Jump to content
 

Edwin_m

Members
  • Posts

    6,435
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Edwin_m

  1. That hasn't been without its problems either. There were a couple of incidents when the back of the vehicle fishtailed when going from guided to unguided mode, hitting a pole in one case. This is only hinted at in the Wiki entry, and probably means that the whole route would have to be guided on any future system, thus destroying any cost advantage over a conventional tramway. Two or three years back I asked Bombardier if it was still in the catalogue and never got a reply so I assume it isn't. The similar but incompatible Translohr system is operating in Italy and China I believe, but I've not heard any reports of service experience. I doubt the width saving justifies the extra cost of the guideway over a conventional road, except perhaps where it avoids rebuilding of a bridge. It's probably about the same as the effective top speed of the buses that will use it. There was an experiment running on the (two-lane) M42 doing just that - not sure if it has now finished.
  2. As usual the answer is "it depends". The attached shows two sets of concrete sleeper track at Curriehill, identical traffic and speed just different direction of running. The nearer track is more recent and appears to be the product of one of the track replacement trains, and its sleepers are distinctly closer than on the other track. I had a straight down photo from the footbridge but unfortunately seem to have mislaid it - this pic doesn't show it so well but it is still evident if looked at closely.
  3. As well as Maidenhead there is the obvious example of Ladbroke Grove, but I don't think it would be particularly good taste to model something like that. Accident report for Maidenhead here.
  4. I think Gwiwer is referring here to the situation in the late 70s/early 80s when the continuing decline in freight traffic led to final closure. When passenger services were withdrawn freight traffic was still heavy and was felt to need a dedicated route. I agree full closure was probably the right decision in the circumstances of the time, but compared to some other routes it would be relatively easy to restore if future traffic demanded it. In my view that future traffic would be freight rather than passenger.
  5. I think you are referring to the power lines which are just about to be relocated from the older tunnels into the 1952 tunnel. I believe these would have to be moved back again, or to another route entirely, if the tunnel was ever re-used by rail. With the various high speed line studies concluding that a new high-speed route across the Pennines is not viable then Woodhead is one of the few potential options on the table for increasing trans-Pennine capacity.
  6. There was never an end-to-end scheme using 6.25kV. It was used on parts of the early 25kV schemes where they couldn't easily get the larger clearances needed for the full 25kV. Improvements in technology or in understanding allowed 25kV to be provided with much smaller clearances and eventually the 6.25kV sections were converted. I think it was quite a lot later - MSJ&A conversion was part of the West Coast scheme in the 60s and Hadfield stayed on DC until well into the 80s. Incidentally the Hadfield route is still double track as far as Dinting though the triangle there and the legs to Glossop and Hadfield are single. Incidentally Manchester to Altrincham was converted yet again and is now 750Vdc as part of the Metrolink network. Is three voltages on one line some kind of record?
  7. I'd be interested in your current details of N gauge signals please. ercmarks@yahoo.co.uk.

  8. There's an N gauge layout "Divorce Lane" on the circuit, where one half is a TMD and the other half is a container terminal, all in about two foot square. IIRC the trains on the container terminal side don't move, just the crane and the containers.
  9. Yes the livery seems very well applied here. I wonder if Farish will retrofit the 150 chassis to the 158 and 170 at some stage. As it only has one power bogie it is easy to adapt to the longer bodyshell. It would probably save them a bit of production cost and allow them to make the model available with DCC and a better interior (but still no lights).
  10. Those lights look great, some of the best I've seen in N gauge. Are they scratchbuilt and if so are you prepared to give us the recipe? If you've already posted it somewhere, just toss me a link and accept my grovelling apologies! I'm new to blogland and not sure how it all works...
  11. The length issue is probably something to do with the van having to take a greater load per unit area of floorspace. If the length had been unchanged then the supporting structure would have had to be thicker and heavier, which was probably a much bigger design change than just making the same structure a bit shorter. A greater load and a heavier structure over a similar length would also have increased the axle load quite a bit, perhaps making it impossible to use standard bogies. The same issues would potentially have applied to the Mk2, and indeed this may be one reason why Mk3 DVTs are shorter than the passenger coaches.
  12. ...or they might have used either the gangwayed or the non-gangwayed end from those Northern Ireland DEMUs.
  13. When the Mk3 formations on the WCML were allowed to do 110mph, for some reason it was OK for the remaining Mk1s (BGs and buffets at this time) to be upgraded but it was said at the time that Mk2 stock could not run at more than 100mph. Not sure why this should be, but perhaps a reason to be happy that the Mk1s were not replaced before this date?
  14. If these are the red/green and yellow/green searchlights, as I dimly recall seeing in Kitchenside and Williams, then similar ones were used in America and it may be worth checking out US suppliers for models.
  15. I've never had problems with the copper strips that rub on the chassis - those that rub on the wheels are more likely to be a problem. Although the chassis block probably doesn't have the same conductivity as the copper, its cross-section is so much more that I suspect its total resistance is pretty close to zero.
  16. The train leaves Cardiff at 1054, waits 12min at Fishguard and gets back to Cardiff at 1603. It already avoids Swansea and in one direction IIRC it avoids Carmarthen as well (haven't checked this in the current TT, it did in summer 2008). If you could change diagrams in Cardiff to get it a bit sooner and return it a bit later, plus tighten up the timings a bit, you might be able to squeeze out a couple of hours extra for it to bounce back from Fishguard to Carmarthen and back before returning to Cardiff. But a service of two trains two hours apart around lunchtime, plus one in the middle of the night, is still not particularly useful - and the ferry connections would probably be worse too. You'd probably connect with the hourly Manchester train, preferably in the hours when it doesn't go any further west. In theory you could run that unit to Fishguard and back and it could take up the path two hours later back to Manchester, but 175s are much more expensive than 150s/153s and the whole fleet is needed on other services.
  17. Another option would be for DBS to re-gear some of their 66/0s to the 66/5 configuration, or even lower. The engine power of the 66 is similar to that of a 60, and this mod would increase tractive effort close to that of the 60 at the cost of reducing maximum speed.
  18. IIRC Clarbeston Rd to Fishguard is a single token section so only one train can be on this section at once. The loop points are unlocked by a ground frame for which the token acts as the key. This arrangement is not suitable for passenger trains to use the loop and certainly not to pass there. I believe there was an attempt to revive Trecwn a few years back, possibly explaining the work done to the track, but it came to nothing. They are indeed, but also on the Birmingham-Holyhead and various other services around Cardiff though they are barred from most of the Valleys. 175s normally work Manchester-Milford Haven, Manchester-Llandudno and Cardiff-Holyhead. I think the daytime Fishguard-Cardiff turned into a peak extra to Abergavenny, and you may also see 158s on Cheltenham-Maesteg. I doubt it has enough layover time in Cardiff to achieve this, though I don't have time to check the timetables at present. Anyway the 158 is already spare, has lower running costs, more than enough seating for the number of passengers and the local crews already have traction knowledge. DVTs can't control class 57s. I did some work on the timetables west of Swansea a couple of years back, though most of this was about options to increase the service if and when the bottleneck is doubled. The Pembroke Dock service sits at PD for the most of an hour so as to meet the next one in the loop at Tenby, and I think adding a Fishgard portion would give equally poor stock utilisation on that route as well. A single unit could give a reasonable two-hourly shuttle to Carmarthen, which could connect there for further east, or a more irregular service that fits better with the ferries. If you wanted through running then I think coupling to the Milford Haven would work well timetable-wise, but there are no spare 175s and they won't multiple with anything else.
  19. Trains can't pass at Trecwn. The loop is only for run-round and "locking in" a train for the depot, which as somebody has pointed out is out of use anyway. However when I went by last year the loop track looked as if it had just been repaired. There is a local pressure group lobbying for a more frequent service to Fishguard plus re-opening of the Goodwick station. There are several sailings without rail connections and Goodwick could be a better railhead than Haverfordwest for some of the local population. It would need funding from Welsh Assembly Government and another DMU for ATW to run it with - both I guess rather improbable at present. Incidentally the existing workings don't require any extra stock, as the units work around Cardiff at peak times and would otherwise be standing idle during the middle of the day and the night. Incidentally the Fishguard trains often run via the Swansea District line, probably to keep crew route knowledge up for when it is needed for diversions. The timings seem pretty slack - our 158 waited 10min or so to rejoin the main line at Briton Ferry and was a good bit early into Cardiff.
  20. In the last decade or so most of the train fleet in Ireland has been replaced, along with a large slice of the signalling. Dublin has got two tram routes, both are being extended, and still to come is the first stretch of quadruple track and a heavy rail tunnel under the city, not to mention a Metro for good measure. All this still seems to be on despite the economic situation which has hit Ireland worse than most. So while I grant you freight is almost non-existent (the country is just too small with no international rail connections) you can't really level a charge of lack of investment.
  21. I believe HMRI was unhappy with the ability to see signals at 140mph. The 5-aspect section was used for acceptance testing of the 225 sets (if they specified it on the order they had to prove it had been delivered). Never, officially at least, used in passenger service at above 125.
  22. This thread was wrongly titled as Class 73. This was a class of Electro-Diesel locomotives which could take power from the third rail DC network, and also had a small diesel on board for running in sidings and on non-electrified routes. A few are still running on the network with quite a few more in preservation.
  23. I've done a 47 (not the new version released in the last year or so) and the OP says the older version of the 37 is similar too. I don't bother with the channels in the chassis as I've found you can run the orange and grey wires up between the two halves of the chassis without fouling anything. This also helps with the 158 as you don't have to remove the inner roof right out to the edges.
  24. If using the ohms setting then turn DCC off and connect the meter between the top rail and a convenient place on the green wire, then between the bottom rail and the red wire. If using the AC volts setting then just turn the DCC power on and connect the meter between the two rails.
×
×
  • Create New...