Recent content by AlastairFraser

Fair point about the ROSCOs. Because they're **** units in comparison. Not as bad as the 195, niceish interior when new, but everything will start falling apart like a product off Temu after a few years.

Interesting - must be some element of cross-subsidy for both to use the facilities. Reading has significant population north of the river (a lot of who use services like schools and workplaces in Oxon), so there is a significant traffic load heading north from Reading at times you wouldn't...

I just don't see the point of more 197s if they give up on the Mk4/67 combo. More 175s coming back would make more sense.

I wasn't saying that they were the best option if money is available to invest! I don't see the point of more substandard units.

An interesting proposition to consider - does Reading Buses have enough room at Great Knollys St to expand the Thames Travel outstation?

Well, it'd be a better, more scaleable investment to use coaches (in comparison to a few 197s for the price of tens of coaches). I quite like CAF electrics in particular - they're quite reliable ime, it's more the fact that some things just aren't suitable for the job they're used for.

Why is it so terrible?

Why not more 197s? If you want to simply add capacity on the long distance routes, a fleet of high end coaches (integrated into the rail ticketing system) acting as relief services for the actual services and stopping only at major stations would be cheaper, arguably similar quality and faster...

Wikipedia* says they planned to head to Royal Oak, which is close by, but Shepherds Bush makes more sense as Westfield/several tubes + overground + White City bus station are close by. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Coach_Station

This is a well-written and reasoned explanation of the factors surrounding new London coach stations - thank you. Here's an interesting alternative scenario to explore - what if TfL sold off the site of Vic Coach Station (must be worth hundreds of millions - no?) and moved to some cheaper land...

More Stadlers would make sense if you were looking for fleet homogeneity - more cascade opportunity, potential for progressive conversion to OHLE/battery as electrification progresses (better journey times + potentially unit utilisation). Rescue capability is a case of standardising couplers...

I would tentatively agree with Mk4s if some more bimodes from another manufacturer were ordered - the CAF standard is just not an attractive proposition for journeys of more than 2 hours. 1716494976 Why would it have to be 197s? If you were going to order anything, it would be a new bi-mode...

Perhaps a loco change would help with the Mk4 reliability then in future. I agree with your point re GWR 165s - the 175s would be much more suitable for their regional (as opposed to short distance) services.

How long was it before the 180s were whipped into shape? :lol: I appreciate that it was a while, but it's by no means the worst stock on the UK rail network for performance. Just look at the 701s!

Affordable, yes - TfW is already one of the more affordable TOCs. For reliability, as I said - the Mk4s haven't really had time to bed down with TfW mechanics yet. If those are your 2 main criteria for rail growth, the Mk4s can certainly satisfy them compared to the 197s (which are fine for...