Search results

Given the mix of colours in the proposed livery, can I suggest Roobarb and Custard?

016 and 050 were swapped between Porterbrook (at the time owners of the Freightliner 90s) and EWS after a fire in 050 found to have been caused by deficient EWS maintenance. 90050 was subsequently sold on a couple of times for spares recovery and ended up under Freightliner ownership.

It's a question: what was the last screw-coupled (between passenger carrying vehicles) service train to run? First thought was the last first generation DMUs. For loco-hauled coaching stock it would be much longer ago, as all Mark 1/2/3 mainline stock has drophead buckeyes.

233 and 033 are the same loco. You can't count them twice!

But the savings from not running on diesel on the odd occasion when it would be needed would probably be outweighed by the cost of the software change. This really is a complete non-issue and as described by @dk1 only happens when there's a defect that means there isn't the required pantograph...

Might as well do the first three at the power station…

Porterbrook won't be, no. ;)

If you think less than 1000 out of over 11000 is “most”, then yes, “most” were rehired. But there’s been little service interruption from strike action since. Short term pain for long term gain.

This railway customer has long since considered that Reagan had the right idea. Likewise the BR Board back in 1982 when dealing with the rostering dispute.

No, beacsue the 165s are owned by Angel...

The leases are long-term commitments - usually until the next contract end date - so it is not surprpising that the ultimate guarantor of the lease (DfT/Treasury) wants to sign off on that commitment. I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about DfT wanting approval?

156s are the best bet for heritage use, based on that criteria. However, preserved lines do not exist in a bubble - the volunteers they get now are much more likely to be skilled in things like electronics and air conditioning systems. So the barriers that some see to preserving later traction...

Try teling that to the owners of the Class 379 fleet. Or the 175s. Or the Renatus 321s. Or..... So you don't understand that the DfT (or Treasury if you prefer) is the one paying for the railway now that franchises are dead? They need to sign off on anything that will increase the subsidy required.

Only the set numbers have six digits. The individual car numbers are three, five or six digits.

I'd be exceptionally wary of ordering anything from either of them. Both have a record for serial late delivery of poor quality trains. Hitachi in particular have produced an abysmal product in the 80x fleets - low quality, poor design, high cost, major engineering issues, availability less than...

Rugged and reliable. Are those not benefits?

Is this the incident you're thinking of - there was a thread (with links to the accident report) here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/help-finding-details-of-an-unusual-collision.167803/

They may well have been too valuable to BR as spares donors for the 08 and 09 fleets.

That is highly debatable.

The planned lease date has passed. But TfW have not met the lease return conditions so they remain on lease until such time as TfW fix them to Angel’s satisfaction. So availability of the rest of the fleet (6 sets handed back so far) depends on TfW pulling their finger out and fixing them.