Christopher125
-
Posts
737 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Exhibition Layout Details
Store
Posts posted by Christopher125
-
-
20 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:
As Crossrail trains have yet to convey passengers at fairly high speeds along lines with major lineside tree and undergrowth the UK the simple answer is that nobody knows what the effect might of such flickering images might be. When drawing up risk assessments you look at the pertinent facts, not what is happening some where else on a different sort of train running in a different environment. When I was involved in risk assessment work on the Sydney suburban network I wasn't much interested in risk assessments on, say the South Western part of the Southern (a roughly equivalent network in Britain) - my task was to consider matters pertinent to what was going on, or not going on, in Sydney and what the risk potential and mitigations were there - not what they were at Clapham Junction.
Perhaps operating 345s west of Paddington is so unique that many decades and billions of passenger journeys on longitudinal seats around the world aren't a useful indicator... but I just find that ludicrously unlikely, and I think TfL would be perfectly entitled to take the same view.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 09/10/2019 at 12:19, The Stationmaster said:
Is there any evidence that it doesn't? Nowadays that has to be the question and not the other way round. Hence there should have been a risk assessment (maybe there was and maybe it produced a satisfactory result - only TfL can answer that).
I don't see what a risk assessment would prove that billions of passenger journeys around the world on trains with longitudinal seating hasn't - if there was an issue it would have become clear a very long time ago.
-
1
-
-
On 18/10/2019 at 19:24, newbryford said:
Pretty sure that 150150 and 150128 are still sans branding - 3 and 2 months on respectively.
I realise that it's "only" a few stickers, but is it an indication that Arriva knew what was coming back then?
I think these might be units which have only had a partial refurb, so have been left unbranded. Other units continue to be delivered with the full livery, including the first 323:
Northern 323234 by Mike McNiven, on Flickr
-
3
-
-
11 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:
If you sit in a normal seat you can either look backwards or forwards or at various angles to one side or the other. Sitting in a longitudinal seat you look straight at the oppiste side of the vehicles although you can angle your head one way or another to a limited extent. Now think of looking out of a window moving at 90mph at a green jungle flashing past - on the tv images like that in a programme come with a warning about flickering images, on these trains they don't although the flickering will be even worse.
That's a perfectly valid theory, but longitudinal seating has been used around the world for decades - is there any actual evidence that it has health implications?
-
On 29/09/2019 at 20:45, Gwiwer said:
Rail use is in slow decline.
What do you mean? Rail use continues to grow nationally.
On 05/10/2019 at 12:38, The Stationmaster said:We have not had longitudinal - sideways facing - seats for over 60 years in this part of the world and will the 345s come with the same health warning as tv programmes about 'flickering images' as you face the lineside whizzing past at considerable speed - don't be daft, the designers didn't even think of the health implications.
What 'health implications' are they were meant to be thinking of? Looking sideways out of a train isn't just normal, it's the only option normally available!
If there are any people who can't handle seeing the outside going past they can always look at the floor/ceiling/other people/phones/books etc, staring through the window is not compulsory.
-
On 04/10/2019 at 16:20, mikejames said:
out of interest
the next set of units are for transport for wales
and are already late on the basis of what I understand.
I read that they were supposed to be being tested to/from evesham
but altho paths appear in real time trains, nothing seems to he happening.
has anyone any news or information?
regards
mike james
They were testing with 230002 a few weeks back, which is now running as a diesel/battery hybrid prototype for the TfW units.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:
Minibus better than nothing. But with the number of people getting off a catamaran, you would really need quite a few minibuses.
It was much worse a few years back when they spent months rebuilding the original vehicle pier, if there wasn't a train you had no choice but a half mile scaffold walkway above the old tramway structure - quite an experience on a stormy winter's evening!
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:
Something that had passed me by until I got Railnews update this morning is that Network Rail have committed to replacing Ryde Pier as well.
I imagine it's the steel deck of the railway pier they'll replace, that was last renewed around the time of electrification and must be feeling it's age - I should think the legs, cast iron presumably, will be fine.
QuoteIs that the best way? Or should they be looking at "ferries" that could reach Espanade at all states of the tide.
Ryde Pier exists because that's as close as conventional craft can go due to the exposed sands - that's why Ryde has the only commercial hovercraft service in the world.
As for access, the vehicle/pedestrian pier should remain open so while inconvenient for railway users it's no different to any other time trains aren't running.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, roythebus said:
When talking about what they may or may not collide with on the island, remember there's still a loco somewhere for engineers' trains and some fairly heavy hopper wagons around.
Engineering trains all but died with privatisation, the two diesel shunters left the Island in '98 and most of the rolling stock now resides at Havenstreet.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, PhilJ W said:
The 1938 units currently in use had their bodies raised by just over one inch before going to the I-o-W.
Wow, never seen that mentioned before but it would make sense.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, RichardLong said:
But note that Shanklin has clearly had its platform height (or track level) adjusted to tube level at some point since - probably during or before the 1980s, to judge from photos. Only Brading and Sandown (and I thought St John's, but I may be wrong?) retain their original levels - and so significantly higher than the floors of the tube trains.
I see what you mean about Shanklin, it's not easy to compare periods with all the changes - especially as the 483s appear to have a floor slightly higher than their predecessors.
St Johns is a conundrum - the platforms were rebuilt to a 'standard height' in the late 20s and appear higher than other IWR platforms in the steam era, and at least one photo shows a considerable step down into the Standard Stock at the Shanklin end of the platforms.
Perhaps when the track was relaid at electrification most of the platform track was lifted slightly, but the complex trackwork and signalling kept the far end as-is? I'm really not sure.
QuoteWhether any of them are at the right height for D Stock remains to be seen...
Not if they want level, or level-ish, boarding - the floor of the D78s is 1110mm, so around 350mm (more than a foot) higher than typical deep tube designs.
16 hours ago, roythebus said:Yes there is a need for the reinforced cab as they have to be tested and proved on the national network.
Testing on the national network would also require AWS, TPWS, GSM-R, OTMR and probably an increase in ride height - unless they fit some batteries they may well decide it's easier to do dynamic testing on the Island, Old Dalby is a busy place at the moment and probably expensive too.
-
2
-
-
On 28/09/2019 at 16:59, Joseph_Pestell said:
That is the sort of attitude which is killing the future of our railways. Every job is "big" and costs ten times what it does elsewhere (including railways abroad). HS2 is, of course, the prime example.
Adding around a foot in height to around 80m of every platform is a 'big job' for Island Line and not as straightforward as 'modifying a few short platforms' would suggest, especially as it will complicate if not preclude any transition period with the old fleet. You are reading a tad too much into my comment!
21 hours ago, uax6 said:The question has to be this:
Was the track raised when the tubes first came to the island? (I’m guessing that they might have been in some cases, even though 9” wasn’t thought of being too much of a step up to get out of the tube vehicles).
As I posted at the top of the page the track was raised at St Johns and the rail height lifted at Pier Head when they replaced the deck - however the others either had their platforms lowered (Esplanade), built for tube stock (Lake and Smallbrook), or kept their original low platforms (Brading, Sandown and Shanklin) with little or no alteration.
-
1
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:
In a situation where these are the only train on the line i.e. no risk of collision with a faster/heavier train, is there any need for the reinforced cab of the 230?
There shouldn't be any 'need' as it's not considered a part of the national network, but it may be considered desirable - it's not really other trains that justify cab strengthening but vehicles on level crossings, though I think it's only buffer and shunting collisions that have caused damage on the Island.
QuoteSurely not too difficult/expensive to modify a few short platforms on the IoW, even if it involves a short total closure of the line for the work to be done.
Every platform will have a significant height difference, it's a big job.
-
1
-
-
On 25/09/2019 at 21:50, PhilJ W said:
As stated above the ride height of the units is going to be adjusted/lowered so probably not a lot of work will be neccessary.
AIUI they won't be lowered, but remain at their original height - Vivarail lifted the 230s to reduce gauging issues on the national network. Significant platform height alterations appear unavoidable.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 20/09/2019 at 19:55, ess1uk said:
Who is in the bidding for the HS2 trains?
https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2019/06/11/the-5-bidders-for-hs2-train-order-reveal-their-designs/
Bombardier/Hitachi, Alstom, Siemens, CAF and Talgo
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Platform 1 said:
An interesting reply too to one of the comments: "No one would ever go from Shenfield to Reading on the Elizabeth line as there are considerably faster alternatives. The Lizzy line is a stopping commuter service, not an “intercity” style service.". Makes me wonder why it goes out that far...
It goes out to Reading because most people see the obvious logic in having a stopping service that goes the whole way than have Crossrail terminate at Maidenhead, requiring a separate shuttle to fill the gap as was planned before electrification was confirmed.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, roythebus said:
There might be some track lowering through platforms to make wheelchair access easier. Track was raised in places to take this into account.
The track was raised at Pier Head and St Johns but the others either had their platforms lowered (Esplanade), built for tube stock (Lake and Smallbrook), or retained their original low platforms from the 1860s (Brading, Sandown and Shanklin) with little or no alteration.
Bit of a dogs dinner and not straightforward to fix...
-
1
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:
IIRC one end is single bore. Its quite possible that they would tweak the track alignments to ease some clearances and/or impose speed limits where clearances are tight.
The tunnel is twin single-track bores at each end, with a double-track bore between them.
Mostly arched apart from a short covered-way under the esplanade roundabout; that end also features quite a sharp reverse curve which also impacts gauging for long/wide/tall vehicles.
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:
I see a comment has been made already but will the D78 stock really fit the tunnel at Ryde? This has always been quoted as the reason why C1 restriction stock could not be used on the Island. While the D78 dynamic envelope is probably not up to full C1 dimensions the vehicles are signficantly higher than tube stock. Does their adoption mean the line through the tunnel might be singled to improve clearances I wonder?
Yes, being relatively short and low they fit through the tunnel - as I think I've said before 03079 was squeezed through in 1984 with it's original cab so there's more room than people assume, but clearances generally (including Rink Road overbridge and the curved platform at Esplanade) still preclude conventional rolling stock designs.
Gareth Dennis has tweeted about it: https://twitter.com/GarethDennis/status/1173851373185712129
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
I've just had a look at the Brinton Report and he has the following to say about the power supply:
QuoteAs someone who was responsible for the Power Supply system in the Island in the late 1980s, I am at a loss to understand some of the statements made in the Garnett Report relating to this subject. When the system was installed it was designed to support a 12 minute frequency service of seven coach trains. Since this time there have been no changes to the system which affect the supply to the conductor rail...
...The sub-stations are largely as built, with only routine maintenance being undertaken on the power equipment since 1967. Some of the supervisory/control equipment has been renewed over the years due to changes in the method by which the sub-stations are controlled from the mainland based, Network Rail electrification control rooms. The HV (33kV) supplies to the sub-stations and the associated switch gear are owned and maintained by Scottish and Southern Electricity, as the local electricity distribution authority. It is my understanding that the recent power supply system failure was due to a supervisory/control issue, not the actual power side of the system.
-
1
-
5
-
-
4 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:
Obviously the relatively large class 485/486 Standard Stock fleet provided for the original electric service would not be necessary for the kind of service planned in future, but even when the 1938 stock originally entered service on the island 9 units were refurbished for Island Line.
That's true but they never actually needed 9 even with the Pier Shuttle in operation and the fleet was quickly reduced - with the D78s being several metres longer, more spacious and hopefully requiring less maintenance 5 seems a realistic number for a service that appears to have got by for 5 years (until today!) with running 2-car trains with three operational units.
2 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:I'm not certain that I can see why that should be the case, unless any of the original substations have been taken out of use.
To be fair it's hard to say for sure what the situation, it's been suggested that the power supply is fragile with a significant voltage drop at Shanklin while others have refuted this - presumably the forthcoming upgrade will address any issues.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:
Adrian Shooter’s quote seems to confirm they will be third rail electric. However, I do wonder whether going for 2-car sets again (and apparently only 5 of them) is the right decision if there are still going to be two 4-coach trains at busy times. Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable about the current situation knows better though.
2-car trains are fine during the winter, can fit in the shed and yard without splitting and can easily run in pairs - 3-car sets would be very awkward operationally.
1 hour ago, Hesperus said:Does the infastructure still support the 7 car trains they ran in the 70s?
The power supply isn't up to it and platform lengths would be significant constraint - Lake and Smallbrook were only built for shorter (5-car?) Standard Stock trains, and stopping positions are now some distance from the buffers at Pier Head and Shanklin.
-
1
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, John M Upton said:
The 769's are now rumoured to be set to replace the Southern 171's on the Uckfield and Ashford/Hastings routes.
I can't see that happening somehow, the Uckfield Line commuters would be most displeased for a starter.
As far as I'm aware 319s remain banned from Oxted Tunnel, so I think that's one rumour easily debunked.
-
3 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:
I agree, I always thought keeping the electrification was better but was under the impression this wasn’t the plan. Does any of the ‘infrastructure work’ involve alterations to the tunnel to allow the new trains to run?
Nothing significant, if anything at all - a couple of bridges are tight but again any work should be pretty minor. It seems most of the work required will be addressing platform heights and probably modifying the depot.
-
2
-
Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.
in UK Prototype Discussions (not questions!)
Posted · Edited by Christopher125
You are reading something into my post that simply isn't there, I'll assume you've had a bad day and leave it at that.