Glorious NSE Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Bi mode voyagers and meridians would have been a sensible option in the short term? BUT would the cost be too much? Does anyone know why it was dropped? Was it just cost? I think operationally it was a pretty good idea, with some decent lengths of wire to use already, and gradually more being added... I can imagine it would have been quite an expensive coach, relatively - (IIRC EMU cars are running at £2m per car on average, but that average will spread out the cost of the electrical kit amongst 4-or-so cars, so it'd probably have come in well above that...) Was cost just it - or does the DfT (who definitely never ever get involved in rolling stock cascades) have an eye on future cascades. Andy is right, there are places that they could be put to good use... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jamie92208 Posted January 12, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 12, 2015 Does anyone know why it was dropped? Was it just cost? I think operationally it was a pretty good idea, with some decent lengths of wire to use already, and gradually more being added... I can imagine it would have been quite an expensive coach, relatively - (IIRC EMU cars are running at £2m per car on average, but that average will spread out the cost of the electrical kit amongst 4-or-so cars, so it'd probably have come in well above that...) Was cost just it - or does the DfT (who definitely never ever get involved in rolling stock cascades) have an eye on future cascades. Andy is right, there are places that they could be put to good use... As far as I know what seemed like a fairly simple idea ended up being more complicated than first thought. The idea was to build some more cars and put a pantogrpah and transformer on the new coaches. the problem was the high capacity wiring to get the traction supplies along all the other coaches which aren't through wired for such loads. As far as I know each coach in a voyager generates it's own traction supply so that all that is needed in terms of inter vehicle wiring is 'hotel power' and control circuits in case of running with one or two engines cut out. Thus the cost of putting all the high capacity wiring into place became too much. Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 As Jamie says, effectively a complete electrical and mechanical rebuild and prohibitively expensive and time consuming. Even additional "normal" diesel electric Voyager/Meridian cars is difficult, if not too expensive, because of the cost of rebuilding the discarded jigs for the extra Voyager/Meridian vehicles and restarting production for a relatively small build run. .. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indomitable026 Posted January 12, 2015 Author Share Posted January 12, 2015 As Jamie says, effectively a complete electrical and mechanical rebuild and prohibitively expensive and time consuming. Even additional "normal" diesel electric Voyager/Meridian cars is difficult, if not too expensive, because of the cost of rebuilding the discarded jigs for the extra Voyager/Meridian vehicles and restarting production for a relatively small build run. .. And I'm guessing the engines wouldn't meet current emission requirements. A class 37, MK2s and DBSO anyone ?? 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 IIRC correctly the DfT were recently criticised by a select committee recently for ordering more IEP vehicles than they need. Apparently they've ordered some extra to allow for increases in passenger numbers, and the MPs thought this was risky. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 IIRC correctly the DfT were recently criticised by a select committee recently for ordering more IEP vehicles than they need. Apparently they've ordered some extra to allow for increases in passenger numbers, and the MPs thought this was risky. Most of their findings were flawed or even nonsense. That's just another example. That select committee report was largely a labour inspired political swipe at the government. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted January 12, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) Most of their findings were flawed or even nonsense. That's just another example. That select committee report was largely a labour inspired political swipe at the government. . Quite And people still think that giving even more control to these types (regardless of which party they are from) via nationalisation would be a good thing..... If true and the DfT have actually taken growing passenger numbers into account it should be applauded not criticised. Edited January 12, 2015 by phil-b259 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indomitable026 Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 Training train? https://mobile.twitter.com/search/gallery?q=%23Apprentice&idx=0&tid=557211011359723520 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2ManySpams Posted January 19, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 19, 2015 Nice to see the delivery vessel not parked on a sandbank listing at 52degrees... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmsforever Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 If it does have a problem in UK waters the RNLI will be there as we cant have the DFT,s new trainset in trouble can we. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfsup Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Training train? https://mobile.twitter.com/search/gallery?q=%23Apprentice&idx=0&tid=557211011359723520 Nice to see the delivery vessel not parked on a sandbank listing at 52degrees... Completely off topic, but the picture you linked to didn't link to the picture of the IEP training car. Bizarrely this did come up though! I'm sure a few people would like to see IEP like this, certainly a different use for older rolling stock. https://mobile.twitter.com/NYDailyNews/status/557303241852354560?p=v Artificial Reef! Here is the 'The Journal's' take on the story. Still can't say I'm impressed with the IEP though, with one of my frustration's being the amount of 'dead space' at the end of each coach compared to the layout of a Mk3 and other newer generation Units. http://www.thejournal.co.uk/business/business-news/first-hitachi-training-carriage-arrives-8475673 Edited January 19, 2015 by surfsup Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted January 19, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 19, 2015 And I'm guessing the engines wouldn't meet current emission requirements. A class 37, MK2s and DBSO anyone ?? Coming to the Cumbrian Coast soon......... Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenman Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 ... When the CrossCountry network was re-launched, business travel between Bournemouth and Southampton Airport Parkway increased by 61% and between Bournemouth and Brockenhurst by 50%. Leisure travel between Brockenhurst and Southampton increased by 43%. I seem to remember BR operated a 15 minute interval service London-Southampton, which was reduced by SWT to 3ph. Assuming (always risky!) similar frequency reductions were made Bournemouth-Southampton Airport, a proportion of the increased usage claimed for XC would likely be passenger transfers from SWT rather than an indication of XC being fabulously successful at creating new demand. The increased frequency on this route would also have helped - passengers are used to waiting for "the next train", whoever happens to provide it. Note that I'm also assuming the increase you're quoting is for XC, not in total business travel on that route irrespective of operator. I look forward to the correction if my assumptions have got me into trouble! Statistics are tricky things! Paul 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) I seem to remember BR operated a 15 minute interval service London-Southampton, which was reduced by SWT to 3ph. Assuming (always risky!) similar frequency reductions were made Bournemouth-Southampton Airport, a proportion of the increased usage claimed for XC would likely be passenger transfers from SWT rather than an indication of XC being fabulously successful at creating new demand. The increased frequency on this route would also have helped - passengers are used to waiting for "the next train", whoever happens to provide it. Note that I'm also assuming the increase you're quoting is for XC, not in total business travel on that route irrespective of operator. I look forward to the correction if my assumptions have got me into trouble! Statistics are tricky things! Those figures are simply quoted as for XC. There's no indication of traffic picked up from SWT, but it's worth considering that there is now an hourly clock face XC service, compared with much fewer randomly spaced XC services in the BR era. Overall passenger numbers on this route have doubled since the early 1990's, as have those between Southampton - Waterloo. (Incidentally, Southampton Central station (all routes) usage went up from 3.2 million to 6.3 million, between 1995 and 2013.) Edited January 21, 2015 by Ron Ron Ron Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenman Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Those figures are simply quoted as for XC. There's no indication of traffic picked up from SWT, but it's worth considering that there is now an hourly clock face XC service, compared with much fewer randomly spaced XC services in the BR era. Overall passenger numbers on this route have doubled since the early 1990's, as have those between Southampton - Waterloo. (Incidentally, Southampton Central station (all routes) usage went up from 3.2 million to 6.3 million, between 1995 and 2013.) Yes, I suspected as much. It's why it's probably not a good idea to quote XC statistics for a route which is also operated by another TOC - there are too many other potential factors at play. The fact that XC have chosen to do so (or you have chosen to do so on their behalf`!) makes me suspicious. Why aren't there before and after statistics for a route that is not operated by a single other TOC: that, surely, would be a much "purer" measure of whether or not XC were successful, and would enable their increases to be compared with the general levels of increase being experienced right across the rail industry - the difference could then be ascribed to XC's management cleverness or what-have-you. They may indeed have been (exceptionally?) fabulously successful: but so far the numbers have not persuaded me. Paul Edited January 21, 2015 by Fenman Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted January 22, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Those figures are simply quoted as for XC. There's no indication of traffic picked up from SWT, but it's worth considering that there is now an hourly clock face XC service, compared with much fewer randomly spaced XC services in the BR era. Overall passenger numbers on this route have doubled since the early 1990's, as have those between Southampton - Waterloo. (Incidentally, Southampton Central station (all routes) usage went up from 3.2 million to 6.3 million, between 1995 and 2013.) Note this increase is all being handled by exactly the same signalling installation that was installed in the early 80s. No wonder its struggling to cope..... Edited January 22, 2015 by phil-b259 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indomitable026 Posted January 22, 2015 Author Share Posted January 22, 2015 Note this increase is all being handled by exactly the same signalling installation that was installed in the early 80s. No wonder its struggling to cope..... Would the signalling cope with slightly longer trains? I wonder..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarrettTheThief Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 My first thought on learning about this project was "will it be comfortable to travel in them?". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Queen Street closes, what have I missed in the news? Glasgow Queen Street will be closed for a minimum of 4 months in 2018 So initially 5 coach HSTs can be used Once Glasgow Queen Street reopens 6 coach HSTs can be used Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 My first thought on learning about this project was "will it be comfortable to travel in them?". Being boringly practical, I just hope they work properly; my experience of the Hitachi sets in the SE suggests they will. The interior of the Javelins is a bit spartan, and the ride was a bit hard to start off with (until the suspension dampers were modified), but they seem to be pretty reliable; the only times I can think of when Lynne's train to or from work has been delayed is when the 375 in front has been struggling. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted January 23, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 23, 2015 Hitachi know how to make a train, the Shinkansen network operates to a standard of speed, intensity and reliability that is pretty much pushing the limits of what is practically possible and clearly the reliability of the trains themselves is critical to this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted January 23, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 23, 2015 Would the signalling cope with slightly longer trains? I wonder..... Maximum passenger services able to be accomatated are 10 x 23m or 12 x 20m. Freight can be longer but will foul pointwork if it uses some passenger loops (e.g. Up loop at Eastleigh station). Voyagers and 444 units use 23m coaches, the 450s (as with most EMUs) are 20m Anything longer than 5 x 23m won't fit in the west facing bays at Reading (plat 1,2 & 3) and using a through platform there would prevent platform sharing with terminating Turbos from London. When the London terminators go over to cross rail they will need the full length of a through platform. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 23, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) Would the signalling cope with slightly longer trains? I wonder..... Depends. Train length is one of the factors which goes into the design specification when planning headway into a signalling system and it all depends how critical that was in the original calculations and particularly what impact it had on the design of overlap lengths. For example when the Reading - Didcot signalling was being reassessed in the early 1990s as part of the Reading Layout changes working group activity it was found there was no need to alter the Relief Lines signalling to accept a considerably revised headway frequency and increased line speed, which also allowed for increased length of Freightliner trains. Interestingly what is going on currently for electrification seems to suggest that there will be little substantial change to the signalling between Tilehurst and Moreton Cutting although some signal positions are moving where new gantries are being erected and obviously the awkward bit which (to current design standards) is underbraked for 125 mph on the Mains will be revised. However there we are looking at what amount to 'wide open spaces' with some very long original overlaps and signal spacing. Things would obviously become far more critical in areas designed for dense traffic with tight headways and a tightly spec'd train length against - say - the most common formation of train running the majority of passenger services. As far as Cross Country trains are concerned, and as Phil has said, the big length constraint is at Reading where only the through platforms or Platform No.3 bay can accept a 5 car Voyager unit (Bays 1 & 2 are too short). Platform 8 could accept longer Cross Country trains as it is not often used to platform a train at each end but even without the preseence of Crossrail I don't think a longer train would be possible over on the middle Relief Line platforms. Edit to correct duplication of a part sentence. Edited January 24, 2015 by The Stationmaster Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kryten65 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 it's a long old thing this shell... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 24, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 24, 2015 That could prove rather 'interesting' at York and Newcastle! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now