
>>>
>>> KW......... Calm down now!   It's only a rumour!
>>
>>
>>One word: HST's!
>>
>>
>>Basically what virgin needs is a high speed diesel train capable of
>>carrying the same amount of passengers as their pendolinos, the HST is
>>the only train on the market that can do this. It would even be able to
>
> Except they'd be confined to the slow lines all the way from Euston
> to Crewe.


Why?

PF

In message <de4256$417$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Peter 
Fox  writes

>>>> Calm down now!

Dear, it's only a commercial, I'm really a very good driver, just 
dropped from the Ad's because of my exorbitant fees.
-- 
Clive

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

> In article ,


>
> Except they'd be confined to the slow lines all the way from Euston
> to Crewe. That would not make for an attractive service, time-wise
> (the same would apply to 222s, if the 9-coach units were considered).
> Fast lines are tilt-only, which is why ICwC got a special build of
> 221s instead of 220s for the NW coast service.
>
>


So why is it that loco-hauled coaching stock services are still used on
the fast lines out of Euston, plus the occasional Silverlink 321's?

Clive  wrote

>In message <de4256$417$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
>Peter Fox  writes
>>>>> Calm down now!
>Dear, it's only a commercial, I'm really a very good driver, just dropped
>from the Ad's because of my exorbitant fees.


 Well the polystyrene mouse is in all probability cheaper and can be
'hammered' into any shape for each individual campaign.

 Though i have to take a closer butchers as i think the 2 front teeth
seem to move from one side of the face to another during his 'crummy'
driving round the keyboard and the follow up scenes.

Anyway back to the its only an ad campaign dear . How many times did you
want him to appear in women's clothes in newer ads on the small screen?

wrote

>
> So why is it that loco-hauled coaching stock services are still used on
> the fast lines out of Euston, plus the occasional Silverlink 321's?
>

AIUI LH coaching stock services from Euston have almost been phased out,
apart from the Scottish sleepers. Silverlink still have a few fast line
paths for 321s or Desiros, though mostly no further north than Ledburn
Junction. With up to 12 Pendolinos in an hour into Euston, arranging a
reliable path through to Crewe for a 110 mph train would not be easy, and if
it ran out of course would be liable to be banished to the Slow Lines for
considerable distances, losing even more time behind stopping passenger
trains or 75 mph (or slower) freight.

IMHO if Pendolinos are not to be used on the Holyhead services, the best
answer would probably be to modify a small sub-fleet of 221s with more first
class seating, and kitchens able to provide VWC meal service.

Peter

DERWENT Re: Pendolino "Shock News"
 Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:14:45 +0100, Clive  


>In message <de4256$417$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Peter 
>Fox  writes
>>>>> Calm down now!
>Dear, it's only a commercial, I'm really a very good driver, just 
>dropped from the Ad's because of my exorbitant fees.


<http://www.luckykazoo.com/media/2005/03/e-sure-remix.html>

:-)

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

"Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote in message
news:de1lbr$66li$1@central.aber.ac.uk...

> In article ,
>   wrote:
> >
> >Ken Ward wrote:
> >> This evening I have come across a strong rumour about the loss of
Pendolinos
> >> on the North Wales Coast being replaced by LHCS from next week.
> >>
> >> We can only wait and see!   Is this the beginning of the end?   or  Are
they
> >> trying to put an half hourly service to Lime St.?
> >>
> >> KW......... Calm down now!   It's only a rumour!
> >
> >
> >One word: HST's!
> >
> >
> >Basically what virgin needs is a high speed diesel train capable of
> >carrying the same amount of passengers as their pendolinos, the HST is
> >the only train on the market that can do this. It would even be able to
>
> Except they'd be confined to the slow lines all the way from Euston
> to Crewe. That would not make for an attractive service, time-wise
> (the same would apply to 222s, if the 9-coach units were considered).
> Fast lines are tilt-only, which is why ICwC got a special build of
> 221s instead of 220s for the NW coast service.


222s could keep to one path on the fast lines if stops were removed - this
has been demonstrated by Virgin recently to the annoyance of the SRA which
had used the "they can't run in a path" excuse as the main reason for
refusing to even talk about Virgin using the 9-Car Meridians to N Wales.

Whilst I'm not aware of any moves to use the LHCS stock to Holyhead except
at weekends there are now plans to remove the Pendolinos from N Wales in due
course - there may be something in the N Wales press on Tuesday, so I'l let
them have the first crack at the story! (I will just check with VWC tomorrow
to be certain that the LHCS story is wrong!)

TM

naked_draughtsman wrote:


> Ken Ward wrote:
> 
>>This evening I have come across a strong rumour about the loss of Pendolinos
>>on the North Wales Coast being replaced by LHCS from next week.
> 
> 
> I don't know what happened yesterday (Monday) but this afternoon's
> train to and from Holyhead was a Pendolino hauled by Tin Tin (57308 I
> think).
> 
> Looks like the warranty (or other) issue was sorted out.


Or alternatively, it was just an incorrect rumour.

Charlie

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:48:05 +0100, David Hansen 
 wrote:

>  On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:09:40 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Peter
>  Fox"  wrote this:-
> 
> >> Not 140mph tilting trains. As such banned from the fast lines under
> >> the Virgin/Railtrack/Franchising Director (remember them?) deal.
> >
> >Rubbish.
> 
>  Care to elaborate on your assertion?


All the many Mk3+DVT journeys I've been on over the last few months,
all using the fast lines show that, whatever the reason for *your*
assumption, that's not what's happening in practice.  (Also the
arrival of 350s, mentioned elsewhere)

Tony Miles wrote:

> 222s could keep to one path on the fast lines if stops were removed - this
> has been demonstrated by Virgin recently to the annoyance of the SRA which
> had used the "they can't run in a path" excuse as the main reason for
> refusing to even talk about Virgin using the 9-Car Meridians to N Wales.
> 
> Whilst I'm not aware of any moves to use the LHCS stock to Holyhead except
> at weekends there are now plans to remove the Pendolinos from N Wales in due
> course - there may be something in the N Wales press on Tuesday, so I'l let
> them have the first crack at the story! (I will just check with VWC tomorrow
> to be certain that the LHCS story is wrong!)
> 
> TM


Don't think this Daily Post article has been posted yet, so here goes:



Tilting trains to be replaced by faster diesels... Aug 23 2005

By Eryl Crump, Daily Post

TILTING electric trains are to be replaced with fast diesels on North 
Wales' main line, rail bosses said last night.

New 125mph Virgin Trains services will run almost hourly from Holy-head 
to London, slicing up to 20 minutes off the timetable.

But it could be at least 15 months - or even three years - before the 
dedicated fleet, with extra first class seats and a hot food buffet, 
starts running.

And ageing locos and carriages may be wheeled out again next summer, 
while faster trains are switched to bolster holiday routes in southern 
England.

Five services a day are presently run by Virgin on the North Wales coast 
line. Two of them are electric Pendolino trains pulled by a diesel 
engine from Crewe.

The proposals would see nine services.

Virgin Trains West Coast managing director Charles Belcher said: "These 
plans are being put forward to the Department for Transport.

"We propose to create a dedicated fleet of diesel trains to operate the 
services. This will allow an almost hourly service between North Wales 
and London and return.

"The use of an electric Pendolino train along the North Wales line 
dragged by a diesel locomotive makes no sense at all.

"New diesel trains will be obtained. These will be similar to the 
Voyagers currently in use but will be modified to increase the number of 
first class seats. A galley will be installed to allow hot food to be 
prepared."

If the green light is given the new trains would be introduced in 
December 2008.

But Mr Belcher said: "If our discussions with various bodies are 
successful, the services could be introduced earlier but not before 
December 2006."

Before then there will be minor improvements to Virgin Trains services 
on the North Wales line.

Two trains axed over the summer to shore up holiday routes into Devon 
and Cornwall will be reinstated, along with the stop at Flint.

Older trains hauled by freight locomotives will also be withdrawn.

Mr Belcher does not expect the situation to occur next summer but could 
not rule out the possibility.

"The reliability of Pendolinos is improving and will allow us to improve 
services further. The standby set of coaches used on weekend services in 
North Wales will be retained, but we hope they will not be needed."

The fare structure will be simplified and an enhanced menu introduced on 
early morning and evening trains.

Rail watchdogs described the improvement in service as "very good news".

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:16:20 +0100, John Tattersall 
 wrote:

>  Largely so, but 90mph Turbos still appear on the fast Oxfords on a regular 
>  basis. The point I was trying to make, probably badly, was that the WCML 
>  upgrade has raised line speed to 125mph, but for certain types of trains 
>  only, irrespective of any pathing constraints. On GWML and ECML any 125mph 
>  train can run at that speed, where permitted. HSTs and the like are, AFAIAA, 
>  unable to run at 125mph on West Coast.


Yup, 110mph for anything non-tilting, same as pre-upgrade, amusingly.

"Mark Hynes"  wrote in message 
news:slrndgmsss.1l8b.mmh@riffraff.plig.net...

> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:16:20 +0100, John Tattersall
>  wrote:
>>  Largely so, but 90mph Turbos still appear on the fast Oxfords on a 
>> regular
>>  basis. The point I was trying to make, probably badly, was that the WCML
>>  upgrade has raised line speed to 125mph, but for certain types of trains
>>  only, irrespective of any pathing constraints. On GWML and ECML any 
>> 125mph
>>  train can run at that speed, where permitted. HSTs and the like are, 
>> AFAIAA,
>>  unable to run at 125mph on West Coast.
>
> Yup, 110mph for anything non-tilting, same as pre-upgrade, amusingly.
>


Surely you mean "expensively"

;-)

On 23 Aug 2005 18:59:33 GMT someone who may be Mark Hynes
 wrote this:-


>All the many Mk3+DVT journeys I've been on over the last few months,


An interim timetable that allows for replacement of some 390
diagrams by older trains.

Also note what was said in this thread on 18/8/05:


>>Furthermore I 
>>thought that it was now believed possible to use the fast lines for this 
>>relatively small number of trains if fewer stops were made, without 
>>penalising Pendolinos.


To which I replied.


>If that decision has been made I'm glad to hear it.



-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"Charlie Hulme"  wrote in message
news:defgps$1fp5$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk...

> naked_draughtsman wrote:
>
> > Ken Ward wrote:
> >
> >>This evening I have come across a strong rumour about the loss of
Pendolinos
> >>on the North Wales Coast being replaced by LHCS from next week.
> >
> > I don't know what happened yesterday (Monday) but this afternoon's
> > train to and from Holyhead was a Pendolino hauled by Tin Tin (57308 I
> > think).
> >
> > Looks like the warranty (or other) issue was sorted out.
>
> Or alternatively, it was just an incorrect rumour.


Indeed - we have asked Alstom to confirm it isn't correct but haven't heard
back yet. Meanwhile Virgin categorically deny that LHCS will be used from
next week, except at weekends when there are a couple of weeks to go with
planned use of the LHCS sets. I don't know whether Virgin may use the LHCS
sets on Monday if there is an engineering blockade somewhere and the staff
at Crewe have got confused, but I do know that Virgin staff at Crewe were
due to get a call today to "re-educate" them on how not to repeat wild
rumours!

TM

Dave Roberts  wrote:


>Tony Miles wrote:
>> 222s could keep to one path on the fast lines if stops were removed - this
>> has been demonstrated by Virgin recently to the annoyance of the SRA which
>> had used the "they can't run in a path" excuse as the main reason for
>> refusing to even talk about Virgin using the 9-Car Meridians to N Wales.
>> 
>> Whilst I'm not aware of any moves to use the LHCS stock to Holyhead except
>> at weekends there are now plans to remove the Pendolinos from N Wales in due
>> course - there may be something in the N Wales press on Tuesday, so I'l let
>> them have the first crack at the story! (I will just check with VWC tomorrow
>> to be certain that the LHCS story is wrong!)
>> 
>> TM
>
>Don't think this Daily Post article has been posted yet, so here goes:
>
>
>
>Tilting trains to be replaced by faster diesels... Aug 23 2005
>
>By Eryl Crump, Daily Post
>
>TILTING electric trains are to be replaced with fast diesels on North 
>Wales' main line, rail bosses said last night.
>
>New 125mph Virgin Trains services will run almost hourly from Holy-head 
>to London, slicing up to 20 minutes off the timetable.
>
>But it could be at least 15 months - or even three years - before the 
>dedicated fleet, with extra first class seats and a hot food buffet, 
>starts running.
>
>And ageing locos and carriages may be wheeled out again next summer, 
>while faster trains are switched to bolster holiday routes in southern 
>England.
>
>Five services a day are presently run by Virgin on the North Wales coast 
>line. Two of them are electric Pendolino trains pulled by a diesel 
>engine from Crewe.
>
>The proposals would see nine services.
>
>Virgin Trains West Coast managing director Charles Belcher said: "These 
>plans are being put forward to the Department for Transport.
>
>"We propose to create a dedicated fleet of diesel trains to operate the 
>services. This will allow an almost hourly service between North Wales 
>and London and return.
>
>"The use of an electric Pendolino train along the North Wales line 
>dragged by a diesel locomotive makes no sense at all.
>
>"New diesel trains will be obtained. These will be similar to the 
>Voyagers currently in use but will be modified to increase the number of 
>first class seats. A galley will be installed to allow hot food to be 
>prepared."
>
>If the green light is given the new trains would be introduced in 
>December 2008.
>
>But Mr Belcher said: "If our discussions with various bodies are 
>successful, the services could be introduced earlier but not before 
>December 2006."



Presumably the trains that could be introduced earlier have nine cars,
are currently stored out of use and carry Midland Main Line livery.

;-)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:10:07 +0100, Tony   Polson 
wrote:


>Presumably the trains that could be introduced earlier have nine cars,
>are currently stored out of use and carry Midland Main Line livery.


Or perhaps they have 4 cars (but could be expanded to 5 without much
hassle) and would be released from MML in return for some of the
9-cars?

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.

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


>On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 01:10:07 +0100, Tony   Polson 
>wrote:
>
>>Presumably the trains that could be introduced earlier have nine cars,
>>are currently stored out of use and carry Midland Main Line livery.
>
>Or perhaps they have 4 cars (but could be expanded to 5 without much
>hassle) and would be released from MML in return for some of the
>9-cars?



Indeed!

;-)

In message <dedlkh$ik$1$8300dec7@news.beeb.net>, Tony Miles 
 writes

>222s could keep to one path on the fast lines if stops were removed - 
>this has been demonstrated by Virgin recently to the annoyance of the 
>SRA which had used the "they can't run in a path" excuse as the main 
>reason for refusing to even talk about Virgin using the 9-Car Meridians 
>to N Wales.

Maybe because N/wales isn't England?
-- 
Clive

Ken Ward wrote:

> This evening I have come across a strong rumour about the loss of Pendolinos
> on the North Wales Coast being replaced by LHCS from next week.


I don't know what happened yesterday (Monday) but this afternoon's
train to and from Holyhead was a Pendolino hauled by Tin Tin (57308 I
think).

Looks like the warranty (or other) issue was sorted out.

peter