Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 16:19:20 GMT
Thanks for the photo. Does anyone know what went with 5528 please?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on May 13, 2013 17:25:43 GMT
Thank you for that Dennis. Nice to see the old girl out and about!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 17:41:21 GMT
Thanks for the photo. Does anyone know what went with 5528 please? 5588+5528 formed T707 today. |
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on May 13, 2013 17:46:22 GMT
So 5595 lives on (if it can be called living?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 20:34:56 GMT
Thanks for the photo. Does anyone know what went with 5528 please? 5588+5528 formed T707 today. Thanks very much for that, appreciated. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2013 16:05:00 GMT
I've heard that 3 units are being sent to Northwood for scrap on Monday 20th of May and another 3 units on 3rd of June.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2013 13:43:39 GMT
Two sets of six car C stock had appeared outside Neasden this afternoon. Did'nt get chance to note numbers. Are these for Northwood or to take people away from the football at Wembley today?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2013 13:49:29 GMT
Northwood very soon
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2013 15:55:35 GMT
Two sets of six car C stock had appeared outside Neasden this afternoon. Did'nt get chance to note numbers. Are these for Northwood or to take people away from the football at Wembley today? Got some of the car numbers now except the one in the middle of the unit parked behind the other - 5589, 5530, 5556, 5527 and probably 5508 (last digit missing on front of car, caught a glimpse of the number on the side). |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on May 19, 2013 16:12:08 GMT
Got some of the car numbers now except the one in the middle of the unit parked behind the other - 5589, 5530, 5556, 5527 and probably 5508 (last digit missing on front of car, caught a glimpse of the number on the side). 5 708, 5503. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2013 16:17:02 GMT
Got some of the car numbers now except the one in the middle of the unit parked behind the other - 5589, 5530, 5556, 5527 and probably 5508 (last digit missing on front of car, caught a glimpse of the number on the side). 5 708, 5503. Three cars headed off to Northwood around lunch time, 5503, 5708 and 5589 left at Neasden. |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on May 20, 2013 17:17:34 GMT
I wonder if they will scrap any of the C stock as an 8 car set? M-T+T-M+M-T+T-M. Now that I'd love to see!
|
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on May 20, 2013 17:59:58 GMT
To be honest, I think most would just love to see them being scrapped  |
|
|
|
Post by maxym on May 20, 2013 18:33:43 GMT
To be honest, I think most would just love to see them being scrapped +1  |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on May 20, 2013 19:23:34 GMT
Three cars headed off to Northwood around lunch time, 5503, 5708 and 5589 left at Neasden. Really three cars? no trailers? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2013 19:28:57 GMT
Three cars headed off to Northwood around lunch time, 5503, 5708 and 5589 left at Neasden. Really three cars? no trailers? I assumed people could work out the trailer numbers from other listings (unless they have been shuffled prior to bringing to Neasden) plus it is impossible to note down all six car numbers while passing on a train. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on May 20, 2013 20:09:11 GMT
Really three cars? no trailers? I assumed people could work out the trailer numbers from other listings yes but you said "three cars", not "three units" (which is six cars), hence my query. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2013 22:32:19 GMT
I wonder if they will scrap any of the C stock as an 8 car set? M-T+T-M+M-T+T-M. Now that I'd love to see! I doubt that will happen |
|
|
|
Post by 1018509 on May 22, 2013 21:11:28 GMT
I thought that I had read somewhere on this forum that a route had been made for the C's to be hauled to Eastleigh by rail for scrapping. If I recall correctly there was a clearance issue to be sorted in the Reading area then it was C all the way to Eastleigh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2013 18:06:43 GMT
Sadly no.
The route was cleared for A stock at considerable cost, which included cutting back platforms at Bramley and Reading West. However issues with getting the stock certified meant that in the event no A stock moved by rail.
When it came to the C stock, with the road move method so well proven and the possibility of the same issues with the stock certification, there was no appetite on the contractors part to pay for even more work to clear the route for C stock, which is fatter below the solebar than the A stock.
Shame really
|
|
|
|
Post by 1018509 on May 23, 2013 21:07:45 GMT
A shame yes. Typical LUL/TfL stupidity
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on May 23, 2013 23:01:33 GMT
C stock, which is fatter below the solebar than the A stock. Gosh, and I had always thought that the A Stock were the wide girls of the SSR. |
|
cso
Posts: 1,043
|
Post by cso on May 24, 2013 6:54:57 GMT
I assume the C-Stock in the sidings at Neasden yesterday is probably off for scrapping soon...
I thought the other issue with the widening for the A Stock was also that it finished so late in the scrapping scheme, that it wouldn't have been worth doing it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2013 8:14:20 GMT
Regarding fat C stock, have a look at the deep solebars on them and see how many have gouges already. Also the equipment cases are at least as wide as the solebar edge, compared to A stock where they are slightly recessed.
As for the route clearance, for the route south at least, it was funded by Knights of Eastleigh, who were Network Rail's customer for getting the platforms trimmed back at Reading West And Bramley. Then with the route cleared they were told that there was an issue with getting the rolling stock approved for haulage, which was being done by LU.
Hardly surprising then that they didn't volunteer to repeat the exercise for the C Stock. Still at least Great Western engines can go through those stations now without leaving their cylinders on the platform
|
|
|
|
Post by 1018509 on May 24, 2013 17:37:51 GMT
Regarding fat C stock, have a look at the deep solebars on them and see how many have gouges already. Also the equipment cases are at least as wide as the solebar edge, compared to A stock where they are slightly recessed. As for the route clearance, for the route south at least, it was funded by Knights of Eastleigh, who were Network Rail's customer for getting the platforms trimmed back at Reading West And Bramley. Then with the route cleared they were told that there was an issue with getting the rolling stock approved for haulage, which was being done by LU. Hardly surprising then that they didn't volunteer to repeat the exercise for the C Stock. Still at least Great Western engines can go through those stations now without leaving their cylinders on the platform My apologies to LUL/TfL then. Surely as C's and D's run on NR metals now it must be easy approve them for haulage. They were hauled to LUL metals in the first place so what has changed? |
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on May 24, 2013 17:43:16 GMT
I'm not an expert, but I would imagine that there is a different clearance gauge on the Richmond and Wimbledon branches than to other NR metals. Also they were hauled from up North, and they are now going South
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on May 24, 2013 17:50:32 GMT
and probably a load of risk assessments and method statements..... The C69/77 stock at Neasden is indeed there for scrap  |
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on May 24, 2013 18:09:48 GMT
and probably a load of risk assessments and method statements..... The C69/77 stock at Neasden is indeed there for scrap Metman, is that a sad face? Surely it should be the other way round, or have you been spending too much time around prjb?  But in all seriousness, I think will miss the C stock when they are gone, in spite of what I previously thought. I guess they are just quite characterful in their own way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2013 18:25:04 GMT
Regarding fat C stock, have a look at the deep solebars on them and see how many have gouges already. Also the equipment cases are at least as wide as the solebar edge, compared to A stock where they are slightly recessed. As for the route clearance, for the route south at least, it was funded by Knights of Eastleigh, who were Network Rail's customer for getting the platforms trimmed back at Reading West And Bramley. Then with the route cleared they were told that there was an issue with getting the rolling stock approved for haulage, which was being done by LU. Hardly surprising then that they didn't volunteer to repeat the exercise for the C Stock. Still at least Great Western engines can go through those stations now without leaving their cylinders on the platform My apologies to LUL/TfL then. Surely as C's and D's run on NR metals now it must be easy approve them for haulage. They were hauled to LUL metals in the first place so what has changed? I don't think you need to apologise to them. It was LU who had to get the vehicles approved for venturing out onto NR metals and that was the bit that never got completed. As you can imagine, the scrap contractors who had paid for the routes to be cleared for the stock were less than impressed, as the NR's bill was into many tens of thousands. And yes, as I understand it, getting route clearance was a nightmare, despite lots of evidence of previous trips by the various types of stock over BR metals. I think that Eastleigh even took NR to the Office of the Rail Regulator at one point to complain about NR's lack of progress with the whole route clearance exercise. As far as I know the route up north was a lot easier, although some of this was due to the work done by Bombardier getting the route from Derby cleared for S stock deliveries. The same problems caused the 67TS all to be moved by road, when the then LU Project Manager got exasperated with the brick wall approach from NR and gave the job to a well known road haulier. One other issue with moving stock by rail is that the main haulage contractor has had their work cut out moving the S stock around, particularly as they have had to take S8 back to Derby and play musical chairs with the S7s between Derby and Old Dalby. The huge delay in delivery to London of the latter has been a real issue for everybody except LU it seems. Last reports were that all of the units to replace the C stock have been built and most are still sat around in the Midlands. |
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on May 24, 2013 20:48:13 GMT
The route used to deliver the A stock had been closed so they had to depart by road. It's possible that the same criteria applies to the C stock.
|
|
But in all seriousness, I think will miss the C stock when they are gone, in spite of what I previously thought. I guess they are just quite characterful in their own way.
