Prototype HST Power Car to return to the main line?

[jjb1970]

If part of the rationale for preservation is derived from the historical significance of the prototype then I can think of no other train of the post steam era as being more worthy of preservation than a full HST set, at least in passenger train terms. I'm old enough to remember the effect the HST had on the public image of rail travel in the 70's when it pretty much single handedly restored rail travels image of speed and excitement. Mind you, probably best not to remember who BR used to voice the age of the train!

[Sheffield]

Yes certainly the HST revolutionised rail travel. I was using the railway for long distance journeys at least once a week at the time and remember the difference they made. In my opinion the MK3 carriage is the best post war design and none built later have been any where as good. Although the orginal engines were noisy when trying hard even that gave the impression of power and meaning business.

[Dava]

This was one of the two power cars which broke Mallard's speed record, 143mph I recall, way back in the mid-'70's, as part of its test program. This achievement, setting a diesel rail speed record, tends to be overlooked and means it is historic for all sorts of reasons. Pity the other was broken up.

 

Dava

[Dava]

Having seen & enjoyed the film, the level of emissions from the Paxman Valenta engine did seem a bit high, may not win friends among the local residents adjoining the line! We just get the sound effects

[modfather]

Well if the group insist on idling it all the time when it's not being run, what do they expect... cold engines leave part combusted hydrocarbons in the exhaust which will cause exhaust fires if they don't act sensibly. Starting it every hour from cold at the Swanage gala will have done it no good. Best leave it until they can start and run it on train supply for a few hours to get it warmed up and burning cleanly. 

[MarkC]

What an interesting idea - this power car on one end of a York-Shildon shuttle; the other end could potentially be pretty much anything else, steam or diesel, which is cleared to run on the 'big railway'...

[Southernman46]

How about the re-built Baby Deltic on the other end.......................wouldn't that be something special !!  

[Karhedron]

Is there anything around that could operate in push-pull mode the with the power car? A Mk2D DBSO for example? No idea about electrical compatibility or anything like that.

[The Stationmaster]

Is there anything around that could operate in push-pull mode the with the power car? A Mk2D DBSO for example? No idea about electrical compatibility or anything like that.

A more interesting question would be whether or not it has been restored, with all the necessary paperwork and safety assessments etc, to a standard which allows it to run under its own power on NR?

[Mark Saunders]

 

A more interesting question would be whether or not it has been restored, with all the necessary paperwork and safety assessments etc, to a standard which allows it to run under its own power on NR?

 

How can it be restored for mainline running when it needs a Data Recorder, GSMR radio, AWS replaced with TPWS add on and possibly NRN all of which mean modified not restored!

 

Mark Saunders

[phil-b259]

Is there anything around that could operate in push-pull mode the with the power car? A Mk2D DBSO for example? No idea about electrical compatibility or anything like that.

 

As it stands the answer is a resounding no - the only thing it would be compatible with in a push pull configuration is its long scrapped partner power car.

 

That said from an engineering perspective it would certainly possible to modify a mk3 DVT, a MK2 DBSO or even a production power car to be compatible. Whether it could be done at a reasonable cost is the question - because you would effectively have to build a brand new prototype power car cab to fit inside the donor vehicle, fit a very complicated box of electronics to handle the translation from one type of system to another or ruin the prototype (internally) by converting it into a production spec machine.

[phil-b259]

How can it be restored for mainline running when it needs a Data Recorder, GSMR radio, AWS replaced with TPWS add on and possibly NRN all of which mean modified not restored!

 

Mark Saunders

 

These things have all been fitted very successfully to the current mainline steam fleet so I can't imagine it will be a problem especially as none of these need radical changes to the 'look' of the loco. ERTMS might be a problem (remember the southern half of the ECML will be ETRMS only within a decade) - though unlike steam locos it does have a guards van where the half height filing cabinet sized kit could go.

[The Stationmaster]

These things have all been fitted very successfully to the current mainline steam fleet so I can't imagine it will be a problem especially as none of these need radical changes to the 'look' of the loco. ERTMS might be a problem (remember the southern half of the ECML will be ETRMS only within a decade) - though unlike steam locos it does have a guards van where the half height filing cabinet sized kit could go.

You obviously see the point I was getting at Phil - if (as per the thread title) mainline operation is being thought about the PC will need systems to be added and most of them are theoretically straightforward  although full ERTMS fitment might be a lot more awkward because of the requirement for it to cut-off traction power.  But the point is that it will not then be in 'as built' condition which might well remain an NRM condition of any work done on it(?).

 

So the situation is simple - it's either kept in museum condition but at least workable, or it ceases to be in pure museum condition but is made mainline compliant should that be technically feasible (but unless it can operate with sufficient suitable passenger carrying vehicles you can in any case bin any ideas of getting it up to even modestly high speeds as it won't have the stopping power).

[Dava]

The GCR (S) is authorized for high speed test running, when closed to public. This would be more feasible for a thrash than Network Rail. Even easier when the gap is bridged!

 

Dava

[The Stationmaster]

The GCR (S) is authorized for high speed test running, when closed to public. This would be more feasible for a thrash than Network Rail. Even easier when the gap is bridged!

 

Dava

And the only problem they would have is stopping the thing!

[newbryford]

But the point is that it will not then be in 'as built' condition which might well remain an NRM condition of any work done on it ).

I wonder how much of the NRM collection is actually in "as-built" condition, unless "as-built" from an external view is acceptable?

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Titan]

And the only problem they would have is stopping the thing!

I'm not so sure about that, HST power cars are lightweight, have disc brakes all round, and if a 2 power car + 7 coach formation (i.e. 3.5 coaches per power car) can stop from 125mph in the same distance as a conventional loco hauled train takes from 100mph, the brakes are going to be a damn sight stronger on a HST powercar compared to any other loco.

[newbryford]

I'm not so sure about that, HST power cars are lightweight, have disc brakes all round, and if a 2 power car + 7 coach formation (i.e. 3.5 coaches per power car) can stop from 125mph in the same distance as a conventional loco hauled train takes from 100mph, the brakes are going to be a damn sight stronger on a HST powercar compared to any other loco.

Not quite as simple as that. The NMT HST safety case is for 2+5 coaches and anything less is not recommended. (977995 is the "spare" coach used to make up the 2+5, when the regular test coaches are out for maintenance as 2+4 is not normally allowed)

I'm sure Stationmaster Mike can fill in the details.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Talltim]

Part of the reason an HST can stop quicker than a loco hauled train is because the brakes are applied (air released) at both ends simultaneously. I beleive the Mk3/4 DVTs allow this too.

Brake force is a counter intuitive thing to my mind, a heavier train would stop slower, you would think, but it's down to the ratio of braking power to weight. A coach has as many wheels braked as a loco/power car, but weighs less, thus the more coaches you add the higher the brake force/weight ratio of the train becomes.

 

Not sure what the parking brake is like on a power car ;-)

Actually, I seem to recall there is something unusual about it

Edited June 6, 2014 by Talltim

[The Stationmaster]

Not quite as simple as that. The NMT HST safety case is for 2+5 coaches and anything less is not recommended. (977995 is the "spare" coach used to make up the 2+5, when the regular test coaches are out for maintenance as 2+4 is not normally allowed)

I'm sure Stationmaster Mike can fill in the details.

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

 

Part of the reason an HST can stop quicker than a loco hauled train is because the brakes are applied (air released) at both ends simultaneously. I beleive the Mk3/4 DVTs allow this too.

Brake force is a counter intuitive thing to my mind, a heavier train would stop slower, you would think, but it's down to the ratio of braking power to weight. A coach has as many wheels braked as a loco/power car, but weighs less, thus the more coaches you add the higher the brake force/weight ratio of the train becomes.

 

Not sure what the parking brake is like on a power car ;-)

Actually, I seem to recall there is something unusual about it

Basically 'yes' to the above.  The main braking force on an HST comes from the passenger coaches, on their own the power cars are not very effective at stopping hence they are restricted in speed when running light/with a barrier vehicle.

 

When we were planning the various WR high speed runs (e.g. 'Top Of The Pops' back in the 1980s) we looked very seriously at a number of ways of attaining either better acceleration rates or higher maximum speeds and it was decided the simplest answer was to reduce the formation.  However when the engineers looked at the brake force and braking rates they fairly quickly found that the minimum number of vehicles which would provide normal braking distances from maximum speeds was a 2+5 formation, if we had gone for 2+4 we would have had to reduce the maximum permissible speed as we would be desperately under-braked against the normal braking curves and it would have required some very complicated arrangements to ensure 'clear run' conditions  (we actually did make such arrangements in two places using train-to-shore radiotelephone links but they were where deceleration to normal line speeds would have cost too much time).

 

And of course since then a standardised Instruction emerged which requires severe speed reductions on HSTs running with very short formations.

 

I got involved with it all again on NMT Safety Case work where sub-standard formations were proposed and it was also proposed to use Mk2 vehicles initially in place of a couple of Mk3s and it was claimed in the Safety Case documentation that this would provide effective braking. I was on the ISA (Independent Safety Assessor) team and refused to accept the calculations as it was clear that Mk2 brake power was inferior to Mk3 and eventually my request for additional physical testing was carried out - and proved the train was under-braked when Mk2 vehicles were substituted for Mk3 (by the simple test of braking from maximum speed and measuring the stopping distance, in fact it was even worse that I suggested it would be hence severe speed restrictions if Mk2s were ever used in the formation).

 

Incidentally locos are not really much different - one of the main reasons for restricting light engine speeds is the lack of brake power.

[Christopher125]

You obviously see the point I was getting at Phil - if (as per the thread title) mainline operation is being thought about the PC will need systems to be added and most of them are theoretically straightforward  although full ERTMS fitment might be a lot more awkward because of the requirement for it to cut-off traction power.  But the point is that it will not then be in 'as built' condition which might well remain an NRM condition of any work done on it(?).

I believe it had already been modified when in departmental use - according to the blog the wiring was already a combination of that in prototype and production power cars, and it has now been re-wired as close to the latter as possible.

 

Chris

Edited June 7, 2014 by Christopher125

[pete_mcfarlane]

I believe it had already been modified when in departmental use - according to the blog the wiring was already a combination of that in prototype and production power cars, and it has now been re-wired as close to the latter as possible.

 

Chris

There are certainly photos of the prototype power cars working with production trailers - there's one on this very interesting page: http://www.traintesting.com/HST_prototype.htm

[Xerces Fobe2]

41 001 + 4 MK3's and a DVT, job done!

 

XF

Edited June 8, 2014 by Xerces Fobe2

[Dava]

There is a spare DVT in the Brush yard at Loughborough, it & the GCR north are rail connected....

[modfather]

I understand the internals aren't as built, there's bits of home made electronics, a 57 avr... but I'm reliably informed it should be ok to run with a hst, I know the gentleman with a 42 way tester borrowed to find out.