Imaginary Locomotives

[Coryton]

but the bigger question is how do you get around the forthcoming legislative requirements for accessibility, which are driving the removal from service of Britain’s, and the world’s, best DMU?

 

I think you have been misinformed.

 

As mentioned above, HSTs will be with us for some time yet but in shorter formations.

 

They will be fitted with new automatic doors - and controlled emission toilets.

[Northroader]

No, he’s going on about the class 142, Britain and the worlds best DMU.

[Satan's Goldfish]

With a single power unit, they would be restricted to maybe 90/95mph, I think, but the bigger question is how do you get around the forthcoming legislative requirements for accessibility, which are driving the removal from service of Britain’s, and the world’s, best DMU?

They could have used mk3 DVTs with shortform HST sets to create some comfortable long distance/cross country trains, otherwise: power car, 3 x TSO, buffet/restaurant TF, DVT.

As mentioned in other threads, this is already being covered with power doors, retention toilets, etc, on their way up to Scotrail, and shortened GW sets for the far west. I'm just pondering on the fact that they're being reduced to 2+4 formations which seems a bit of a waste as they won't be able to reach top speed. 1+4 seems more sensible in not wasting train length/maintenance costs, with the ability to join 2 sets together to reform a conventional profile 2+8 HST. I don't know the rated performance of a plastic pig, but I'd be surprised if they can't reach 90mph, so the aerodynamics of the blunt end isn't an issue in 1+4 mode, and in 2+8 mode with blunt ends joined in the middle it should be good for 125mph.

 

Whilst I like the idea of 1+4+DVT as an alternative imaginary solution (I think this thread has covered that already!), it would take up 2x DVT more platform length with a lot of wasted non-passenger space if 2 formations were to be joined together. The 'plastic pig' cab solution keeps a 2x train length the same as an existing HST. It would probably be very nice on cross country runs.

[Corbs]

Did I post this before? I found it on another thread. A nice 'what if' for the HST.

[Satan's Goldfish]

I like that Corbs.

 

I always fancied a 91 in RES; by day it romps up and down with some swallow mk4s, by night it handles parcel stock and TPOs. (Can BGs and GUVs work with mk3 DVTs?)

[FPH 603]

From a screenshot collection of Comeng: A History of Commonweath Engineering Volume 5? I'm thinking of incorporating some of these features into the work in progress design to improve it.

[runs as required]

My plan for solving congestion on the underground was to have trains a mile long, moving at 15 mph. The trains are just flat wagons. Each platform has a travelator section formed of two parts. The one nearest the running line moves at 10mph, the other at 5mph. To get on the train, which does not stop at stations, you simply walk alongside it and step sideways on to the faster travelator and eventually on to the train. The platforms are in two halfs, one for entry and one for egress. Can't see how this can go wrong

This I am fairly sure has been trailed (somewhere sunny) as an external system for pedestrianising long existing shopping streets. It was broken into 200 metre or so lengths (like airport travelators) so it could more easily crossed and could be laid as chords through bends.

I remember it being suggested for the pedestrianising of Church/Lord St Liverpool back in the 1960s !

dh

[FPH 603]

image.png

From a screenshot collection of Comeng: A History of Commonweath Engineering Volume 5? I'm thinking of incorporating some of these features into the work in progress design to improve it.

I'm trying to decide whether keep the plug doors (which are more modern) or to do outside sliding doors. I will definitely go with the curved upper deck, but I feel like I may need to reprofile my design (again!). I think I may also experiment with the livery.

[melmerby]

Replace the track with travelators. Much lower maintenance.

There was a concept called the "neverstop" railway where the cars were driven by a screw system which was at very close pitch in the stations (the cars were virtually "buffered up")  and the pitch increases away from them thus increasing the speed

 

 

Keith

[Compound2632]

Wasn't this sort of how the Glasgow Underground worked? A circular route with equispaced stations and cars attached to a continuous cable.

[Regularity]

Simple and effective, but slightly spoilt by racial and class segregation.

I think you have been misinformed.

 

As mentioned above, HSTs will be with us for some time yet but in shorter formations.

 

They will be fitted with new automatic doors - and controlled emission toilets.

Yes, I have been misinformed!

Ta.

[FPH 603]

Some work on the front end. Still doesn't look quite right though. 

[Budgie]

Some work on the front end. Still doesn't look quite right though. 

Comeng Goninan British Hybrid.png

What's the height of this thing above rail level?

[FPH 603]

What's the height of this thing above rail level?

13' 6'' above rails, 3' 6'' at platform height.

[Budgie]

13' 6'' above rails, 3' 6'' at platform height.

 

If this is supposed to be for British use, it is at least 1 foot too tall. 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Budgie

[FPH 603]

A couple of thoughts come to mind.  One is that the guards compartment (I assume that's what it is) effectively cuts the train in half, as presumably passengers wouldn't be allowed in - that would defeat the object of it!  The other is that the profile is wrong for UK stock, it is too square too low doen, the sides need to step inwards to clear platforms etc or else it would be out of gauge.  I think that's one of the reasons that double deck stock hasn't taken off here, lack of width not just lack of height, as the lower deck would be too narrow for much more than 2+1 seating to fit within the existing gauge profile.  You definitely wouldn't fit 3+2 in!

 

Edit to add:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DN41ohiW4AAebny.jpg

This image shows the problem well.  Narrower overall, plus the point at which the body can be wider is much higher.

 Are you sure? See the image attached.

[FPH 603]

I made this just to see what the current design would look in a 3D form. After making this mock up I found the specifications for the leading car were:

 

Height: 4.11m (13' 6'') 

 

Platform Height: 0.98m (3' 2'') - Should be 1.06m (3' 6'')

 

Width: 2.74m (8' 11'') - Should be 2.64m (8' 8'')

 

Length: 15.95m (52' 3'') - Don't know if I should make it longer

 

It will be fixed so it possesses the correct specifications.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Curved front profile but angular side profile makes it look like they're 2x completely different designs. You need to make the side profile more curved... like a networker!

[Satan's Goldfish]

(Stupid computer! sent reply before finishing and can't edit!)

 

The above was based on your side and front end profile pictures on the previous page. depending on the intended vintage of this DD unit, it may be worth looking at uk single deck examples from a similar era to see what the trend was at the time in high capacity suburban areas. For example, end corridors at the driving cabs have been common at various times. Also, other than pacers, I can't think of any Multiple units with angular faces instead of rounded faces (and this is where someone comes along with angular examples ) Once the body profile and seating layout is there, it's just aesthetics on how it looks.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Kept playing with the 1+4 HST idea, and have some additions!

 

I've changed the coach set to be TGS, 2x TSO, DFO (buffet trolley can live in the TGS if needed), and following a comment on a different thread regarding running a pair of 4TC with a buffet in the middle, I've added a buffet in the middle. this would create some shunting issues when the sets split and join though.

 

that got me thinking though, and I've changed the 4 coaches into a mk3 4TC set with a 442 cab at each end. each fixed set of 4 is now DFO, TSO, TGS, DSO. This improves the flexibility of operations a bit. I know there's a difference in stock supply voltages, but the RES 86 sandwiched between a pair mk3 4TC sets looks quite good.

 

Operational example; 4TC-86-4TC sets off under the wires. Where the wires end it runs up behind a class 43. Class 43 departs with just the lead 4TC. An opposite running service can join it's 4TC up to the 86, detach it's 43, then depart with a full set again under the wires. Think London to Kings Lynn before the wires headed north from Cambridge as an example.(although there may be some capacity issues on that these days!)

 

[Satan's Goldfish]

Is there a standard for minimum head height clearance on a passenger carrying vehicle? (sorry if this has already been answered elsewhere). I know on some DD buses I have to duck slightly if I go to the upper deck, and I'm just a hair over 6ft tall. Thanks.

[Satan's Goldfish]

I know I'm posting a lot in this thread this morning, but here goes another.

 

I've been looking at the DD in Britain issue, I found a couple of loading gauge guides on line (so hopefully the picture is accurate!) and created the below, hence my head height clearance question above. Using modern aviation materials and construction techniques it shouldn't be impossible, I've allowed 3" for floor thickness and 1" for roof skin, with the majority of the weight being transferred through the sides. Things get squiffy on head clearance as soon as you start adding lights and other fixings. Lower deck windows would be just above platform height, upper deck windows would need to become part of the roof to be of any use.

 

This is obviously a 'fixed' loading gauge diagram and doesn't take into account body movement through suspension, which would limit the dimensions a little more. But I think I'm going to use it as a starting point to see what I can come up with.

[runs as required]

I know I'm posting a lot in this thread this morning, but here goes another. I've been looking at the DD in Britain issue, I found a couple of loading gauge guides on line (so hopefully the picture is accurate!) and created the below, hence my head height clearance question above. Using modern aviation materials and construction techniques it shouldn't be impossible, I've allowed 3" for floor thickness and 1" for roof skin, with the majority of the weight being transferred through the sides. Things get squiffy on head clearance as soon as you start adding lights and other fixings. Lower deck windows would be just above platform height, upper deck windows would need to become part of the roof to be of any use. This is obviously a 'fixed' loading gauge diagram and doesn't take into account body movement through suspension, which would limit the dimensions a little more. But I think I'm going to use it as a starting point to see what I can come up with.

Useful sources.

1

My main query is surely this is influenced by vehicle length (hence the old GWR Centenary stock beloved of Hornby having tapered recessed end lobbies).

So a shorter vehicle can be considerably less restricted in width below platform level because of less 'throw-over'

Here is a repost of an earlier 'Bloodnok' post of a Talgo frame set illustrating both the reduced gauge 'throw-over' and also the much lower floor height required.

2

 Is there a standard for minimum head height clearance on a passenger carrying vehicle?

I too wondered about this and remembered the infamous Barton Northern Counties Ultra Loline Dennis bus as my DD141 project

 

dh

[Tiptonian]

If this is supposed to be for British use, it is at least 1 foot too tall. 

Eh?  I hope not. I only "know old stuff", but most diesel locos up to class 50 and including HST were about 12' 10", and a lot of steam locomotives were over 13'.  Only 0-4-0Ts and 0-6-0Ts were down to 12'6" or less. Are our railways shrinking?

[Coryton]

I know I'm posting a lot in this thread this morning, but here goes another. I've been looking at the DD in Britain issue, I found a couple of loading gauge guides on line (so hopefully the picture is accurate!) and created the below, hence my head height clearance question above. Using modern aviation materials and construction techniques it shouldn't be impossible, I've allowed 3" for floor thickness and 1" for roof skin, with the majority of the weight being transferred through the sides. Things get squiffy on head clearance as soon as you start adding lights and other fixings. Lower deck windows would be just above platform height, upper deck windows would need to become part of the roof to be of any use. This is obviously a 'fixed' loading gauge diagram and doesn't take into account body movement through suspension, which would limit the dimensions a little more. But I think I'm going to use it as a starting point to see what I can come up with.

 

I don't know how well modern aviation materials and techniques would cope with crashworthiness requirements though, which tends to be where clever "why hasn't anyone else thought of making a really lightweight train?" ideas fall down, I think.