Jump to content
 

CAF to build new LHCS for Caledonian Sleeper


Recommended Posts

Slightly :offtopic: but to illustrate the point, a shower on board my narrow boat uses approx 10 litres water per shower with the flow controlled by one if those percussion taps often seen in sports centres and gym showers 10l = 10kg, so not much more SWMBO's handbag.

 

Runs for cover.

Edited by leopardml2341
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Why do they new brake force vehicles? Presumably as loco hauled stock the brakes are standard two pipe air

 

Good question.

The original video of them in August in Europe had only one vehicle at each end - presumably as a they are coupling adapters

 

Cheers,

Mick

Edited by newbryford
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Another part of the modern railway which I hate lack of compatibility between vehicles why the hell do they need delners what's wrong with a droppable buckeye ?

Edited by russ p
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another part of the modern railway which I hate lack of compatibility between vehicles why the hell do they need delners what's wrong with a droppable buckeye ?

Probably because the Dellner/Scharfenberg coupler provides what they want better than anything else, and there is no mandatory requirement for any specific form of drawgear. That isn't a situation peculiar to the UK either - there are, and have been for decades, any number of multiple unit vehicles running around on the railways of the rest of Europe with non-UIC standard couplers. Ultimately, it is down to the railway operator to assess the probability of one train needing to be rescued by another and thus whether there is virtue in mandating a standard form of drawgear. The UIC side buffer and drawhook arrangement is only mandated for stock, passenger and freight, where individual vehicles are routinely interchanged with other standard gauge railways.

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another part of the modern railway which I hate lack of compatibility between vehicles why the hell do they need delners what's wrong with a droppable buckeye ?

 

I hate it too but there are a lot more passenger trains than freight,  over 90% of those are multiple units of some description virtually none of which use conventional drawgear.

 

Delners are probably more common than buckeyes now so might improve the prospect of recovery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But buckeyes make it far easier to knock a vehicle out and they have gone to the trouble of using BR ETH cables so why not Buckeye's and Pullman gangways

 

Out of interest, why can't ETH be transferred through a Delner? Is a air brake through the Delner aswell?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It's a little bit too powerful for that !

The resulting arc from a coupler if it divided by accident could weld them back together!

Having said that not sure how eurostars do it

Edited by russ p
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Oh and some idiot let companies have there own coupler heights so not all couplings of the same type will couple!

Tension locks, Kaydees etc all come to mind. Maybe its the real thing following modelling practice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

It's a little bit too powerful for that !

The resulting arc from a coupler if it divided by accident could weld them back together!

Having said that not sure how eurostars do it

 

Is it because Eurostars have a pan up per set, thus providing ETS within the set, so there is no need for inter-set ETS connection?

Only the control circuits then need to go through the coupler.

 

Cheers,

Mick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another part of the modern railway which I hate lack of compatibility between vehicles why the hell do they need delners what's wrong with a droppable buckeye ?

Have you ever been asleep when someone has dropped the Buckeye...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I've sometimes wondered about incorporating the power supply into an auto-coupler. If you wanted to do it I see no reason why you couldn't include a power umbilical into the auto-coupler, as electrical loads go the hotel load of a train won't be that high (I'm saying that in the context of industrial electrical loads, not domestic ones). One of the arguments in favour of the bi-mode class 80x trains is that attaching diesel locomotives to drag them off the wires would take too long but I see n reason why a modern high performance diesel locomotive with an auto couple couldn't be attached very quickly and safely with no need for staff to go anywhere near the couplings and connections. After all, EMUs connect and split regularly and it isn't a big issue. On interoperability, I'm not sure it is an issue within the train as they look to be effectively fixed sets, and presumably if the locomotive fails then it will hae a coupling able to be used with a rescue locomotive?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Slightly :offtopic: but to illustrate the point, a shower on board my narrow boat uses approx 10 litres water per shower with the flow controlled by one if those percussion taps often seen in sports centres and gym showers 10l = 10kg, so not much more SWMBO's handbag.

 

Runs for cover.

 

SWMBO's handbag only 10kg? Lucky man.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly heading north tonight with a pair of 47s.

 

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/R67085/2018/01/15/advanced

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

Must have been a change of plan, 37884 came through Motherwell about 5 mins ago with the consist (Source Scot-Rail Forum)

 

Edit - The ECS bringing ex GWR Mk3s to Craigentinny had more interesting haulage - 50008!

 

Jim

Edited by luckymucklebackit
Link to post
Share on other sites

We should have standardised on Kaydees decades ago, like our former colonies did.

 

Actually, of course, they standardised on Kadees.  That's the problem with standardisation: if you're not careful, the standard you thought everyone else had standardised on turns out to be a different standard to the standard you've standardised on.  Even with spelling.

Edited by ejstubbs
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It's a little bit too powerful for that !

The resulting arc from a coupler if it divided by accident could weld them back together!

Having said that not sure how eurostars do it

 

Irrelevant on 373 Eurostar as they are basically two half-sets coupled to each other with independent power supplies and there is no 25kv bus connection as they were not permitted for Channel Tunnel operation when the Eurostars were designed.  ( don't know how things are arranged on the Velaros though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrelevant on 373 Eurostar as they are basically two half-sets coupled to each other with independent power supplies and there is no 25kv bus connection as they were not permitted for Channel Tunnel operation when the Eurostars were designed.  ( don't know how things are arranged on the Velaros though.

Velaros are treated as a single unit, not a divisible train- there is a 25kV line from one end to the other, with at least 4 pantographs. ET does use a 1500V train line from loco to loco, with some sort of 'load-shedding' device at halfway. Very occasionally there are problems with water ingress to the coupling head. 

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...