Operation of EMUs in Preservation

[009 micro modeller]

56 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Entertaining as discussion of infrastructure is, personally I think the best option discussed here so far is an MLV, fitted with new, modern batteries, and altered so as to be fully control/brake compatible with retro-units

 

I think in a lot of ways it is, but to run the units under their own power, would tramway-like DC overhead with industrial locos (Kearsley was actually used to test some preserved trams at one stage) or slightly modified SR units be an option?

[Nearholmer]

Technically feasible, yes, and almost certainly easier to achieve acceptable levels of safety than with a ground-level conductor. Off-hand, I don't know the starting current demands of the sorts of EMUs that we are talking about, but they may be too great to be supplied via simple trolley-wire; if that is the case one could move to a more complex form of OLE, or other options such as rigid conductor bar.

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

But is it possible that the ORR would be more amenable to the idea of a fairly low-voltage DC overhead system (either the industrial locos mentioned above or a SR third rail unit adapted (but not electrically altered) to draw power from an overhead line)? This seems to be considered safe at Crich, Seaton and other heritage tramways, assuming that it would be fairly similar.

 

Overhead systems are usually compliant with the EAW regulations because they are normally out of touching distance!

 

Thats why Crich, etc haven't had any real problems with their setup.

 

Unless you go DLR style (and even then there are some issues) conductor rail is simply too 'accessible' when energised.

Edited February 3, 2021 by phil-b259

[rodent279]

8 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Technically feasible, yes, and almost certainly easier to achieve acceptable levels of safety than with a ground-level conductor. Off-hand, I don't know the starting current demands of the sorts of EMUs that we are talking about, but they may be too great to be supplied via simple trolley-wire; if that is the case one could move to a more complex form of OLE, or other options such as rigid conductor bar.

If all we're talking about is moving at no more than 20mph, then you could probably get away with isolating a couple of traction motors. Back of a cigarette packet calculation-an EE507 is 190kW, at say 500v that's 380A. Call it 800A for 2, that's the sort of current we're talking about.

How that compares to the current demand of traditional trams I don't know, but it's imagine it's a fair bit higher.

Edited February 3, 2021 by rodent279

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Jeremy C said:

The Electricity at Work Regulations are easy to circumvent: Don't employ anybody. Obligations are only placed on employers.

 

....

 

Incidentally, the Electricity at Work Regulations apply equally to overhead installations. There's nothing special about third rail.

 

Note that under H&S law volunteers (be they part of an official bodies or just mates helping out) are still considered 'employees' and the 'person in charge' can still be prosecuted

 

...

 

Indeed they do - but because overhead power conductors are not usually within touching distance they are perceived by the regulations as not posing a safety issue to staff or members of the public.

[009 micro modeller]

14 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Technically feasible, yes, and almost certainly easier to achieve acceptable levels of safety than with a ground-level conductor. Off-hand, I don't know the starting current demands of the sorts of EMUs that we are talking about, but they may be too great to be supplied via simple trolley-wire; if that is the case one could move to a more complex form of OLE, or other options such as rigid conductor bar.

 

10 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Overhead systems are usually compliant with the EAW regulations because they are normally out of touching distance!

 

Thats why Crich, etc haven't had any real problems with their setup.

 

That’s what I thought. So I suppose it then becomes a question of which inauthentic compromise people are more willing to accept - MLV or overhead wire. For certain types of EMU the MLV would be fine, while for the industrial electrics they are meant to run off overhead DC anyway. Just to clarify, are we discussing the MLV powering the train and the EMU being used as hauled stock or using a modified MLV to provide a bank of batteries to power other units as well?

 

I gather that 25kV AC may have similar safety issues as despite being away from the ground it requires more serious insulation than lower voltage systems but I’m not absolutely sure. What about 1500V DC? I don’t know whether the safety aspects of this would be substantially different from lower OHLE DC voltages.

Edited February 3, 2021 by 009 micro modeller

[Zomboid]

6 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Off-hand, I don't know the starting current demands of the sorts of EMUs that we are talking about, but they may be too great to be supplied via simple trolley-wire

From memory, a 4x EE507 unit is about 700A in series, 1200A in parallel and the weak field peak is about 2000A.

 

You wouldn't need weak field for a heritage type operation, but how much OLE it would want would depend on how it's supplied as much as anything else. Most of the southern is supplied from both ends of the section so the load transfers from one end to the other as the train passes through.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Entertaining as discussion of infrastructure is, personally I think the best option discussed here so far is an MLV, fitted with new, modern batteries, and altered so as to be fully control/brake compatible with retro-units - haven’t we discussed all that in another thread? If one wanted to remain fully retro, perhaps an old LU battery loco, which would look pretty odd towing a BIL! Or, a Bat-Car, containing only batteries, plus driving and braking facilities, styled to look like a 1930s EMU, would be rather fun.

 

Well I have a Hornby 2BIL and a Hornby 2HAL in my model collection - and I have run them with the idea of imagining that there is a bank of batteries in a PMV marshalling that in the middle of the formation and it doesn't look too bad.

 

Shame only a 2BIL is preserved - though I guess you could do the same setup with the 4 SUB or 4 COR units in place of a HAL.

 

Alternatively how about a 2BIL which is modified so it can become a push pull trailer for a suitably equipped steam loco.

 

OK its not an EMU any more but thats the thing about the likes of the 2BIL or 4COR units - they might be EMUs but their fittings and general 1930s appearance mean that they would still look OK being dragged about by a suitable steam loco like the Bluebells E4 in a way later units wouldn't

 

 

[phil-b259]

19 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

I gather that 25kV AC may have similar safety issues as despite being away from the ground it requires more serious insulation than lower voltage systems but I’m not absolutely sure. What about 1500V DC? I don’t know whether the safety aspects of this would be substantially different from lower OHLE DC voltages.

 

The issue here is more about proving the people running the show know what they are doing with HV equipment rather than public safety or acidental contact, both of which are why the ORR and HSE are fundamentally opposed to conductor rails..

 

25KV is really in the realms of people working for the Electricity supply companies, the railway or perhaps certain niece industries. Lower the voltages and those 'competency' issues tend to fall away - lots of urban tramways use 750V DC overhead for example so the expertise is readily available for the likes of Crich to tap into.

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by phil-b259

[Nearholmer]

9 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

their fittings and general 1930s appearance mean that they would still look OK being dragged about by a suitable steam loco

 

You are preaching to the converted here - once inside a train, its largely the inside I enjoy (or not), plus the view from the window, I'm not overly fussed at that point what its being propelled by, which is why I've never been on a single main-line steam special (admittedly, I did try to once, but it was cancelled!).

 

The BIL/COR, and even to a lesser degree SUB, internal ambience is wonderful and, since I can remember all in traffic, rather memory-jogging. They do need to be belted along at a lot more than 25mph though, to allow full appreciation of the exciting (sometimes terrifying) ride-quality, with all the crashing and banging as bits of the bogies hit the bump-stops. Non-authentic propulsion would probably deprive one of the 0-10mph in one millisecond acceleration as the motor bogie moved-off fractionally before the rest of the car, but you can't have everything.

 

A VEP I would pay good money not to ride on. IMO the only completely characterless EMU of the slam-door era.

[Zomboid]

4 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

VEP I would pay good money not to ride on. IMO the only completely characterless EMU of the slam-door era.

For a low, low price of just £150, I can offer you an opportunity to not travel in a 4VEP any time you like. Just send a cheque to...

[rodent279]

1 hour ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

I gather that 25kV AC may have similar safety issues as despite being away from the ground it requires more serious insulation than lower voltage systems but I’m not absolutely sure. What about 1500V DC? I don’t know whether the safety aspects of this would be substantially different from lower OHLE DC voltages.

I'm not sure 1500v DC would be viewed any differently by the regulatory bodies to 25kV AC. It's a bit like saying a fall from the top of a skyscraper is more dangerous than the roof of a bungalow. Both are just as likely to be fatal.

[Zomboid]

The risk analysis of a 1500V system would be very different. A lot of the risk to people of a 25kV system is in the induced and accessible voltages on other metalwork, and there's very little commonality in that area between AC and DC systems.

 

Coming into contact with the OLE is not a risk that you can just ignore, but there are many others that are more likely, and which don't apply equally to AC or DC systems.

[rodent279]

4 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

The risk analysis of a 1500V system would be very different. A lot of the risk to people of a 25kV system is in the induced and accessible voltages on other metalwork, and there's very little commonality in that area between AC and DC systems.

 

Coming into contact with the OLE is not a risk that you can just ignore, but there are many others that are more likely, and which don't apply equally to AC or DC systems.

Good point, I overlooked the effect of induced voltages in non-OLE metalwork.

 

[cg501]

Having been a director of the Electric Railway Museum, I have heard almost every possible solution, to the use of 3rd rail in the heritage and put forward many. The risk documentation required runs in to many volumes and is beyond the pockets of most to produce. You are better off putting that money in to the preservation of the units.

 

As for running them this has been solved for both AC/DC locos and EMUs.

 

For AC/DC locos, the former night stock generators cars gave the basis of what mobile power generation was possible. A similar coach could be produced to generate power to enable an electric loco to run on a preserved line. 1500v DC at 1200amps is not beyond todays generators. As people have said no need to run at 100mph with 11 coaches. 25mph with 5 coaches would require less power.

 

The solution for EMUs has already been engineered and tested by ViVARail. Their class 230 unit using redundant London underground D Stock uses a battery raft, This is sort of solution I will be looking to use on the class 501.

even NR has used the same battery technology in a class 313 .

 

A youtube clip of the test unit https://vivarail.co.uk/Fully-Charged-Show/

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by cg501
typo

[billy_anorak59]

On 03/02/2021 at 09:53, 009 micro modeller said:

On 02/02/2021 at 22:47, Dava said:

one 502 set was restored by the NRM http://www.class502.org.uk/ 

 

Although as mentioned on that website it’s condition has since deteriorated again.

 

The 502 spent many years out in the open at Tebay, and was a sad wreck, Following it's acquisition by the 502 group, its restoration seems to be coming along nicely - according to the promotional video on the website - see towards the end for recent restoration work images:

 

 

It's the 503 at Margate that isn't too well (from FaceBook):

Edited July 19, 2022 by billy_anorak59

[Nearholmer]

Some questions revolve around integrity when it comes to ‘preserved’ units, certainly anything that is part of the National Collection. The 230 has, i’m fairly sure, a Kiepe four-quad power-electronic drive and three-phase traction motors, and the BEMU version the same. Another re-engineering team have made a DEMU from I think a 321, and when I last saw it that retained DC traction motors, but again had a PE drive.

 

It depends, I suppose, what one is ‘preserving’, but if the idea is to show the history of technology, retaining the original traction package must be vital. If it’s just to give part of the retro-ride-experience, fine to swap the package, I guess.

 

The NER autocar, for instance, has none of the original traction package to the best of my knowledge, for the simple reason that it was all lost donkeys years ago.

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

The NER autocar, for instance, has none of the original traction package to the best of my knowledge, for the simple reason that it was all lost donkeys years ago.

 

Correct

 

Everything about the propulsion system is new, including the prime mover!

 

However even if the original propulsion system was still fitted large chunks would most likely have to be replaced - it was originally powered by a petrol engine but modern H&S rules do not permit such a highly flammable fuel to be used in a wooden bodied passenger carrying vehicle so the rebuilt vehicle has a diesel engine fitted instead).

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, God's Wonderful Railway 1835 said:

There is one thing people have forgotten about using OHE is the cost in making the clearance under over bridges etc (including station foot bridges) as it might be a case of total rebuild to do this.   

 

Clearances depends on the voltages and type of electricity used. Lower the voltage or use DC rather than AC and you can fit overhead wire through tighter spaces.

 

Having small dead sections might also be an options depending on the location of problematical structures.

 

 

[009 micro modeller]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It depends, I suppose, what one is ‘preserving’, but if the idea is to show the history of technology, retaining the original traction package must be vital. If it’s just to give part of the retro-ride-experience, fine to swap the package, I guess.

 

On the US third rail unit shown earlier the modifications to fit a trolley pole seemed fairly subtle (and easily reversible?), and the voltage would be similar even if it’s now OHLE rather than third rail. Presumably the museum it’s at also preserves interurbans? The Kearsley and other industrial electrics I mentioned earlier would probably be able to run on some types of tramway-style overhead but it’s the heavy rail wheel profile that stops them running at Crich or similar.

 

While there’s probably not much interest in creating a line just to run said industrial locos, they are perhaps the easiest to get a safety case for without having to modify them.

[Gwiwer]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It depends, I suppose, what one is ‘preserving’, but if the idea is to show the history of technology, retaining the original traction package must be vital.

Absolutely.  That is a question which, I suspect, not all preservation bodies address fully.  Some are passionate about keeping something dear to them but perhaps without fully examining the bigger picture.  That is not said in any way disrespectfully nor to suggest that any one or any organisation is less than thoroughly competent to own and preserve their piece of history.  A related question is "how many of X do we need to keep?"

 

The preserved 4-Cor unit retains its main-line 1930s traction and control gear and as such is a unique survivor.  The 2-Bil unit likewise representing secondary-route travel from the same era.  The preserved 4Vep is among numerous examples in preservation having broadly similar control gear though somewhat different body configurations.  But the returning Brighton Belle unit which will be self-propelled will not be using its 1930s control gear; it has been entirely re-equipped with the 1963-style kit more or less identical to the 4Vep, has brand new marker and headlights to meet current requirements and is structurally modified to be permitted access to the main line network as a fully-commercial venture rather than a preservation project.  

 

The 2-Bil, 4-Cor and others of their generation are unlikely to run again under their own power and certainly not on the national network where wooden-framed stock is no longer permitted.  Indeed certain non-essential parts of the electrical gear have been removed from the 4-Cor motor coaches and securely stored because they are not required for its intermittent use as hauled (rather than self-powered) stock moving at low speed through East Kent.  They could be replaced if and when the unit ever moves to a location when it might draw current once more from a live rail.  It already uses brake-van mounted batteries to power the lighting which is essential for operation through Golgotha Tunnel.  

 

When we bemoan the loss of certain units / vehicles either to static non-rail use, to the scrap-man or to the ravages of rust and rot we must also think whether we are losing the last of a type.  To so so - using the 4-DD coaches as an example - would be a grievous loss to our heritage but when there are - to use another example - still numerous EPB / HAP / CIG / BIG / VEP coaches in existence then we are not yet at that point in terms of representing their era.  

 

 

 

 

[KeithHC]

Ok so let’s think MLV, Batteries, 33/1 or a 73. Then let’s do what us modellers do best. And that’s model the 3rd rail or OHLE so it does not work but looks the part. The shoe gear or pantograph would then be fully isolated. However if allowed to run on the network then it could be reinstated. Anyone want to set up a fund to build a Brighton line substation(non working of course). How about in the triangle between the Sheffield park line and the Ardingly line.

 

Keith

[Johann Marsbar]

1 hour ago, 009 micro modeller said:

On the US third rail unit shown earlier the modifications to fit a trolley pole seemed fairly subtle (and easily reversible?), and the voltage would be similar even if it’s now OHLE rather than third rail. Presumably the museum it’s at also preserves interurbans? The Kearsley and other industrial electrics I mentioned earlier would probably be able to run on some types of tramway-style overhead but it’s the heavy rail wheel profile that stops them running at Crich or similar.

 

The NY Subway train pictured previously is at Seashore Trolley Museum in Maine, and their collection is huge and encompases Urban tramway stock, Interurbans and Subway stock, plus some electric locos. Their main running line is standard railway style track on wooden sleepers as shown below..

 

 

The only cars they have problems with running on that style trackage are their European sourced ones, the wheel profiles having to be changed on their Blackpool Standard DD for it to be used. They have a number of other ones (Leeds/Glasgow/Liverpool etc) that are not in any state to run though.

 

Other Museums over there that I have been to with Subway stock fitted with trolley poles are the Shoreline Trolley Museum in  East Haven, CT and the Illinois RR Musum at Union, IL.

The latter run steam, diesel and electric on their 5 mile (or so) demonstration line, which is maintained in excellent condition...

 

 

 

[Nearholmer]

18 minutes ago, KeithHC said:

Anyone want to set up a fund to build a Brighton line substation(non working of course). How about in the triangle between the Sheffield park line and the Ardingly line.

Fund? It would need a lot.

 

Help build? I’d love to have a go. What I don’t know is whether any original kit now exists at all. It would be marvellous to be able to demonstrate ASEA supervisory kit, for instance, but I doubt any exists ..... or was Woking CR mothballed with it intact?

[009 micro modeller]

23 minutes ago, Johann Marsbar said:

The only cars they have problems with running on that style trackage are their European sourced ones, the wheel profiles having to be changed on their Blackpool Standard DD for it to be used.

 

So do American trams/trolleys not have a different wheel profile from trains, like they do in Europe?

 

25 minutes ago, Johann Marsbar said:

Other Museums over there that I have been to with Subway stock fitted with trolley poles are the Shoreline Trolley Museum in  East Haven, CT and the Illinois RR Musum at Union, IL.

The latter run steam, diesel and electric on their 5 mile (or so) demonstration line, which is maintained in excellent condition...

 

Could something similar work over here? I know there’s a few sites in the US with a similar set-up.