Rolling stock shortages - VT and FGW

David Thornhill wrote:
> I understand East Midlands ITT has a lot about, not the long term future of
> franchise, but how the first transitional year will be managed. I dare say
> East Mids may need resources at Tyseley for some months for example. No
> doubt it will be similar here in due course.

Surely One Railway have been through the same thing with the move from
Hornsey to Ilford for the WA 315s and 317s.

This took place over quite a few months, moving the 315s first, then the
317s, there was a few problems as Ilford got used to the different units
and more of 'em but nothing FGW style!

tonymiles@beeb.net wrote:
> That said FGW were "called in" to the DFT on Friday, presumably for a
> telling off.

Sounds a bit reminiscent of Baron Frankenstein summoning his monster to
account for doing its master's bidding....
--
gordon

Charlie Hulme wrote:
> tonymiles@beeb.net wrote:
>
> > That said FGW were "called in" to the DFT on Friday, presumably for a
> > telling off.
>
> By their ex-FirstGroup colleague Dr Mike Mitchell?

Perhaps it was "called in" in the tea and crumpets sense?

--
gordon

"Simon Field" <s.d.field@newcastle.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1168175271.141626.18250@11g2000cwr. ps.com...
> I've been following the FGW situation with interest, and couldn't help
> contasting it with VXC.
>
Over on Alison's turf we have 158s and 153s in store,
> whilst sick 150s are also out of traffic. An additional 'benefit' is
> that Par-Newquay is closed due to a landslip, which I believe should
> free up a 153 in the short-term.
>

The Portsmouth blockade ought to release at least a 2.158 until the end of
the month too, with all services shortened to Fareham...

Paul

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 16:35:11 +0000, Great Eastern <ger@ger.ger> wrote:

>David Thornhill wrote:
>> I understand East Midlands ITT has a lot about, not the long term future of
>> franchise, but how the first transitional year will be managed. I dare say
>> East Mids may need resources at Tyseley for some months for example. No
>> doubt it will be similar here in due course.
>
>Surely One Railway have been through the same thing with the move from
>Hornsey to Ilford for the WA 315s and 317s.
>
>This took place over quite a few months, moving the 315s first, then the
>317s, there was a few problems as Ilford got used to the different units
>and more of 'em but nothing FGW style!

So being unable to run the advertised timetables on local services for
nearly a year is nothing like "FGW style"? One's service was utterly
diabolical for months on the West Anglia lines after they took over.
Their former MD has admitted as much in the latest Modern Railways.
--
Paul C

Paul Harley wrote:

> In addition, as someone suggested on this n.g. a few weeks ago, the
> reforming of 3 car 158s back into 2 car units may not have gone as
> smoothly as FGW would have wished.

What is happening to the third vehicles? Re-formed into 2-cars to
offset loss of other stock or back to ROSCO? I assume lack of use of
1/3 of the driving cabs must be affecting fleet reliability either
way...

"David Biddulph" <groups@biddulph.org.uk> wrote in message
news:kKidnRjUZqiSDzzYRVnyuAA@bt.com...
>
> I guess it's that the trial system exists on the GWML, so operating
> without it doesn't make the risk ALARP. Other lines don't have the
> system.
>

Of course - I should have realised that. So presumably 220/221 are treated
as visitors when they run from Reading to Didcot?

Paul