Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2013 1:41:01 GMT
CROSS - POST
I've just posted this on LR, in response to comments by Graham Feakins (GF):
To pick up the theme of Siemens and the Contract, it is noteworthy that depot construction at Hornsey and Three Bridges is going ahead apace. I'm a little curious as to who exactly is funding this in absence of a Contract.
As to GF's comments about trams through the TL core. This resonates with my comment to the effect of the early TL wasn't broke, so why is so much being spent to fix it? It's now rhetorical, so please don't answer. I know that someone thought it would be better if the bulk of TL trains went through LB, and so we have all the activity, demolition and disruption we now have. I know the business case was made, etc, etc.
What looks likely given the dragging of DafT personnel heels, is that TL will be served by 319s and 377s (and maybe even 313s) at the word "go," using conventional signalling at about 15-18 tph. Maybe sometime later, the 700s will finally arrive - if Siemens don't walk over to their legal advisers and have the British Government sued instead.
Meanwhile, under this sad scenario, a bunch of cobweb encrusted 508s get brushed off and pressed into service on the DC lines, the dual voltage trains get pressed into service on TL, and GN AC only units (eg 317s) get cascaded north. And those who've argued against repowering the PEPs might have a sudden rethink. Better the bird in hand than relying on some twittering so-and-so's trying deperately to make sure their tail feathers are fully covered from every angle, to sign a Contract at third hand on your behalf. I see that’s an enlighten post with the fact that currently the Core is handling daily 16tph with ability to take up to 20tph if pushed and it’s ready for the ATO overlay now. As for the depots, its simple. Siemens is funding them as it’s their responsibility to get the depots built in time for fleet commissioning. However those that attack the deal on LR regular fail to heal anything from those who know and most take the lie that Bombardier wouldn’t have had the same problems that Siemens has (yes because someone with terrible credit rating will get better and cheaper credit than someone with great credit rating)! Not to mention the fact Southern is about to tender for up to 64 dual voltage units for Thameslink to replace every 319s that was planned to be released for the NW triangle and GWML electrification schemes. People need to remember that just because they don’t know doesn’t mean that there isn’t a plan nor their baseless opinions are correct. As for its better for the bulk of trains going to London Bridge, it’s actually where there’s massive demand. It’s a major hub and draw in people for its connections as well as local traffic. Also Elephant route can’t support 12 cars without massive work so all those 12 cars needed on the MML and ECML would have to sail through south London with no stops after Blackfriars until places like Croydon. Hardly helpful to those travelling that route to see their limited capacity drained on non stop trains. The only way to fix this would be to rebuild every station on the way to at least Herne Hill and they are all on viaducts. Not cheap, look at the simple cost of adding a four car platform at somewhere like Brixton, admittedly more complex but still around the £50m mark, now think of Elephant with four platforms, all three times longer requiring massive work plus lifts. Your talking £100m’s of pound for a SINGLE station. Then add in Loughborough Junction, Herne Hill and many others and you see the problem. The suggestion that having the 508’s back in service is a bad point as the idea was to cover for train lengthening with out reducing the service. Shortly this is a great example of ensuring that people are getting a better railway and not losing out in the interim period. Not that a deal for the 508 was actually reached but simply discussion from TfL to explore all options. Thanks again, FL. a) I would hope the status quo was still achieveable. Are there suitable trains with ATO capability available now (apart from one 313)? That's the key issue underlying my comments. If the 377s and new Southern dual-voltage are ATO capable, beaut. But if not, and no 700s, then what? b) Is Siemens building the depots under a separate Contract, which ensures they get paid, even if the rolling stock contract falls over? c) Bombardier aren't the world's best at much; I'm not keen on some of their design concepts. I'm not surprised they dipped out when work was genuinely competitively tendered. But OTOH there's quite a bit of their kit around. Others pursue the Built in Britain line. What I find utterly stupid is that the delays are about finance, as part of risk transfer to the private sector. I'd imagine you'd have a fairly good idea at what point (time wise) the need to hit the panic button arises. d) It's good to see that Southern are in an ongoing positition to have rolling stock acquired on their behalf. Would the new stock be available and all commissioned before 2018? e) LB - location of massive demand. Well, perhaps. Demand for what, exactly? From a TL point of view, is this demand for City Access or Southwark/LB area access? Is this demand something that a District connection at Blackfriars and Northern @ E&C can't satisfy? But anyway as I indicated: the business case was made and the decision taken - and so we have the works and the disruptions that come with them. Let's not chew over spoilt meat (or flog a dead horse). f) I wasn't aware that the 4-track route via E&C was that busy already that folks down the line would lose out. In that case, retaining a flat junction at Blackfriars Jct would be one of those cost-cutting measures that come back to bite (like 2 tracks through City TL and St Pan TL). Certainly, E&C remains crying out for a decent redevelopment and full integration of interchange facilities. g) I think you realise that my indication that the 508s might be needed was to allow a cascade of dual voltage stock to TL and AC only stock to the north and GWML. It's only if the Contract deal falls over completely, or finalisation is dragged on for so long that an interim solution is needed. I wasn't aware of TfL's discussions about them. IMHO, having workable units lying around unused seems criminal in these times of heavy overcrowding. But, OTOH they apparently do need a fair bit of work to come up to standard.
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Jun 2, 2013 22:26:19 GMT
To keep things back on topic here's a link for those interested in the original topic.... www.therailengineer.com/2012/03/28/bogies-for-thameslink/ The new ATO is currently under development, however the idea that a train is compatible fails to note that the ATO isn't just a software requirement but actually requires performance currently not achievable on any fleet in the UK mainline. The depot question I'm refusing to answer or I may lose a few fingers. Let's keep discussion of Bombardier, Thameslink Programme build justifications and 508s to a suitable thread as this one is about the prototype and I'm flog a dead horse to someone who is showing a dislike to what was chosen despite it being the best answer and supported by a business case. Especially when your knowledge in this matter is lacking hence your beliefs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2013 10:39:31 GMT
To keep Fleetline's fingers intact, the following is from the Auditor-General's progress report on Thameslink: 3.6 The Department has tried to minimise the impact of delays on the timetable for delivering the trains by entering into an Advance Works Agreement. This allows Siemens to carry out some construction work on maintenance depots at Hornsey and Three Bridges before contract award. These depots need to be completed before the new trains are brought into service. There are restricted windows in which some work can be carried out without disrupting existing passenger services so protecting the depot build timetable is important to avoid significant delays to the overall programme. www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/10164-001-Thameslink-Full-Report.pdf
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 9, 2013 11:58:48 GMT
Ta for that.
See bottom of fig 8 on page 30. Cutting to salient points : First new train in service operating at 16 trains per hour .... July 2015
All new trains in service operating at 24 trains per hour .... December 2018
I think that is the first time I have seen dates writ large in an official document as opposed to rumours and web chatter and waffly evasive doublespeak media statements.
While it does only confirm what we knew, or we can work out anyway, it is nice to have that - confirmation.
-- Nick
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 10, 2013 6:51:41 GMT
Ta for that. See bottom of fig 8 on page 30. Cutting to salient points : First new train in service operating at 16 trains per hour .... July 2015
All new trains in service operating at 24 trains per hour .... December 2018 I think that is the first time I have seen dates writ large in an official document as opposed to rumours and web chatter and waffly evasive doublespeak media statements. While it does only confirm what we knew, or we can work out anyway, it is nice to have that - confirmation. -- Nick While the NAO report is, of course, an official one, it is not a public statement by the project's sponsors and simply records their understanding of the current position. The NAO are auditors, not project managers and often says things that no Minister or manager would commit to as public policy. GH
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 8:03:37 GMT
Ta for that. See bottom of fig 8 on page 30. Cutting to salient points : First new train in service operating at 16 trains per hour .... July 2015
All new trains in service operating at 24 trains per hour .... December 2018 [snip] Nick While the NAO report is, of course, an official one, it is not a public statement by the project's sponsors and simply records their understanding of the current position. The NAO are auditors, not project managers and often says things that no Minister or manager would commit to as public policy. GH And indeed from my perspective as a one-time project manager and programme manager, the one statement that stood out enormously to me was that DafT still haven't completed their Critical Path Analysis. As a consequence, they are on no position to commit any timeframe as public policy. The CPA is intimately linked to risk and until completed, DafT really has no proper measure of risk in this project. Staggering! This is as close as we, the great unwashed [excluding Fleetline of course], will get to being properly informed until that CPA is completed. It leaves me wondering what is so hard about setting up a "power by the hour" contract that it's taken three years and they're still at it. Quite clearly, risk shifting FROM the public sector is nice in theory, but awkward in practice. And at the end of the day, it seems the public sector is paying anyway - for the new trains ordered for Southern, etc, as stop-gap measures. So in trying to shift the risk, they've ended up with the cost of it anyway. As others have pointed out elsewhere, if it all goes pear-shaped, the government picks up the pieces anyway. Risk shifting contracts are only as good as the solvency of the second party. Siemens looks good, but they've got a partner in this project and the JV must be in a separate legal entity. That of course, can fall over without taking Siemens with it. So, there must be all sorts of guarantees needed to be built in. If major British banks can fall over to the point of rescue, if Lehmann Bros can collapse, etc, etc - what private sector player is immune? And the end of the day, maybe the NAO should be raking through that and asking whether the intention has been taken over by events? And thus recommend Osborne get the excheque-book out and deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jun 10, 2013 16:39:41 GMT
dw54 - just so - put it bluntly! - you can transfer any risk if the price is right. The besetting sin of the Treasury is that they really do believe that the private sector has a more or less unlimited appetite for risk and will therefore roll over and accept blithely the most outrageous attempts to offload risk and not ask for anything in return. Time and again, I have seen them attempt to offload risks that could be neither measured nor controlled by the recipient. Then they wonder why the price for letting franchises and public procurement exercises is so high. The NAO might more usefully have been engaged, as you imply, in asking whether the risks being transferred in the TLK contract were (a) appropriate, and (b) proportionate. As taxpayers, I think we should be told... GH
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 11, 2013 9:03:18 GMT
Ta for that. See bottom of fig 8 on page 30. Cutting to salient points : First new train in service operating at 16 trains per hour .... July 2015
All new trains in service operating at 24 trains per hour .... December 2018 I think that is the first time I have seen dates writ large in an official document as opposed to rumours and web chatter and waffly evasive doublespeak media statements. While it does only confirm what we knew, or we can work out anyway, it is nice to have that - confirmation. -- Nick While the NAO report is, of course, an official one, it is not a public statement by the project's sponsors and simply records their understanding of the current position. The NAO are auditors, not project managers and often says things that no Minister or manager would commit to as public policy. GH Yes, I skimmed through it looking for dates etc, only last day or so have I sat and read all NAO report. In skimming I was looking for what I wanted to find, reading it in detail of what NAO do puts a different slant on things. -- Nick
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Jun 12, 2013 19:47:01 GMT
To keep Fleetline's fingers intact, the following is from the Auditor-General's progress report on Thameslink: 3.6 The Department has tried to minimise the impact of delays on the timetable for delivering the trains by entering into an Advance Works Agreement. This allows Siemens to carry out some construction work on maintenance depots at Hornsey and Three Bridges before contract award. These depots need to be completed before the new trains are brought into service. There are restricted windows in which some work can be carried out without disrupting existing passenger services so protecting the depot build timetable is important to avoid significant delays to the overall programme. www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/10164-001-Thameslink-Full-Report.pdfNot so much my fingers but if you had listened to me when I was explaining to you. Glad you can now see I was indeed correct and Siemens is getting on with it.
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Jun 12, 2013 19:52:19 GMT
And indeed from my perspective as a one-time project manager and programme manager, the one statement that stood out enormously to me was that DafT still haven't completed their Critical Path Analysis. As a consequence, they are on no position to commit any timeframe as public policy. The CPA is intimately linked to risk and until completed, DafT really has no proper measure of risk in this project. Staggering! This is as close as we, the great unwashed [excluding Fleetline of course], will get to being properly informed until that CPA is completed. It leaves me wondering what is so hard about setting up a "power by the hour" contract that it's taken three years and they're still at it. Quite clearly, risk shifting FROM the public sector is nice in theory, but awkward in practice. And at the end of the day, it seems the public sector is paying anyway - for the new trains ordered for Southern, etc, as stop-gap measures. So in trying to shift the risk, they've ended up with the cost of it anyway. As others have pointed out elsewhere, if it all goes pear-shaped, the government picks up the pieces anyway. Risk shifting contracts are only as good as the solvency of the second party. Siemens looks good, but they've got a partner in this project and the JV must be in a separate legal entity. That of course, can fall over without taking Siemens with it. So, there must be all sorts of guarantees needed to be built in. If major British banks can fall over to the point of rescue, if Lehmann Bros can collapse, etc, etc - what private sector player is immune? And the end of the day, maybe the NAO should be raking through that and asking whether the intention has been taken over by events? And thus recommend Osborne get the excheque-book out and deal with it. I'm not counted as the unwashed as I'm internal but seem many don't want to heard what's actually going on. However your views on the attempt to shift the risk has shown to be clearly the wrong thing. A NAO report into the way the DfT has gone about this could be interesting if acted on. However IEP has been let, do we really trust this issue won't be ignored too? There is much of this story not yet public but I hope that long term lessons can be learnt from this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2013 0:41:03 GMT
{snip} Quite clearly, risk shifting FROM the public sector is nice in theory, but awkward in practice. And at the end of the day, it seems the public sector is paying anyway - for the new trains ordered for Southern, etc, as stop-gap measures. {snip} I'm not counted as the unwashed as I'm internal but seem many don't want to hear d what's actually going on. However your view s on the attempt to shift the risk has shown to be clearly the wrong thing. A NAO report into the way the DfT has gone about this could be interesting if acted on. However IEP has been let, do we really trust this issue won't be ignored too? There is much of this story not yet public but I hope that long term lessons can be learnt from this. I'm sorry Fleetline, but I simply don't understand your comment. How have my views on risk shifting clearly been shown to be in error? Kindly elaborate on the logic .... The IEP has been let - hmmm - "do we really trust this issue won't be ignored too?" I really don't follow what you mean - what it "this issue" that conjoins the TL procurement and the IEP that shouldn't "be ignored too." Agreed that much of the story is not yet public, even despite the NAO scrutiny. Also agreed that long term lesson can be learnt. What those lessons might be remains unlearnable at this stage, sadly. Finally, Fleetline, I've never not been willing to read and seek to understand your comments. I've never been anti-Thameslink. It was one project I yearned to see undertaken when I commuted to work in London, using Farringdon. It's the move to load onto the simple MkI TL a north-south "Crossrail" vision, with the attendant massive disruption that alarmed me. I hope we now have learnt lessons from this. Iterative development of existing infrastructure will work and help, but there is a limit beyond which there is a need to grapple big vision projects with big bikkie budgets. So, the project had a satisfactory BCR, has approval, has funding (trimmed, yes) and is under way. The lessons are for the next decade. What interests us now is where is it at, how close to the line is it sailing, will there be a need for stop-gap measures and if so what, and how can the project proceed without a Critical Path Analysis - how can priorities be set - how can the players know where the urgency really lies - how can delays in one part be assessed against the whole - and how can the requirements be known if the required outcomes haven't been established (ie intended routes) - and those are still subject to political whims? Frightening. So, I don't envy those at DafT and on the project team who are charged with and accountable for a massive budget working towards moving goal posts. Clearly the Crossrail team have taken this lesson on board, and are ringfenced almost to Fort Knox standards! Part of the post-implementation review must of necessity answer the question: would a separate N-S Crossrail avoiding alteration to existing infrastructure in the City and near-City areas have been a better way to spend the budget? It's a hypothetical with data from both CR1 and TL available to input - and guiding further congestion management projects into the future.
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Jun 14, 2013 16:53:56 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2013 9:10:24 GMT
Further quote from Press Release (emphasis mine): "The competition to supply trains and maintenance services for the Thameslink programme was designed and launched under the previous administration in 2008, in accordance with EU procurement procedures.
In October 2009 the previous government announced that the 2 remaining short-listed bidders were Bombardier Transportation UK Ltd with VeloCity and Siemens Plc with Cross London Trains, comprising of Siemens Project Ventures, Innisfree Ltd and 3i Infrastructure Plc. In June 2011 the Siemens-led consortium was announced as the preferred bidder for the project." Please note how carefully the key decisions have been attributed to the previous (ie Labour) government. Clearly there's a distancing from the methodology (which has produced the delays) but not from the final choice. This being mid-2013, and Siemens having gone ahead with development of the Desiro City technology for general application, means that they haven't lost as much ground as if the product was totally bespoke. Thus there's a reasonable chance of meeting the broad timetables. Now the Thameslink team can get on with such nasties as finalising the gamut of potential routes, so the train design can be fully optimised - and the Critical Path Analysis finally completed.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 17, 2013 16:30:52 GMT
Drifting off topic I suppose, but here goes anyway.
I am aware of cooling off periods/pauses in contracts, indeed it is part of EU procurement rules that there are these periods, and a web search throws up the term Alcatel standstill period in many places, but I can not find anywhere that explains how this term came into being. I know who Alcatel is/was, indeed I worked for them for a while, but I have been trying and failing to understand how their name has become a general term used in this context. I guess it might be a result of a legal case involving Alcatel at some time, but so far I'm failing to find it.
Anybody know ?
-- Nick
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2013 23:20:38 GMT
Drifting off topic I suppose, but here goes anyway. I am aware of cooling off periods/pauses in contracts, indeed it is part of EU procurement rules that there are these periods, and a web search throws up the term Alcatel standstill period in many places, but I can not find anywhere that explains how this term came into being. I know who Alcatel is/was, indeed I worked for them for a while, but I have been trying and failing to understand how their name has become a general term used in this context. I guess it might be a result of a legal case involving Alcatel at some time, but so far I'm failing to find it. Anybody know ? -- Nick Here you go: Case C-81/98
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jul 2, 2013 21:47:49 GMT
Thanks,
I'd forgotten I asked the question.
Not sure I understand the legalese though.
-- Nick
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Jul 24, 2013 14:05:15 GMT
Just an updated, Siemens have already completed the first two production bodyshells (Train 1 - should be 700101) and are in the progress of fitting them out.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 24, 2013 20:15:16 GMT
Can anyone explain why these are the 700 class (and the IEPs will be 800s) when there are plenty of suitable Rolling Stock Library classifications (eg 396) still vacant?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,442
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 24, 2013 23:26:08 GMT
I expect it is entirely due to manufacturers and/or operators and/or whoever-else-can-get-their-name-on-a-press-release wanting a nice round, high profile sounding number to impress the non-specialist press with.
I've seen it said that recent class numbers have been issued based on a random number generator rather than any sense of logic or structure and with complete disregard for future allocation.
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Jul 25, 2013 14:22:05 GMT
Can anyone explain why these are the 700 class (and the IEPs will be 800s) when there are plenty of suitable Rolling Stock Library classifications (eg 396) still vacant? Because Network Rail messed with the classification system.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jul 25, 2013 15:28:53 GMT
I expect it is entirely due to manufacturers and/or operators and/or whoever-else-can-get-their-name-on-a-press-release wanting a nice round, high profile sounding number to impress the non-specialist press with. I've seen it said that recent class numbers have been issued based on a random number generator rather than any sense of logic or structure and with complete disregard for future allocation. Much less complex and/or conspiracy theory than that and much more logical AND with future provision. It is available on line somewhere (RGSonline ?) the numbering system was altered a couple of years back and 700-799 is EMU every bit as much as the 300/400/500 series we have now. It is simply they are running out of free 300-399 number blocks. It is not random but may appear so. Because there are apparently free class numbers is not all the story. Ignoring the UIC 11 digit series that I'll come back to. EMU are 3 six digit class numbers and 3 digit set numbers. Freight wagons also have 6 digit numbers. All are unique numbers and must not duplicate, so a six digit EMU number much not duplicate a 6 digit wagon number. If you take all the apparently free EMU classes from 300 to 399, but then look for ranges of free number blocks NOT occupied by freight wagons numbered between 300000 and 399999, and then allow for class growth there are not really many blocks free. Hence 700-799 was added as an EMU class range - but now there will still be wagons in the 700000-799999 range to avoid, so while it may start 700 do not assume that class 701 702 all the way will follow in sequence. If the full UIC 11 digit numbering is used, this duplication is avoided since the extra leading digits allow national operators to define function. But UIC does allow short form numbers to exist, so almost every country does avoid these clashes. UIC could be (I'm making up the numbers, and ignoring the 12th, check, digit) UK EMU 12 34 0700 001 and UK wagon 56 78 0700 001, but as the short numbers are both 700001 they should not co-exist. Remember eons ago BR renumbered certain DMU cars in the 50000 and 56000 range away from those blocks to avoid clashes with 50 and 56 locos (there were numerous other examples) when DMU cars and carriages were added to computer systems. It is the same thing, avoiding clashes, and they are running out of 300 range numbers. -- Nick
|
|
|
Post by 1018509 on Jul 25, 2013 18:42:22 GMT
Errrrrrrr............yes.
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Jul 25, 2013 23:37:49 GMT
Nick excellent post basically shows that there are multiple long numbers on the railway. Clear and non-confusing is always the aim as a unit and a wagon may end up being in same place which can create confusion in the systems used.
So the number gaps that Graham refer to don't actually always exist. Tho as an ex railwayman of his experience I'm surprised he didn't know about this.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jul 26, 2013 12:41:39 GMT
Umm, earlier I posted a link to the group standard document, which is public, and I know it got posted as I checked the link in the message worked.
Now this message is not here.
Has some forum rule been broken e.g. because I posted a link the message has been deleted ?
-- Nick
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Jul 26, 2013 14:09:03 GMT
Umm, earlier I posted a link to the group standard document, which is public, and I know it got posted as I checked the link in the message worked. Now this message is not here. Has some forum rule been broken e.g. because I posted a link the message has been deleted ? -- Nick Just looking through the security logs I can confirm that no posts have been deleted in this thread by any member of staff. Your minor changes to this post show up in the logs but there's nothing before or after that. Perhaps it just didn't post for whatever reason - I've pressed the 'preview' button instead of 'post' before now mistakenly thinking that what I've written has been published.
As an aside if a member of staff were to delete or heavily edit a post, as I did a few days ago, a PM would almost certainly be sent to the user to give the reasons for why this had happened.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jul 26, 2013 14:30:37 GMT
Umm, earlier I posted a link to the group standard document, which is public, and I know it got posted as I checked the link in the message worked. Now this message is not here. Has some forum rule been broken e.g. because I posted a link the message has been deleted ? -- Nick Just looking through the security logs I can confirm that no posts have been deleted in this thread by any member of staff. Your minor changes to this post show up in the logs but there's nothing before or after that. Perhaps it just didn't post for whatever reason - I've pressed the 'preview' button instead of 'post' before now mistakenly thinking that what I've written has been published.
As an aside if a member of staff were to delete or heavily edit a post, as I did a few days ago, a PM would almost certainly be sent to the user to give the reasons for why this had happened. OK thanks, don't know what happened there then, but thanks for confirm as I would have expected a PM too. I'm now away from able to re-research the link if I remember I'll do it later. -- Nick
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 26, 2013 17:10:52 GMT
d7666 - thank you for the full and courteous answer. [It's a pity that the opportunity wasn't taken to tidy the whole thing up, as the Swiss did about 20 years ago to conform with UIC requirements, but I dare say cost is the determining factor]. GH
|
|
|
Post by fleetline on Jul 26, 2013 19:01:31 GMT
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,442
|
Post by Chris M on Jul 26, 2013 19:02:12 GMT
d7666 - thank you for the full and courteous answer. [It's a pity that the opportunity wasn't taken to tidy the whole thing up, as the Swiss did about 20 years ago to conform with UIC requirements, but I dare say cost is the determining factor]. GH Can you imagine trying to get all the different TOCs, FOCs and ROSCOs to agree on something like that!? I highly doubt that we'll see any renumbering this side of a renationalisation.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jul 26, 2013 20:19:46 GMT
@chris M - you may be - gloomily - right, although if someone (usually NR or DfT ) cracks an industry-wide whip loudly enough, people comply mumbling awhile... As usual, the thing is not a system, no one manages it, there are no advantages from a coordinated, planned approach, no one needs to talk to anyone else, there are no costs arising from the multiplication of interfaces.... zzz
|
|