Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just look at the disaster that is Chiltern with their 20 (or was it 25) year franchise spending their own money on Evergreen 1 and 2, the loco hauled sets etc knowing they would get a return on their investment, yep definitely a disaster, or as some of us would say, a model of how franchising should work!

 

20 years, due for renewal now in 2020 I think - whats the betting they wont get a renewal......

 

South West Trains and Southern were on the brink of signing 20 year deals to when the SRA pulled the plug - only Chiltern managed to sign before the policy change.

Ironically how many TOCs have gained unofficial/unintended 15-20 year deals with a fraction of the improvements, if any Chiltern managed?

 

Great Western 1996 to 2022 (probably).

South West Trains 1996 to 2017.

Virgin West Coast 1997 to 2020 (at least).

 

Then those second round contracts who are getting extensions on the short deals.

East Midland Trains.

Cross Country

TPE

South Eastern

 

If long term 'fund it yourself' deals had been let I wonder what kind of network we'd have now ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well GA are ordering bi-modes and one reason why more trains from London don't go to say Yarmouth has always been the lack of wires, then how much difference is there between a class 444 and an all electric class 801, apart from top speed, they are both EMUs.

 

BR certainly viewed the former GE lines as worthy of similar equipment to other IC routes, class 47s, class 86s and class 90s plus mk3.

 

It just seems to me, here we are three orders in, and the concept of a standard IC design has already gone out of the window, however, I guess the test of the IEP concept will be what gets ordered for the MML and whatever comes next on XC.

 

My guess is that Hitachi will not be given a free pass, will have to compete and why not, but, if so, that does rather blow a hole in the whole IEP concept of a standardised national fleet and beg the question why anyone bothered.

 

Maybe what we should be aiming for is not so much a standardised national fleet, as one that is inter-operable, can work over as much of the system as reasonably practicable, and has as many interchangeable parts as possible. Trains could then come from different manufacturers, with different engines, but engines from different suppliers could be interchangeable, bogies interchangeable, etc.

 

Drivers trained on say GW's fleet could work one of East Coast's trains with little or no training, fitters & maintenance staff would be familiar with them, tooling & depot equipment could be the same.

Edited by rodent279
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe what we should be aiming for is not so much a standardised national fleet, as one that is inter-operable, can work over as much of the system as reasonably practicable, and has as many interchangeable parts as possible.

 

At least we now have a standard gauge.

 

Geoff Endacott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 years, due for renewal now in 2020 I think - whats the betting they wont get a renewal......

 

South West Trains and Southern were on the brink of signing 20 year deals to when the SRA pulled the plug - only Chiltern managed to sign before the policy change.

Ironically how many TOCs have gained unofficial/unintended 15-20 year deals with a fraction of the improvements, if any Chiltern managed?

 

Great Western 1996 to 2022 (probably).

South West Trains 1996 to 2017.

Virgin West Coast 1997 to 2020 (at least).

 

Then those second round contracts who are getting extensions on the short deals.

East Midland Trains.

Cross Country

TPE

South Eastern

 

If long term 'fund it yourself' deals had been let I wonder what kind of network we'd have now ?

 

 

The appeal to this government of twenty five year franchises is that it would be a great way to take the wind out of the sails of the party opposite, their big ideas for renationalisation and a key manifesto policy.

 

Politically it would be a very smart move, once they've worked out a way to make a franchise last more than a year that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, trolley wire construction.

 

Jim

 

With a maximum permitted speed of?

 

You cant help yourself can you!

 

When I said simple catenary I meant one of the simple contact only wire systems, no need for a catenary wire at all, or maybe a 'lightweight' system of catenary and contact wire, I did not mean compound catenary as was used on the 1500vDC Woodhead route.

 

Still, point to you I suppose.

 

Yep - simple catenary means what it says, trolley wire means what it says.

 

I don't have a clue about the uplift forces on Class 387 pantographs but I suspect it would mean  a far closer frequency of masts to handle them at 50 mph than it would with catenary. (assuming 50 mph is achievable - where Jim might be able to help us?)

I wonder if the cost saving of trolley wire would actually be worth it for the compromises which it would cause. It's considerably less robust than a catenary system (particularly under short circuit conditions, which is significant in an Autotransformer system), and is generally only used in very low speed areas such as depots and terminal stations. I don't know what the speed limit it would create is or how that would compare to the limit on those branches, but I imagine if those lines are wired it will be with a full OLE system.

 

Exactly so - but maybe, as mentioned above, Jim might be able to help us on the technical implications. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a maximum permitted speed of?

 

 

Yep - simple catenary means what it says, trolley wire means what it says.

 

I don't have a clue about the uplift forces on Class 387 pantographs but I suspect it would mean  a far closer frequency of masts to handle them at 50 mph than it would with catenary. (assuming 50 mph is achievable - where Jim might be able to help us?)

 

Exactly so - but maybe, as mentioned above, Jim might be able to help us on the technical implications. 

 

Trolley wire is for slow speed areas and has a maximum mast spacing of about 40m. Even tramways revert to a catenary system on the segregated sections where running at higher speeds. I think the maximum speed on trolley wire is about 30mph.

Edited by Titan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trolley wire is for slow speed areas and has a maximum must spacing of about 40m. Even tramways revert to a catenary system on the segregated sections where running at higher speeds. I think the maximum speed on trolley wire is about 30mph.

On Tramlink, we were routinely running at up to 50mph on trolley wire overhead with span lengths in the 50m mark. The "wire" was actually twin 107 sq. mm, auto tensioned. The whole of the overhead, on and off street, was trolley wire - no catenary anywhere, and as far as I can remember, the same is true of all of the other UK tramways except for the original off-street sections of Metrolink, which use catenary construction.

 

Without doing any calculations, I would expect trolley wire OLE to be quite capable of servicing the operation of any of the GWR branches both as regards speed and electrical performance. There probably isn't any benefit in extending the 25-0-25kV ATF system as used on the main line (to the extent that any of it has actually been commissioned thus far), and feeding via a TSC would allow a sensible approach to be taken to overload protection.

 

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Tramlink, we were routinely running at up to 50mph on trolley wire overhead with span lengths in the 50m mark. The "wire" was actually twin 107 sq. mm, auto tensioned. The whole of the overhead, on and off street, was trolley wire - no catenary anywhere, and as far as I can remember, the same is true of all of the other UK tramways except for the original off-street sections of Metrolink, which use catenary construction.

 

Without doing any calculations, I would expect trolley wire OLE to be quite capable of servicing the operation of any of the GWR branches both as regards speed and electrical performance. There probably isn't any benefit in extending the 25-0-25kV ATF system as used on the main line (to the extent that any of it has actually been commissioned thus far), and feeding via a TSC would allow a sensible approach to be taken to overload protection.

 

Jim

Forgive me; the last paragraph; TSC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conveniently there are substations at all the junctions (West Ealing, Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford), so adding the branches wouldn't need a huge reconfiguration. Unless there was a need to have an Autotransformer on the branch, there would be no point taking the ATF down there - the Thames valley branches are short enough that there won't be any such requirement.

 

TSC/L doesn't apply on an Autotransformer system either, but that's a different matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Tramlink, we were routinely running at up to 50mph on trolley wire overhead with span lengths in the 50m mark. The "wire" was actually twin 107 sq. mm, auto tensioned. The whole of the overhead, on and off street, was trolley wire - no catenary anywhere, and as far as I can remember, the same is true of all of the other UK tramways except for the original off-street sections of Metrolink, which use catenary construction.

 

On a recent trip on Metrolink I noticed a change from trolley wire to catenary - it may well have been where we joined up with the Altrincham line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update to the best of information available: 

 

800/0 Status update. 36 out of 36 Built. 26/02/18 

 

001-002 - Hitachi Fitting Out, Doncaster.

003-004 - Hitachi Test Units, various locations.

005/006/008-026/028-030 - GWR Accepted/Passenger Service. Total available units: 24 for a required 20 daily (019 is accepted by GWR, not in PS). (next 6 x 5car due 26/3)

031/033 - Agility Trains West Acceptance/Mileage, Bristol/North Pole. 

027/032/034/035 - Hitachi Commissioning, Doncaster.

007/036 - Hitachi Static Testing, Newton Aycliffe.

 

800/3 Status update. 

 

301 - Unknown - Tees Docks?

302 - Hitachi Test Unit, various locations.

303 - Hitachi Commissioning, Doncaster.

304-307 - Hitachi Static Testing, Newton Aycliffe.

308-321 - Hitachi In Build, Newton Aycliffe 

 

802/0 Status update. 22 out of 22 Built. Diagrams Start 16/07/18

 

001-002 - Hitachi Test Units, various locations.

003-004 - Hitachi en route to UK (via channel tunnel) (Mid-March)

005-008 - Hitachi Static Testing, Pistoia, Italy

009-022 - Hitachi In Build, Pistoia, Italy

 

802/1 Status update. 3 out of 14 Built.

 

101 - Hitachi Test Unit, various locations.

102/103 - Hitachi In Build, Pistoia, Italy

103-114 - Hitachi to be Built, Pistoia, Italy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet how often have small incompatible fleets really been a problem, most UK train fleets operate self contained services, on more or less self contained networks and are maintained separately in self contained facilities, in a way that still does a fair impression of the pre-1923 selection of private companies.

 

Every time a 180 fails on the ECML and blocks the line for 3 -4 hours while they manage to find another one to assist

 

I really cannot understand the obsession with having a common fleet, how many times did the HST's commonality prove to be useful, how many times was that really exploited, had they serviced them all in one place maybe but they never did.

 

 

Erm, quite often actually

Sets transferred off the ECML to join XC, MML, and GWML when the 91s arrived. I recently noted, from Peter K's thread, one of the power cars from the EC set which set the diesel speed record is currently employed by GWR.

Surplus stock when withdrawn by (Virgin) XC reformed to be re-deployed elsewhere.

Spare stock re-formed for sets for GC, and re-introduction by XC

Sets have been transferred back to EC too, for increased services and covering the loss of two Mk4 sets.

The EC franchises have also regularly hired in sets from EMT, XC, and GW, to cover during 91 / Mk4 overhauls, as well as long term hire of two EMT sets which as well as working as sets also regularly operate mixed with EC stock, and XC power cars have been borrowed to work EC sets. The commonality of the fleet means that no more than a briefing leaflet on the minor differences has been required, no further crew training.

Having dropped to, I believe, 9 sets on arrival of the 91s, the EC allocation's now back to 15 (including the long term hire EMT pair)

 

On the maintenance / servicing side, EC sets have previously shared facilities at Heaton with XC, and till recently GC, and currently still do so with XC at Craigentinny and EMT at Neville Hill

Edited by Ken.W
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably academic to talk of further electrification but the via Bristol route is the obvious one, not least with its potential for knock on effect for further XC electrification. Of course, if that were the case, places like Wooton Basset would probably need flying junctions and Swindon to Didcot four tracking but, forgive me for pointing out, that is exactly the kind of thing that has been happening on both the WCML and ECML as they have been upgraded.

Erm, no it hasn't. Allegedly going to be, but we're all too familiar here with NR's grand plan's habit of vanishing. No sign of actual works yet, despite the 800s arriving late this year, and the new timetable supposedly starting next year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe what we should be aiming for is not so much a standardised national fleet, as one that is inter-operable, can work over as much of the system as reasonably practicable, and has as many interchangeable parts as possible. Trains could then come from different manufacturers, with different engines, but engines from different suppliers could be interchangeable, bogies interchangeable, etc.

 

Drivers trained on say GW's fleet could work one of East Coast's trains with little or no training, fitters & maintenance staff would be familiar with them, tooling & depot equipment could be the same.

That's too logical to ever catch on

 

Oh just a minute, sounds just like a first generation DMU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ta! Living where I do (Newton for Hyde :this:) I should have known that. Just never seen the acronym before.

There is a TSC at Newton for Hyde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a TSC at Newton for Hyde

There's a chuffing great electrical substation, as Newton was one of the original feeder points for the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the people of Plymouth are only really interested in the travelling habits of the people of Plymouth arent they, they couldnt give 2 shakes of a rats tail about the people who would like to travel from the intermediate stations because that only serves to slow their journeys.

 

GWR on the other hand have to balance the travel requirements for every station along their routes.

 

Running non stop from Taunton to Reading saves quite a few minutes for the people already on the train over calling at Castle Cary, Westbury, Pewsey and Newbury but what are the people from those stations supposed to do, they havent got any alternatives so the 'fast' trains have to call there (Newbury do have the stopping services but they would be unable to load the passengers from the smaller stations if they were already full when they left Newbury).

 

Running train services are a balancing act about the requirements of lots of different people and seactors (timetabling, fleet, crew etc) so what is actually produced will try to balance everyone's requirements no matter how much noise one sector makes.

 

It was one of the stupidities of the Beeching approach, that only the beginning and end of the journey mattered. If you had alternative routes between A and B, you closed one of them. On the other, you raced through wayside stations without stopping. It ignores the fact that it's the number of people on the train that's important, because their fares provide the income. I doubt that you can fill every train from the West Country with just passengers from Plymouth and Exeter. If you can, then make them non-stop. If not, you need trains with quick acceleration to take advantage of short stops at all those wayside stations - well, the ones that didn't get closed in the 1960s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time a 180 fails on the ECML and blocks the line for 3 -4 hours while they manage to find another one to assist

 

 

 

Erm, quite often actually

Sets transferred off the ECML to join XC, MML, and GWML when the 91s arrived. I recently noted, from Peter K's thread, one of the power cars from the EC set which set the diesel speed record is currently employed by GWR.

Surplus stock when withdrawn by (Virgin) XC reformed to be re-deployed elsewhere.

Spare stock re-formed for sets for GC, and re-introduction by XC

Sets have been transferred back to EC too, for increased services and covering the loss of two Mk4 sets.

The EC franchises have also regularly hired in sets from EMT, XC, and GW, to cover during 91 / Mk4 overhauls, as well as long term hire of two EMT sets which as well as working as sets also regularly operate mixed with EC stock, and XC power cars have been borrowed to work EC sets. The commonality of the fleet means that no more than a briefing leaflet on the minor differences has been required, no further crew training.

Having dropped to, I believe, 9 sets on arrival of the 91s, the EC allocation's now back to 15 (including the long term hire EMT pair)

 

On the maintenance / servicing side, EC sets have previously shared facilities at Heaton with XC, and till recently GC, and currently still do so with XC at Craigentinny and EMT at Neville Hill

 

And....as someone mentioned above, it was possible to transfer Mk 3s from loco-hauled coaching stock to HST trailers, albeit with some serious work on the electrical side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah Beeching. Someone ought to have pointed out to him and Harold Wilson that branch lines were so called because they fed the mainlines. Cut off all the branches, the trunk withers and often dies...just like a tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was one of the stupidities of the Beeching approach, that only the beginning and end of the journey mattered. If you had alternative routes between A and B, you closed one of them. On the other, you raced through wayside stations without stopping. It ignores the fact that it's the number of people on the train that's important, because their fares provide the income. I doubt that you can fill every train from the West Country with just passengers from Plymouth and Exeter. If you can, then make them non-stop. If not, you need trains with quick acceleration to take advantage of short stops at all those wayside stations - well, the ones that didn't get closed in the 1960s.

 

I suspect that in many cases the number of passengers that would travel using the wayside stations wouldn't bring in enough money to make up for maintaining the stations, never mind the loss of some through passengers because the journey time would be longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.