Class 139 - no sign of it in Rules of the plan?

[TheWalrus]

Does anyone have the values for 139s (e.g. dwell times)?

On a separate note, I'm thinking a 139 may be the answer to Melksham's prayers? If a crossover was installed just west of Chippenham, and some bi-directional signalling, one of these could run on an hourly basis all day between Chippenham-Westbury. This may be a viable solution to the poor level of service on this line. Does anyone think this could work, and is a good idea?

 

[Ivo]

The rather limited speed potential of the PPM would somewhat weaken the appeal of running them through Melksham in my opinion. Such a service may have to terminated at Trowbridge to permit an hourly frequency, but that would put it in direct competition with the far more convenient 234 bus (which continues beyond Trowbridge to Frome) run by the same company. If the units could run fast enough to permit an hourly service to Westbury, then it could be a viable solution and would surely allow Melksham travellers the option of not having to travel to Bath to get any kind of decent rail service. If this did happen, the office-side plaform at Chippenham should be re-opened and the entire route three-tracked to ensure easy running for HSTs.

It could certainly be justified to at least try it; if it failed, FGW could simply extend it to Swindon, reduce it to two-hourly, and introduce a 153 to the route.

 

[The Planner]

As it only runs on the Stourbridge branch as a shuttle and nowhere else, it doesnt interact with anything, therefore needs no specific values. It doesnt need to be in the RotP for that reason. Its timed as a 153 anyway and would show up in TRUST that way too id imagine, i've never actually checked.

If they ever started showing up in greater numbers, then they would get specific entries. The thought of it interacting with anything else on a main line is quite a scary thought though. I wouldnt want to be on one going 40mph.

 

[TheWalrus]

Obviously if a higher top speed is needed then it could be done I guess, but from what the planner says it looks like it would need further mods like maybe a better suspension? Im glad you like the idea Scott
The Planner - do you think 30 secs will be a sufficient dwell time?

 

[The Planner]

Depends on the station loadings, door cycle time, it would probably do.

 

[Ivo]

Actually the suspension issue is a fair one. Because it is so lightly used, the line through Melksham isn't exactly a top priority for maintenance, resulting in a potentially less comfortable ride. Even at the 20 speed limit experienced on the Stourbridge branch, the PPMs have shown themselves to be uncomfortable themselves.

Perhaps routexford's idea of Dennis Hybrids (okay, not hybrids ) could be implemented in the same way here? Could the Melksham line be used as a similar testing grouns as Stourbridge, and in time very short routes could all use PPMs, while longer "stubs" such as Melksham could use vehicles such as those? I have to admit though, the Aldershot examples are probably better than the Oxford examples for a basis for the project, because they are single deck and thus can be copied more easily.

A link to the site for the GoldLine routes is here. No mention of Oxford on the site yet though! And yes, they are basically advanced versions of the standard Enviro X00 series models.

 

[455driver]

Anybody thought about the crash worthiness of the PPM, the Stourbridge jn to Stourbridge Town is self contained and doesn't interact with the "big" railway, on the route you are proposing it would be and so the PPM would need to pass all the crash tests.