http://tinyurl.com/5asy9b
http://tinyurl.com/5deoog

Now we are looking at 1,100 vehicles (equivalent to 275 EMUs in 4-car
formation), which according to the DfT is a net increase of 380
vehicles.

In message
x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, at
03:48:54 on Wed, 9 Apr 2008, cameramaster@gmail.com remarked:

That's 200 more than last time Ruth Kelly announced it in July last
year:

http://www.gos.gov.uk/gose/news/newsarchive/thamesLinkProjectForRail/

An increase of 380 in the size of Thameslink's fleet. [1].

So is that 380 out of the "famous 1000 more", or are they 100 over their
budget already?

Nice to see this re-announced again, anyway (it confirms our
prejudices); I wonder how many more times the same thing will be
announced :)

On 9 Apr, 11:48, cameramas...@gmail.com wrote:

Other interesting highlights:

* legal ownership will be structured in the conventional ROSCO way,
not as a PFI, but the tender will have to be jointly placed by the
manufacturer and the ROSCO working together

* the trains must weigh less than 32 tonnes per coach

* the bidder is required to consider the option of building a fleet
with two internal fit-outs (outer-suburban and metro. Wonder how long
that split would last in practice?)

* 45 second dwell times required

* the trains are required to deliver a 20 minute journey from Kentish
Town to London Bridge. Nitro!

* wifi and power sockets throughout

"Roland Perry" perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Z0GhoNEYeK$HFAO+@perry.co.uk...

On Apr 9, 1:10 pm, "Paul Scott" btinternet.com>
wrote:

So many clouds I have given up trying to track all this.

On Apr 9, 1:10 pm, "Paul Scott" btinternet.com>
wrote:

Dunno about that bit - a 375/377 is the same thing as a 376 except the
latter has more motors and - on DC at least - if comparing trains of
the same length - a higher current draw.

Mix and match 377 could be on the cards ... ... ... I'm saying no
more :o) ... its this is one of the reason I have given up counting
cars and units.

"D7666" hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:34e0f9cb-930d-4cd3-87b4-094a05aacad2@n14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 9, 1:10 pm, "Paul Scott" btinternet.com>
wrote:

Perhaps Roland should too - we can collectively pay the Rail Press to do it
for us!

But make sure to pick the right magazine - I see Railway Magazine itself had
a 'bollock-o-gram' from Tom Harris MP after they ran a highly pessimistic
piece, suggesting that the majority of the Rolling Stock plan was simply a
reshuffle of existing stock between TOCs...

LOL

Paul

On Apr 9, 11:48 am, cameramas...@gmail.com wrote:

I love the fact that at the end of a highly detailed, demanding
technical specification for a train that is meant to be suitable for
metro-style ATO as well as Kings Lynn to Eastbourne runs, there is the
following:

"Maintenance downtimes must be significantly reduced from the current
increasing trend that has arisen due to unnecessary sophistication".

In message bt.com>, at 13:20:24 on
Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Paul Scott btinternet.com> remarked:

I have given up (apart from to odd heckle from the sidelines like today)
tracking the numbers. Especially when people say this 1100 might be on
top of an earlier 1300, and I was only trying to track a different 1000.

On the other hand I may still try to track the announcements, and in the
longer term whether or not anything like the promises were delivered.

On Apr 9, 2:57 pm, EE507 yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Sounds like Henry Law could have written that !!!