TPEX Class 68 & Mk5 Nova 3 fleet to be withdrawnDec 2023

[25901]

DRS have no electric locos now

[jamie92208]

1 hour ago, 25901 said:

DRS have no electric locos now

What's happened to the 88's then. 

 

Jamie

Edited October 19, 2023 by jamie92208

[Legend]

The beauty about the Mk5s  is you could electrify  change 68s for something else but keep the rolling stock .  But I think we are off into the realms of electrification fantasy here . Haven't even done the full Midland Mainline yet 

 

[25901]

16 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

What's happened to the 888's then. 

 

Jamie

Sorry, I meant 90s.

Edited October 19, 2023 by 25901

[St. Simon]

50 minutes ago, 25901 said:

Sorry, I meant 90s.

 

DRS technically never had 90s, they were sub-leased from DB?

 

Simon

[Forward!]

4 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Or people are finding life is getting harder and more stressful and this has just been adding to it.

 

I know that recently things have been getting to me more and more, just this morning I could hear a rhythmic thump in the house, I had to open the window to establish where it was coming from.  Probably some workmen laying paving or something, but it wound me up, so if you are in your flat and the local TOC decides to employ new locos and keep their engines running for electrical power to the train I can imagine that too might grate over time.  But I also accept that it's a risk living next to a railway line (or a factory) that a change might occur that results in noise pollution and you need to consider it when purchasing.

 

Not forgetting that since 2020 a huge number of people are now working from home. I live in a 'sleepy' village, but even so, when I spend the whole day working at home I do notice the ambient noise of tradesmen, builders, farm machinery, bin lorries, delivery vans etc. Perversely, my main reason for going in to the office noawadays is when I want to some peace and quiet! (There's usually nobody else there, or course!).

 

Will

[Mike_Walker]

Again, some years ago Adrian Shooter explained that electrification of the Chiltern lines is extremely difficult due to clearances in the tunnels outside Marylebone.  They were built cut-and-cover so there is no chance of raising the roof without breaking into the properties above and likewise lowering the floor would break into the canal and in any case there would be too much of "hump" over the WCML.  That bridge was raised for the WCML electrification and already has a notable hump when viewed from the cab.

 

In future it might be possible with a switch to battery operation in and out of the terminal.

[newbryford]

49 minutes ago, St. Simon said:

 

DRS technically never had 90s, they were sub-leased from DB?

 

Simon

 

What about the 87s? (flickrpic)

 

[woodenhead]

47 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

Again, some years ago Adrian Shooter explained that electrification of the Chiltern lines is extremely difficult due to clearances in the tunnels outside Marylebone.  They were built cut-and-cover so there is no chance of raising the roof without breaking into the properties above and likewise lowering the floor would break into the canal and in any case there would be too much of "hump" over the WCML.  That bridge was raised for the WCML electrification and already has a notable hump when viewed from the cab.

 

In future it might be possible with a switch to battery operation in and out of the terminal.

Or maybe close Marylebone, divert services to Paddington and then wire the route conventionally for the outer suburban trains.

 

It's not like there won't be a glamorous but under utilised fully electric line opening up in a few years that could more than handle the services to Birmingham.

[Nova Scotian]

Perhaps there's a way to look at safer 3rd rail for those short sections into Marylebone and the like? Ground-level power supply, where segments are electrified only as the train enters that section? We wrote off 3rd rail as inefficient, dangerous and bad for shunting, but ignored the benefits and stopped development on ways to improve on its drawbacks.

[96701]

1 hour ago, Nova Scotian said:

Perhaps there's a way to look at safer 3rd rail for those short sections into Marylebone and the like? Ground-level power supply, where segments are electrified only as the train enters that section? We wrote off 3rd rail as inefficient, dangerous and bad for shunting, but ignored the benefits and stopped development on ways to improve on its drawbacks.

Very difficult to get top contact 3rd rail to comply with the Electricity at Work Regulations, so any manual work would require isolation and earthing, making the whole thing prohibitively expensive, particularly if staff need to fettle S&C.

[Mike_Walker]

15 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Or maybe close Marylebone, divert services to Paddington and then wire the route conventionally for the outer suburban trains.

 

It's not like there won't be a glamorous but under utilised fully electric line opening up in a few years that could more than handle the services to Birmingham.

Not possible.  Paddington doesn't have enough capacity to take all the Chiltern line trains and in any case how would the Aylesbury/Amersham trains get there?  Additionally, the New Line has been severed at the OOC end and the trackbed is to be used for turnback and stabling sidings for those EL trains which currently terminate at Paddington and reverse at Westbourne Park which will be extended to OOC.

 

Remember too that the Chiltern Birmingham services don't just convey end to end passengers but also pick up and set down at stations like High Wycombe, Princes Risborough, Bicester, Banbury, Leamington and Warwick.

[Artless Bodger]

17 hours ago, 96701 said:

Very difficult to get top contact 3rd rail to comply with the Electricity at Work Regulations, so any manual work would require isolation and earthing, making the whole thing prohibitively expensive, particularly if staff need to fettle S&C.

How about side contact and (preferably) bottom contact 3rd rail installations which have protection, for the tunnel section would not need to be compatible with SR 3rd rail? SNCF used protected top contact 3rd on the Maurienne line (mainly for protection against snow and ice in the mountains).

[woodenhead]

Anything involving another rail for a short stretch of track under London is going to mean a bespoke solution for a small number of rolling stock items and may prohibit other types from entering the station.

 

Batteries seem the most obvious as Mike Walker has alluded to, they don't introduce anything new to the track side outside of the station environment.  So that really means as things stand a class 93 or derivative thereof to get the train out of the station to West Hampstead where conventional electric traction could take over.

 

But it needs a business case to electrify the route throughout, after the debacle that is HS2, makes you wonder if the Government would want to steer clear of any big plans in the Chilterns at the moment and focus elsewhere for politcal points even though really it is an obvious route being the last mainline diesel passenger route in London

[96701]

2 hours ago, Artless Bodger said:

How about side contact and (preferably) bottom contact 3rd rail installations which have protection, for the tunnel section would not need to be compatible with SR 3rd rail? SNCF used protected top contact 3rd on the Maurienne line (mainly for protection against snow and ice in the mountains).

It is still difficult to allow any work adjacent to live uninsulated conductors. I know because I led the working group that rewrote the NR Standard NR/L3/MTC/EP0153 Working on or near conductor rails. We looked at the Electricity at Work Regulations and came up with the three “zones” and recommended that training be provided to enable NR to confirm that the staff who work adjacent to uninsulated conductors are competent to do so. Other railway contractors do not allow their staff to work near bare conductors unless there is a documented isolation in place. 

Edited October 20, 2023 by 96701
Incorrect grammar.

[lmsforever]

On 19/10/2023 at 17:20, woodenhead said:

Or maybe close Marylebone, divert services to Paddington and then wire the route conventionally for the outer suburban trains.

 

It's not like there won't be a glamorous but under utilised fully electric line opening up in a few years that could more than handle the services to Birmingham.

Close Marylebone  no way its is needed and its nearer the centre of London a short walk to Baker St  also no room at Paddington 

[rogerzilla]

It's also a cheap ticket from Oxford Parkway, which makes it worth a 40 minute drive for me rather than paying the laughable GWR fare from Swindon. Does seem to attract late night drunks, though.

[adb968008]

Reading the specs of a class 93, it seems a bit light on both diesel and battery for this job, but how about with a pair of 93’s as top and tail ?

 

would two get a mk5 set out of Marylebone on battery and give enough power on diesel for the rest of the journey ?

 

thats c1000hp of Battery for c10 mins, and 2400hp on diesel…. Not far off a class 20 and a class 67.

 

Wasteful and unlikely I accept, but could it ?

 

 

it kind of shows Battery has a long way to go, if 540hp of power for 10 mins is all you can get. I wonder if the long term solution of Battery locos is the return of a tender(s) behind the loco, holding a battery pack that can be uncoupled / swapped for charging as required ?

Certainly the current solution of loading it all in the loco doesnt look hugely attractive, and wastes a locos performance because of lack of power source storage.

 

in many ways looking at battery tech now, is like looking at diesel tech 100 years ago, it took 40 years to be established at the level it was needed to be.

Edited October 22, 2023 by adb968008

[Br60066]

2 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Reading the specs of a class 93, it seems a bit light on both diesel and battery for this job, but how about with a pair of 93’s as top and tail ?

 

would two get a mk5 set out of Marylebone on battery and give enough power on diesel for the rest of the journey ?

 

thats c1000hp of Battery for c10 mins, and 2400hp on diesel…. Not far off a class 20 and a class 67.

 

Wasteful and unlikely I accept, but could it ?

 

 

it kind of shows Battery has a long way to go, if 540hp of power for 10 mins is all you can get. I wonder if the long term solution of Battery locos is the return of a tender(s) behind the loco, holding a battery pack that can be uncoupled / swapped for charging as required ?

Certainly the current solution of loading it all in the loco doesnt look hugely attractive, and wastes a locos performance because of lack of power source storage.

 

in many ways looking at battery tech now, is like looking at diesel tech 100 years ago, it took 40 years to be established at the level it was needed to be.

You could really be onto something with that tender idea. You could upgrade the tender as battery tech gets better or if something like super capacitors become viable at that scale without having to touch the loco. Might also be theoretically possible to retrofit existing electric locomotives with connections on each end to give them a bit of time away from the wires. You could even go as far as using a DVT style wagon or even converting existing DVT’s and not have to worry about shunting to always have a cab end exposed.

[adb968008]

I was thinking you can always attach multiple too, for longer distance/heavier.

 

but I think from a cost perspective separating the battery pack from the traction unit is a better prospect than trying to pack it all in, competing with alternative energy sources. You can have as many battery packs as needed, just swap them out at various charging points.

Edited October 22, 2023 by adb968008

[rodent279]

4 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Reading the specs of a class 93, it seems a bit light on both diesel and battery for this job, but how about with a pair of 93’s as top and tail ?

 

would two get a mk5 set out of Marylebone on battery and give enough power on diesel for the rest of the journey ?

 

thats c1000hp of Battery for c10 mins, and 2400hp on diesel…. Not far off a class 20 and a class 67.

 

Wasteful and unlikely I accept, but could it ?

 

 

it kind of shows Battery has a long way to go, if 540hp of power for 10 mins is all you can get. I wonder if the long term solution of Battery locos is the return of a tender(s) behind the loco, holding a battery pack that can be uncoupled / swapped for charging as required ?

Certainly the current solution of loading it all in the loco doesnt look hugely attractive, and wastes a locos performance because of lack of power source storage.

 

in many ways looking at battery tech now, is like looking at diesel tech 100 years ago, it took 40 years to be established at the level it was needed to be.

How about a kind of battery banker? A self-contained battery traction unit that would work in multi with the rest of the train to push it out of the station& through the tunnels, but drop off at the end of the tunnel section & work back to the station, unmanned, to be recharged?

[jjb1970]

There are alternative liquid fuels if the idea is to get a low GHG emission solution instead of electrification.  I know Roger Ford dismisses it as bionic duckweed, while I tend to agree with RF this is a case where I disagree.

[The Stationmaster]

On 19/10/2023 at 10:15, lmsforever said:

Reading above it seems as people are becoming more and more pathetic as the months go by.

No, it's nothing new  Y was doing research to shut up idiots like that back in the 1980s and 1990s.  In one it was for a court case where the people buyinga house hadn't looked out of the window when they viewed it to see railway line being built just over a low wall on the opposite side of the road.  Fortunately it ended well when they lost their case against the people who had sold the house - the judge heard the case in chambers and my evidence was prominent in his ruling against them.  So I, in effect, lumbered that pair of idiots with a five figure legal bill plus costs.

[frobisher]

10 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Reading the specs of a class 93, it seems a bit light on both diesel and battery for this job, but how about with a pair of 93’s as top and tail ?

 

would two get a mk5 set out of Marylebone on battery and give enough power on diesel for the rest of the journey ?

 

A single Class 99 might though...

[BernardTPM]

What about linear induction as a modern equivalent to cable haulage?