Odd BREL International coach

[Edwin_m]

43 minutes ago, russ p said:

Built in the days when this country still had a railway export industry,  shame it didn't come to anything 

I guess we no longer had a railway export industry, just that BREL didn't know it.  

[russ p]

14 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

I guess we no longer had a railway export industry, just that BREL didn't know it.  

There was a few things after it such as the Thailand 158s but not much else sadly 

[Edwin_m]

58 minutes ago, russ p said:

There was a few things after it such as the Thailand 158s but not much else sadly 

There were also the trams for Strasbourg and I think the final ones (so far?!) were the Electrostars for South Africa. 

['CHARD]

15 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

There were also the trams for Strasbourg and I think the final ones (so far?!) were the Electrostars for South Africa. 

 

Yes, Gautrain.

 

That International coach was languishing adjacent to the Training School at Litchurch Lane when I joined the railway.

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, russ p said:

 

As Bob said earlier,  it just looks a bit odd 

There is certainly a question mark in my mind about the underframe or whatever because the coach end from floor level downwards is distinctly odd compared with UIC requirements.  The more I look at the photo, having lightened up the detail, the more obvious it is that there is no Berne rectangle so the vehicle could clearly not have been used as a rolling demonstrator in mainland Europe or anywhere else working to full UIC standards.  It also, hardly surprisingly, appears to have a BR screw coupling which again could rule against  it being marshalled with UIC spec passenger vehicles.    So very much a body build demonstrator - which makes a lot of sense of course in cost terms when looking for clients - why bother to build the underpinnings to full UIC spec for something like that?

[LU_fan]

On 26/04/2021 at 10:43, w124bob said:

I doubt that coach would have been sold on to a continental railway as seen, there appears to be no train heat or brake connections. Would have made a nice dormitory coach, plenty of shoulder room!

 

Didn't even notice that at first.

 

12 hours ago, BernardTPM said:

More about this demonstrator here. It was a real bodyshell, but not fitted out for actual line running.

 

Thanks for the link!

 

12 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

It also, hardly surprisingly, appears to have a BR screw coupling which again could rule against  it being marshalled with UIC spec passenger vehicles.

 

Never thought about that, are you telling me British screw couplings are different to others? Huh.

[The Stationmaster]

23 minutes ago, LU_fan said:

 

Didn't even notice that at first.

 

 

Thanks for the link!

 

 

Never thought about that, are you telling me British screw couplings are different to others? Huh.

Modern British screw couplings aren't much different but older pattern BR screw couplings were different from Continental screw couplings  (hence particular Instructions in force on BR in respect of Continental screw couplings.  But the biggest 'no go\ thing is the lack of the Berne rectangle which means that no Shunter in mainland Europe would touch that vehicle under any circumstances because they would regard it as too dangerous to work with.

[LU_fan]

19 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

But the biggest 'no go\ thing is the lack of the Berne rectangle which means that no Shunter in mainland Europe would touch that vehicle under any circumstances because they would regard it as too dangerous to work with.

 

I was a bit confused by what you meant with Berne rectangle, a phrase I don't think I've ever heard before, but I did manage to find a little bit of information on it. Are you saying the gangway... Bridge plate? Footplate? The bit you step on, is fixed in place and can't be folded up? That does seem a bit hazardous.

[Mark Saunders]

18 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Modern British screw couplings aren't much different but older pattern BR screw couplings were different from Continental screw couplings  (hence particular Instructions in force on BR in respect of Continental screw couplings.  But the biggest 'no go\ thing is the lack of the Berne rectangle which means that no Shunter in mainland Europe would touch that vehicle under any circumstances because they would regard it as too dangerous to work with.

Once gain judging yesterday by the standards of today. 
 

BR screw couplings were a different design, currently all new vehicles are built using continental couplings at one time it was prohibited to use the BR shackle to the continental drawbar hook. It was the exception to using the loco’ coupling other than 100 ton iron ore tipplers!

[russ p]

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

There is certainly a question mark in my mind about the underframe or whatever because the coach end from floor level downwards is distinctly odd compared with UIC requirements.  The more I look at the photo, having lightened up the detail, the more obvious it is that there is no Berne rectangle so the vehicle could clearly not have been used as a rolling demonstrator in mainland Europe or anywhere else working to full UIC standards.  It also, hardly surprisingly, appears to have a BR screw coupling which again could rule against  it being marshalled with UIC spec passenger vehicles.    So very much a body build demonstrator - which makes a lot of sense of course in cost terms when looking for clients - why bother to build the underpinnings to full UIC spec for something like that?

 

Cheers Mike

I take it the Berne rectangle is some kind of refuge for shunter? I've heard of it but actually certain what it is

[woodenhead]

14 minutes ago, russ p said:

 

Cheers Mike

I take it the Berne rectangle is some kind of refuge for shunter? I've heard of it but actually certain what it is

"the requirements of the so-called "Berne rectangle" – a free space that must be made available for personnel to ensure safe coupling of the vehicles"

[russ p]

22 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

"the requirements of the so-called "Berne rectangle" – a free space that must be made available for personnel to ensure safe coupling of the vehicles"

 

Obviously something not available when coupling two 37s with ploughs on!

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, russ p said:

 

Cheers Mike

I take it the Berne rectangle is some kind of refuge for shunter? I've heard of it but actually certain what it is

Exactly so - part of the floor plate in the gangway is folded upwards out of the way to create a safe space in which a Shunter can stand when vehicles are shunted together.  Lots of continental shunting practice involving coaching stock really did involve the Shunter standing in the four foot not all that many years ago.  But even with the Shunter standing outside during any movement the Berne rectangle avoids bumping heads on things when someone goes in between to couple and bag-up various pipes etc. (which strikes me, from personal 'ouch!' experience as a very good idea.

 

I'm not sure if it is still in the UIC requirements but it definitely was still there in the 1990s as it was one of the things which had to be provided for various ENS vehicles along with such other oddities (to us) as the DB requirement for a magnetic track brake.  The propelling (brake) valve and window were however something injected into the design in Britain mainly to provide a proper level of control during the long propelling move round part of the triangle at Swansea in order to turn the train.

[russ p]

14 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Exactly so - part of the floor plate in the gangway is folded upwards out of the way to create a safe space in which a Shunter can stand when vehicles are shunted together.  Lots of continental shunting practice involving coaching stock really did involve the Shunter standing in the four foot not all that many years ago.  But even with the Shunter standing outside during any movement the Berne rectangle avoids bumping heads on things when someone goes in between to couple and bag-up various pipes etc. (which strikes me, from personal 'ouch!' experience as a very good idea.

 

I'm not sure if it is still in the UIC requirements but it definitely was still there in the 1990s as it was one of the things which had to be provided for various ENS vehicles along with such other oddities (to us) as the DB requirement for a magnetic track brake.  The propelling (brake) valve and window were however something injected into the design in Britain mainly to provide a proper level of control during the long propelling move round part of the triangle at Swansea in order to turn the train.

 Thanks for that Mike 

I remember supervising high speed braking on the ENS as under no circumstances would railtrack allow the use of the track brake in this country at that time

[rodent279]

43 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Exactly so - part of the floor plate in the gangway is folded upwards out of the way to create a safe space in which a Shunter can stand when vehicles are shunted together.  Lots of continental shunting practice involving coaching stock really did involve the Shunter standing in the four foot not all that many years ago.  But even with the Shunter standing outside during any movement the Berne rectangle avoids bumping heads on things when someone goes in between to couple and bag-up various pipes etc. (which strikes me, from personal 'ouch!' experience as a very good idea.

 

I'm not sure if it is still in the UIC requirements but it definitely was still there in the 1990s as it was one of the things which had to be provided for various ENS vehicles along with such other oddities (to us) as the DB requirement for a magnetic track brake.  The propelling (brake) valve and window were however something injected into the design in Britain mainly to provide a proper level of control during the long propelling move round part of the triangle at Swansea in order to turn the train.

Is that requirement also why buffers on mainland European stock are longer?

[The Stationmaster]

17 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Is that requirement also why buffers on mainland European stock are longer?

Yes.

[The Stationmaster]

45 minutes ago, russ p said:

 Thanks for that Mike 

I remember supervising high speed braking on the ENS as under no circumstances would railtrack allow the use of the track brake in this country at that time

It was slip-tested in Germany - DB of course were the ones who had to be satisfied that it worked.  I'm not quite sure how it was done but the vehicle involved was 'slipped' at 100km/h and duly stopped within the required distance so DB were then happy with that feature.  

 

They did however have a problem getting their heads round other aspects of the stock as they stated that they required an allocation of spare vehicles in Frankfurt to cover for any failures in service but what their operating folk didn't seem to be aware of, or couldn't understand, was that the sets did not have normal couplings within them and that vehicles were semi-permanently coupled within each set.  So swopping out a defective vehicle wasn't just a matter of a quick shunt to take out a cripple and put in a spare within a few minutes.

[woodenhead]

What are/is/were ENS vehicles?

[The Pilotman]

10 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

What are/is/were ENS vehicles?

I could tell you but @The Stationmaster’s answer will be much better 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by Western Aviator

[russ p]

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

What are/is/were ENS vehicles?

 

European night stock

[woodenhead]

11 minutes ago, russ p said:

 

European night stock

Of course, knew it was European xxx Stock or Service but couldn't think what the N would be.

 

Thanks

[HGR]

Another issue with playing around with ENS set formations was the self-setup procedure that the TMS (Train Management System) and air-con subsystems used to go through at startup in order to determine which of the three vehicle types each coach in the set was - sleeping, seated or service vehicle. Each had different sensors and equipment that had to be correctly identified and configured by the TMS as it went through its initialisation sequence. Lets just say that the decision-making process wasn't exactly flawless, so sometimes it would incorrectly identify the vehicle type or just flat refuse to believe what it found on the CAN bus that was used for the communication network within the set.

 

We used an alternative name for this stock back in the days when involved in the development work, but instead of 'night' I'll leave you to guess a word that rhymes with it ! (relies upon a certain pronunciation)

 

And yes, those magnetic track brakes were a mightily impressive bit of kit, and put the fear of God into the engineering staff at Railtrack. Pity though, I never did get to have a trip out to Vienna when the vehicles went over there for climatic testing.

 

   

[russ p]

12 minutes ago, HGR said:

Another issue with playing around with ENS set formations was the self-setup procedure that the TMS (Train Management System) and air-con subsystems used to go through at startup in order to determine which of the three vehicle types each coach in the set was - sleeping, seated or service vehicle. Each had different sensors and equipment that had to be correctly identified and configured by the TMS as it went through its initialisation sequence. Lets just say that the decision-making process wasn't exactly flawless, so sometimes it would incorrectly identify the vehicle type or just flat refuse to believe what it found on the CAN bus that was used for the communication network within the set.

 

We used an alternative name for this stock back in the days when involved in the development work, but instead of 'night' I'll leave you to guess a word that rhymes with it ! (relies upon a certain pronunciation)

 

And yes, those magnetic track brakes were a mightily impressive bit of kit, and put the fear of God into the engineering staff at Railtrack. Pity though, I never did get to have a trip out to Vienna when the vehicles went over there for climatic testing.

 

   

 

Were you on the braking trials on the east coast? 

[Wickham Green too]

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Exactly so - part of the floor plate in the gangway is folded upwards out of the way to create a safe space in which a Shunter can stand when vehicles are shunted together.  Lots of continental shunting practice involving coaching stock really did involve the Shunter standing in the four foot not all that many years ago.  But even with the Shunter standing outside during any movement the Berne rectangle avoids bumping heads on things when someone goes in between to couple and bag-up various pipes etc. (which strikes me, from personal 'ouch!' experience as a very good idea.

That's presumably why the Continent never adopted Pullman gangways & buckeyes and stuck to old-fashioned screw couplings with draughty gummiwursts

[HGR]

3 minutes ago, russ p said:

 

Were you on the braking trials on the east coast? 

Unfortunately, no. Missed out on the APT 'shove and let go' resistance tests on the York - Darlington stretch as well ... on the wrong project at the time !

 

With the 50+ tonnes weight of the average ENS coach, good effective brakes were essential.

 

My involvement in Nightstock was as sub-contractors to GEC Alstom (what used to be Metro-Cammell at Washwood Heath) in developing a TMS simulator for them / GEC Marconi Avionics to allow the TMS configuration development and subsystem testing to be done off-line. Then later as sub-contractors to the sub-contractors who provided the air-con equipment. We were electronics and software developers. Did a similar exercise for Jubilee Line Extension stock air-con for LUL.

 

ENS coaches were very power-hungry so the TMS and electronics on board had to determine how much power was available from the electric train supply (ETS) to power the air-con and all the other kit hiding underneath each coach. It then entered one of up to five 'Load Shed' levels depending on how much kit had to be offloaded when there wasn't enough power available. A class 92 on overhead in a country with decent 25 kV AC supply could feed the many hundreds of amps needed by the train through the ETS. Countries with 3,000 V DC supply were somewhat more restrictive. Then going through Belgium on 1,500 V DC you had to just about switch everything off and hope you got out of the other side of the country before it got too cold (or hot) inside the coaches.

 

Same 92 but on third rail introduced another complication into the equation : conductor rail gaps. Not only does the line voltage fall dramatically in mid section between substations particularly when the loco is giving it the berries, the sudden jumps up to normal voltage when the driver shuts off caused some fun for the static inverters on the coaches that convert the ETS voltage to three-phase for the air-con kit. Add to that the voltage drops out when you go over a gap, so the inverters have a really hard time.

 

The refrigeration compressors on the air-con cooling circuit have a feature that you have to start them in sequence to avoid overloading the ETS, and you are only allowed an average of about half a dozen 'starts' per hour, as each start causes the compressor motor to heat up. Hence you tried to keep the compressor running as long as you could, but gaps and load shedding were your enemy. Every minute the compressor was running or stopped was time-in-the-bank clocking up that the motor could be cooling back down to normal. Each start attempt would take a gulp of six minutes out of the 'time-in-the-bank'. When that ran out, you had to wait till it had clocked up sufficiently to do another start.

 

As part of this exercise, I have a report somewhere gathering dust that lists the precise location and length of each and every individual conductor rail gap on BTR1 and 2 (boat train route) on the Southern to get between London and the Tunnel so we could estimate just what sort of performance we were going to get from the air-con. For something that would on the face of it look to be fairly simple, the load shedding software was hundreds and hundreds of lines of code (software).

 

And, after all that ... what happened ? The whole market that ENS was aimed at evaporated just about overnight (excuse the pun), so the politicians pulled the plug and it all came to nothing. The Canadians got a raft of stock on the cheap out of all of it, but wasn't good for the people at Met-Cam.