Yesterday, Modern Railways (November) reached this distant outpost of civilization (Reno). On page 8 is an item discussing the possibility of a Crossrail Station in the Kensal/Old Oak Common area. This, in itself, is not a great idea IMHO.
However, the column goes on to say that this locale, including the no- longer-used Eurostar depot at North Pole is a "regeneration site".
Apart from this area's future transport utility, i.e. a possible HS2 link, surely it is crazy to dispose of an almost new train depot.
Could North Pole find a new life as the depot for the coming GW ML electric trains, or as home for HS2's rolling stock?
> Yesterday, Modern Railways (November) reached this distant outpost of > civilization (Reno). On page 8 is an item discussing the possibility > of a Crossrail Station in the Kensal/Old Oak Common area. This, in > itself, is not a great idea IMHO.
Were you aware that about 10 empty trains per hour have to be turned round at the planned Westbourne Park 'dummy station' under the current plans? Apparently this 'turnback facility' is planned to include 3 or 4 basic platforms and provision for dealing with passengers in an emergency anyway. Expanding that to an operational station shouldn't be too difficult, and it also answers a big question about the unbalanced nature of the east and west ends of the network.
> However, the column goes on to say that this locale, including the no- > longer-used Eurostar depot at North Pole is a "regeneration site". > Apart from this area's future transport utility, i.e. a possible HS2 > link, surely it is crazy to dispose of an almost new train depot.
I don't think that being in a 'regeneration site' necessarily implies that the depot would be demolished. Regeneration in its broadest terms would include reactivating the depot and recreating the jobs that were transferred away with Eurostar, IYSWIM. Building the new Crossrail depot at Old Oak Common might also count as regeneration.
> Could North Pole find a new life as the depot for the coming GW ML > electric trains, or as home for HS2's rolling stock?
Probably the former I should imagine, if only because it is the project likely to happen at the earliest, by quite a few years.
On Nov 6, 10:43 pm, "Paul Scott" <notvalidpmsc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Could North Pole find a new life as the depot for the coming GW ML > > electric trains, or as home for HS2's rolling stock? > Probably the former I should imagine, if only because it is the project > likely to happen at the earliest, by quite a few years.
But if I were the operator I'd not want my depot at the inner London end for either the intercity or suburban operation.
BR made this mistake the last time for BedPan by placing its depot at Cricklewood. Yes CW (as a depot) was closed because of Thameslink, but when extra depot facilities were needed, it made more sense to build new at the end of the route at Cauldwell and not re-open CW - which was vacant at the time ((CW depot building has long had non rail use - but not continuous use - it was vacant around the time Cauldwell was announced)).
Depots are better off ''out in the sticks'' as that is by far the best place to berth and hence maintain anything that has any kind of London flow. This is why what is now Chiltern built at Aylesbury, SWT at Salisbury, LM at Northampton, WC at Manchester, and so on. Even the bulk of C2C stabling is not East Ham but Shoeburyness.
Reading is just about OK for Thames Valley EMU but no closer. IEP need to be Bristol and/or Cardiff/Swansea.
>On Nov 6, 10:43 pm, "Paul Scott" <notvalidpmsc...@btinternet.com> >wrote:
>> > Could North Pole find a new life as the depot for the coming GW ML >> > electric trains, or as home for HS2's rolling stock?
>> Probably the former I should imagine, if only because it is the project >> likely to happen at the earliest, by quite a few years.
>But if I were the operator I'd not want my depot at the inner London >end for either the intercity or suburban operation.
>BR made this mistake the last time for BedPan by placing its depot at >Cricklewood. Yes CW (as a depot) was closed because of Thameslink, but >when extra depot facilities were needed, it made more sense to build >new at the end of the route at Cauldwell and not re-open CW - which >was vacant at the time ((CW depot building has long had non rail use - >but not continuous use - it was vacant around the time Cauldwell was >announced)).
>Depots are better off ''out in the sticks'' as that is by far the best >place to berth and hence maintain anything that has any kind of London >flow. This is why what is now Chiltern built at Aylesbury, SWT at >Salisbury, LM at Northampton, WC at Manchester, and so on. Even the >bulk of C2C stabling is not East Ham but Shoeburyness.
>Reading is just about OK for Thames Valley EMU but no closer. IEP need >to be Bristol and/or Cardiff/Swansea.
Earlier this year Agility Trains (Hitachi et al) announced that the proposed new maintenance centres for the IEP would be at North Pole (part of site only), Reading and Bristol Parkway. These are in addition to several upgraded existing facilities (undisclosed). Of course this predated the GWML electrification announcement, so it could all change
On Nov 7, 7:26 pm, David Randles <use...@nospam.drandles.net> wrote:
> Earlier this year Agility Trains (Hitachi et al) announced that the > proposed new maintenance centres for the IEP would be at North Pole > (part of site only), Reading and Bristol Parkway. These are in > addition to several upgraded existing facilities (undisclosed). Of > course this predated the GWML electrification announcement, so it > could all change
> Depots are better off ''out in the sticks'' as that is by far the best > place to berth and hence maintain anything that has any kind of London > flow. This is why what is now Chiltern built at Aylesbury, SWT at > Salisbury, LM at Northampton, WC at Manchester, and so on. Even the > bulk of C2C stabling is not East Ham but Shoeburyness.
> Reading is just about OK for Thames Valley EMU but no closer. IEP need > to be Bristol and/or Cardiff/Swansea.
Wouldn't manpower costs be lower if you maintained the trains in London between the peaks, instead of in the sticks overnight?
<jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Wouldn't manpower costs be lower if you maintained the trains in London > between the peaks, instead of in the sticks overnight?
Explain then why every type if long distance stock on London radial lines is maintained at the country end, and most outer suburban stock is too. Your Wimbledons Selhurtst SladeGreens etc are largely inner suburban stock depots. Yes these depots do stable main line units (but stabling / cleaning only) and yes they have heavy repair shops, but the work in those repair shops is not stuff that can be done betwene peaks or overnight anyway, ususally units involved are stopped for several days, thus its irrelevant from a traffic point of view where the depot is.
Or are you saying they are all those TOC are wrong with London services rolling stock based in Plymouth Bristol Norwich Manchester Leeds Edinburgh Northampton Aylsebury Salisbury Ramsgate Brighton Southampton. Apart from former ER operations at Hornsey Ilford and East Ham, and they are all legacy BR depots, just about every TOC has its main line depots away from London.
d7...@hotmail.com (D7666) wrote: > On Nov 8, 5:18 am, "Basil Jet" > <jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Wouldn't manpower costs be lower if you maintained the trains in > > London between the peaks, instead of in the sticks overnight?
> Explain then why every type if long distance stock on London radial > lines is maintained at the country end, and most outer suburban stock > is too. Your Wimbledons Selhurtst SladeGreens etc are largely inner > suburban stock depots. Yes these depots do stable main line units > (but stabling / cleaning only) and yes they have heavy repair shops, > but the work in those repair shops is not stuff that can be done > betwene peaks or overnight anyway, ususally units involved are stopped > for several days, thus its irrelevant from a traffic point of view > where the depot is.
> Or are you saying they are all those TOC are wrong with London > services rolling stock based in Plymouth Bristol Norwich Manchester > Leeds Edinburgh Northampton Aylsebury Salisbury Ramsgate Brighton > Southampton. Apart from former ER operations at Hornsey Ilford and > East Ham, and they are all legacy BR depots, just about every TOC has > its main line depots away from London.
> <jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > Wouldn't manpower costs be lower if you maintained the trains in London > > between the peaks, instead of in the sticks overnight?
> Explain then why every type if long distance stock on London radial > lines is maintained at the country end, and most outer suburban stock > is too. Your Wimbledons Selhurtst SladeGreens etc are largely inner > suburban stock depots. Yes these depots do stable main line units > (but stabling / cleaning only) and yes they have heavy repair shops, > but the work in those repair shops is not stuff that can be done > betwene peaks or overnight anyway, ususally units involved are stopped > for several days, thus its irrelevant from a traffic point of view > where the depot is.
> Or are you saying they are all those TOC are wrong with London > services rolling stock based in Plymouth Bristol Norwich Manchester > Leeds Edinburgh Northampton Aylsebury Salisbury Ramsgate Brighton > Southampton. Apart from former ER operations at Hornsey Ilford and > East Ham, and they are all legacy BR depots, just about every TOC has > its main line depots away from London.
> Perhaps there are reasons for this :o)
Before the 321s replaced everything with a common fleet based at Ilford, the longer distance stuff was maintained at Clacton, wasn't it?
> In article > <b183ad95-4cd2-48cc-b816-db79742ae...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > d7...@hotmail.com (D7666) wrote:
>> Or are you saying they are all those TOC are wrong with London >> services rolling stock based in Plymouth Bristol Norwich Manchester >> Leeds Edinburgh Northampton Aylsebury Salisbury Ramsgate Brighton >> Southampton. Apart from former ER operations at Hornsey Ilford and >> East Ham, and they are all legacy BR depots, just about every TOC has >> its main line depots away from London.
>> Perhaps there are reasons for this :o)
> What about Hornsey?!
You didn't read to the end of Nick's post did you...
notvalidpmsc...@btinternet.com (Paul Scott) wrote: > <rosenst...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message > news:_K-dnbZfW70yAGvXnZ2dnUVZ8hednZ2d@giganews.com... > > In article > <b183ad95-4cd2-48cc-b816-db79742ae...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > > d7...@hotmail.com (D7666) wrote:
> >> Or are you saying they are all those TOC are wrong with London > >> services rolling stock based in Plymouth Bristol Norwich Manchester > >> Leeds Edinburgh Northampton Aylsebury Salisbury Ramsgate Brighton > >> Southampton. Apart from former ER operations at Hornsey Ilford and > >> East Ham, and they are all legacy BR depots, just about every TOC has > >> its main line depots away from London.
> >> Perhaps there are reasons for this :o)
> > What about Hornsey?!
> You didn't read to the end of Nick's post did you...
Oops! However, he makes my point for me. I mentioned Hornsey because it has one of the highest reliability records of any modern EMU depot. Compare the past record with the same class 365 stock of the Kent coast depots.
> In article <8PidnQtm7vxIM2vXnZ2dnUVZ8v2dn...@bt.com>,
> notvalidpmsc...@btinternet.com (Paul Scott) wrote: > > <rosenst...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message > >news:_K-dnbZfW70yAGvXnZ2dnUVZ8hednZ2d@giganews.com... > > > In article > > <b183ad95-4cd2-48cc-b816-db79742ae...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > > > d7...@hotmail.com (D7666) wrote:
> > >> Or are you saying they are all those TOC are wrong with London > > >> services rolling stock based in Plymouth Bristol Norwich Manchester > > >> Leeds Edinburgh Northampton Aylsebury Salisbury Ramsgate Brighton > > >> Southampton. Apart from former ER operations at Hornsey Ilford and > > >> East Ham, and they are all legacy BR depots, just about every TOC has > > >> its main line depots away from London.
> > >> Perhaps there are reasons for this :o)
> > > What about Hornsey?!
> > You didn't read to the end of Nick's post did you...
> Oops! However, he makes my point for me. I mentioned Hornsey because it > has one of the highest reliability records of any modern EMU depot. > Compare the past record with the same class 365 stock of the Kent coast > depots.
I seem to recall that the 365s were maintained at Slade Green, presumably because the fleet was small and similar to the rest of what was maintained at Slade Green.
> > Could North Pole find a new life as the depot for the coming GW ML > > electric trains, or as home for HS2's rolling stock? > Probably the former I should imagine, if only because it is the project > likely to happen at the earliest, by quite a few years.
But if I were the operator I'd not want my depot at the inner London end for either the intercity or suburban operation.
BR made this mistake the last time for BedPan by placing its depot at Cricklewood. Yes CW (as a depot) was closed because of Thameslink, but when extra depot facilities were needed, it made more sense to build new at the end of the route at Cauldwell and not re-open CW - which was vacant at the time ((CW depot building has long had non rail use - but not continuous use - it was vacant around the time Cauldwell was announced)).
Depots are better off ''out in the sticks'' as that is by far the best place to berth and hence maintain anything that has any kind of London flow. This is why what is now Chiltern built at Aylesbury, SWT at Salisbury, LM at Northampton,
And previously of course at Bletchley so hardly a drastic move and presumably Aylesbury was built to free up very valuable land at Marylebone and surely built by Network SE not Chiltern Trains.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 19:59:22 -0000, "Zen83237" <zen83...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>Depots are better off ''out in the sticks'' as that is by far the best >place to berth and hence maintain anything that has any kind of London >flow. This is why what is now Chiltern built at Aylesbury, SWT at >Salisbury, LM at Northampton,
>And previously of course at Bletchley so hardly a drastic move and >presumably Aylesbury was built to free up very valuable land at Marylebone >and surely built by Network SE not Chiltern Trains.
Yes, the present Aylesbury depot was constructed in Network SouthEast days as part of the so-called "Total Route Modernisation" of the Chiltern lines.
> Earlier this year Agility Trains (Hitachi et al) announced that the > proposed new maintenance centres for the IEP would be at North Pole > (part of site only), Reading and Bristol Parkway. These are in > addition to several upgraded existing facilities (undisclosed). Of > course this predated the GWML electrification announcement, so it > could all change
And of course no IEP has actually been ordered yet has it ???
Agility/Htchi is merely the prefered bidder.
-- Nick
And the traffic flows for IEPs are different than for commuter/outer suburban services; so having facilities close to the London termini will be useful for first turn down trains, and late returning up trains.
|
