wombatofludham Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 A Question for those of you involved in the rolling stock side of the industry. Why would a route which has safely operated Class 150 dmus require gauge clearance works to operate Class 319 units in the future? I thought the 319 and 150 were the same length, height (with pantograph stowed) and width, with possibly only the emu outer driving cars being marginally longer due to the more stylish front end. When it comes to "kinematic envelope" and platform clearances I would have thought them the same. Given the route has also operated Classes 156, 158 and 170, which I thought had a C3 clearance, it seems odd the route is having to be cleared to operate Class 319s! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Not Captain Kernow Posted December 22, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2015 319s have shoegear. In the early days and even not so early days it was quite common to have a 319 fail at Farringdon when trying to head south and being unable to take power from the 3rd rail, only for the driver to find there were no shoes on his unit. Railtrack nearly always put this down to "unit failure" which would then need me to head to wherever engineering work had been done overnight and find the shoes embedded in a ballast shoulder that had been left too high. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Robert Shrives Posted December 22, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 22, 2015 Hi , Generally as a risk adverse operation and without the seal of approval of new paperwork Network Rail now takes very little notice of history -due i guess to the previous carer of our network and the one before that not keep records of changes and worse destroying records. Thus as outsiders we can see the blatantly obvious but still the tests will be done. I had to struggle in reg rail days to get a 312 emu from Milton Keynes to Willesden as Railtrack said no clearance documents existed. Set was on transfer back to Essex. Despite same vehicles in 310, a test run was insisted upon - you guessed it it was a one way test run!! madness but that is our fine network today. Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 History isn't always valid anyhow. More of an issue with steam engines - "but the 7F 2-8-4 used to run on the Cambrian coast line..." ...Before the platforms were rebuilt for sprinters and the track relaid with deeper ballast. I can understand the 312 thing as well - someone is putting themselves in the firing line if an incident occurs and it turns out there was no acceptance for that particular train on that route, regardless of how similar they are to one that regularly goes that way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Robert Shrives Posted December 22, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 22, 2015 Hi , True who remembers the King loosing its safety valve bonnet on the way to Paddington after overzealous ballasting ! The Cambrian coast Harrison ramps as fitted to stations are likely to be a pain for ex GWR locos, at my local station the ramp edge is at least 75mm further out and around 150mm higher. - No new ballast- a proportion of the rotten sleepers are GWR long ones with fang bolted chairs and 45 foot rails. I have seen the damage done by a Eurostar on delivery from Washwood heath with footboards left in place in error - all a bit bent at front of train and platform ramps battered. Also watched twice as Platform egdes sawn back at Worcester Shrub Hill once for 158s and a second time for 165 family ! Hopefully modern lazer based record keeping will render much of the confusion and pains of the past redundant. Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
black and decker boy Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 presumably they want to see if the coat hanger on top will fit under their bridges, especially as they have more 319s than wires at the moment OK Ill get my coat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold big jim Posted December 22, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 22, 2015 and interesting route availablity quirk is class 170 units are banned between aynho jn and marylebone where as 168s (which are exactly the same) are not banned however chiltern now have those ex trans pennine 170s in their fleet which have been renumbered to 168/3 so they can be used Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Although they are basically the same bodyshell and bogie, the class 319 is cleared for 100mph versus 75mph for the class 150. This requires the 319 to have an extra damper on the bogie, one end of which is attached to a bracket coming down from the body. This will directly affect the profile of the lower bodyshell. Also there are several reasons why the dynamic movements of the vehicles will be different: the effect of this damper, the fact the 319 can run faster on >75mph sections, and the power car of the 319 having a different bogie with different characteristics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombatofludham Posted December 22, 2015 Author Share Posted December 22, 2015 I don't think the shoegear is being retained in this instance, but the additional dampers for higher speeds does make sense. Apparently though the route has clearance for Desiros but in the case of the 319 it's not just a case of a clearance exercise but actual works needed which is why I was puzzled - but the bogie dampers might be the issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 and interesting route availablity quirk is class 170 units are banned between aynho jn and marylebone where as 168s (which are exactly the same) are not banned however chiltern now have those ex trans pennine 170s in their fleet which have been renumbered to 168/3 so they can be used Only the couplers are different as far as I know, so perhaps it's related to that?Unless its the tripcocks. The LU signalling is only on the Amersham route, right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
great central Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 A while ago, a 158 was diverted along a route not normally used in the particular direction although they do work the other way daily. Since one was last sent that way some minor works had been carried out. Result, the front step of the unit hit a couple of platform ramps, gave the driver a hell of a fright and modified the ramp somewhat. 158s were immediately banned until the route had been checked and cleared for them again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
great central Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 A while ago, a 158 was diverted along a route not normally used in the particular direction although they do work the other way daily. Since one was last sent that way some minor works had been carried out. Result, the front step of the unit hit a couple of platform ramps, gave the driver a hell of a fright and modified the ramp somewhat. 158s were immediately banned until the route had been checked and cleared for them again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonC Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Will the 319s ever be used on the 3rd rail Merseyrail network? I'd have wondered whether the shoes would be useful to keep ... even perhaps only for occasional stock movements if thats more convenient than diesel loco haulage on the 3rd rail network Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Where would the 319s go on Merseyrail? It doesn't link to the OLE anywhere except Hunts Cross so it wouldn't be any use to transfer between 25kV routes. The 319 has one car motored out of four, but the 507 and 507 units have two motored out of three. So (even if it would physically fit) a 319 on the frequent stops Merseyrail service would be very sluggish and might not make it through some of the severe curves and gradients on the Wirral Loop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Andy W Posted December 22, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 22, 2015 Hi , Generally as a risk adverse operation and without the seal of approval of new paperwork Network Rail now takes very little notice of history -due i guess to the previous carer of our network and the one before that not keep records of changes and worse destroying records. Thus as outsiders we can see the blatantly obvious but still the tests will be done. I had to struggle in reg rail days to get a 312 emu from Milton Keynes to Willesden as Railtrack said no clearance documents existed. Set was on transfer back to Essex. Despite same vehicles in 310, a test run was insisted upon - you guessed it it was a one way test run!! madness but that is our fine network today. Robert Particularly since 4 class 312 units were allocated to Bletchley from new, intended for work in the WMPTE area, but in times of disruption found their way into Euston on Birmingham-Euston stoppers. I've travelled on one out of Euston. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonC Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Where would the 319s go on Merseyrail? It doesn't link to the OLE anywhere except Hunts Cross so it wouldn't be any use to transfer between 25kV routes. The 319 has one car motored out of four, but the 507 and 507 units have two motored out of three. So (even if it would physically fit) a 319 on the frequent stops Merseyrail service would be very sluggish and might not make it through some of the severe curves and gradients on the Wirral Loop. are they not maintained at Allerton? I thought the Kirkby depot had a wheel laithe if they needed tyres turning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
great central Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 There's also a lathe at Allerton, it's been quite busy lately Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted December 22, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2015 Where would the 319s go on Merseyrail? It doesn't link to the OLE anywhere except Hunts Cross so it wouldn't be any use to transfer between 25kV routes. The 319 has one car motored out of four, but the 507 and 507 units have two motored out of three. So (even if it would physically fit) a 319 on the frequent stops Merseyrail service would be very sluggish and might not make it through some of the severe curves and gradients on the Wirral Loop. It's not just the amount of motored cars that is important, the ratings of said motors comes into it as well. Don't forget that the REPs and the CEPs both had two driving motor vehicles in a single unit, but because of the need for the REP to shove an extra 8 unpowered Mk1s about it had far more power in those two driving motors than the CEP. As such even though a 319 only has a single motored car, given the signifficant gradients in the Thameslink core plus the need to get a move on while on the MML / BML , that single car may have more installed power than a 507 / 508 unit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted December 22, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2015 319s have shoegear. In the early days and even not so early days it was quite common to have a 319 fail at Farringdon when trying to head south and being unable to take power from the 3rd rail, only for the driver to find there were no shoes on his unit. Railtrack nearly always put this down to "unit failure" which would then need me to head to wherever engineering work had been done overnight and find the shoes embedded in a ballast shoulder that had been left too high. This is a big issue with non retractable shoegear and if took a long time for the MML engineers to understand the importance of not leaving ballast or other debris at 3rd rail height (The Southern region works to 3rd rail standards, even where there isn't any such as Hastings - Ashford, Uckfield and the North Downs route). The 73s have shoegear that automatically retracts when on diesel mode, while I understand the dual voltage 377s and 350s also have retractable shoegear - precisely because of the experiences of the 319s at Farringdon. The new Thameslink stock also retractable shoegear I believe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 It's not just the amount of motored cars that is important, the ratings of said motors comes into it as well. Don't forget that the REPs and the CEPs both had two driving motor vehicles in a single unit, but because of the need for the REP to shove an extra 8 unpowered Mk1s about it had far more power in those two driving motors than the CEP. As such even though a 319 only has a single motored car, given the signifficant gradients in the Thameslink core plus the need to get a move on while on the MML / BML , that single car may have more installed power than a 507 / 508 unit. I may be wrong, but I believe 319s have 4 motors, whilst 507/8s also have 4 motors. The more significant thing is probably that 319s are geared for 100mph, I think both are fundamentally the EE507 motor. REPs had 8 motors to a CEPs 4, and the REP motors were higher power to boot. If they ever ran on their own they would have been pretty rapid... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernman46 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 ISTR the 507/508's have 8 motor per unit - 4 per motor coach as the motors are lower rated than the classic EE versions - when the 508's first appeared the quality of the 310 GEC motors was appalling - oval shaped commutators and brushgear that fell to bits when you breathed on it - at least to the men at Slade Green who'd been used to years of EE quality product - have seen EE507's work under EPB's with the motor case packed solid with ice back in the winter of '81 On the subject of fouling shoegear - I remember one entertaining morning when "we" (Clapham PW) managed to remove the upside shoes of 4 trains - all formed of 458's (with that brilliant idea of frangible shoes - NOT!) by leaving the conductor rail sat on top of the conductor rail insulators ears after the previous nights' rail stressing at Barnes - amazingly at least one of those trains got as far as Vauxhall before being finally gapped ........................... as TSM that took some explaining ......................... I'm currently spending my railway career trying to fit IEP's through the WR's structures using ClearRouteTM - Thatcham's up platform need rebuilding ................ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 4630 Posted December 22, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 22, 2015 . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold big jim Posted December 25, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 25, 2015 Only the couplers are different as far as I know, so perhaps it's related to that? Unless its the tripcocks. The LU signalling is only on the Amersham route, right? the couplers are the same (bsi) i think as ive seen pics of the ex 170 units coupled to 168/0/1/2 and 165s, as for tripcocks i dont think its that as, as you say they are only on the amersham to harrow LUL route and the likes of 67, 68 and 172 run down the 'western' side fine, someone did explain it to me once but i cant remember the reason it may have been the lack of CSR (prior to gsm-r) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesysmith Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 On the subject of power/weight ratio of EMUs, the PEP stock has 8 110hp motors per train and 75 mph gearing, the 319 have 4 motors of aprox 300hp and 100mph gearing. The PEP would have better acceleration, especially in the lower speed range due to having less weight and better gearing. The REP stock had 4 400hp motors per motor coach, and 2 motor coaches per set, for a installed HP of 3200hp per set. All the other SR units had EE 250hp motors, with a ratio of one motor per coach, either with a motor bogie at each end (CEPs), or all 4 in one motor coach (VEPs). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 It's not just the amount of motored cars that is important, the ratings of said motors comes into it as well. Don't forget that the REPs and the CEPs both had two driving motor vehicles in a single unit, but because of the need for the REP to shove an extra 8 unpowered Mk1s about it had far more power in those two driving motors than the CEP. As such even though a 319 only has a single motored car, given the signifficant gradients in the Thameslink core plus the need to get a move on while on the MML / BML , that single car may have more installed power than a 507 / 508 unit. At low speeds the critical factor is the proportion of the weight that is carried on powered axles - any excess power applied would just spin the wheels. This is roughly two thirds for the 507/508 and a bit more than 25% for the 319. So the 319 will be much less able to start on a severe gradient or cope with low adhesion, both of which would probably be major problems on Merseyrail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.