kenw Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 I think the trouble is that different parts of the rail industry have very different needs, which are fundamentally incompatible with each other.?..Passenger operators want something that is simple (operationally) - including all neccesary MU connections, can connect/disconnect at the touch of a button from the safety of a cab, quickly, cleanly, and without the added expense of employing folk in dirty orange overalls to hang around anywhere you might ever consider coupling/uncoupling something... So, I think "everything compatible with everything" isn't practical.....Though it could end up with .....restrict technological development (That's better tech, but we can't use it as it's not compatible with stuff it'll never run with...)? Pretty much the problem here, with auto-couplers for push-button operation from the cab all MU connections are made electrically through the coupler, including brake controls, no longer the Air Train Pipe which needs coupling manually, but allowed brakes to be piped through between anything. So, anything with different electrical control systems can't run together, even if they do have the same coupler, perhaps why some are at different heights Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenw Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Mark 4 coaches are fitted with three brake discs per axle: two would have been sufficient for 125mph operation but were marginal for 140mph operation so BR decided to fit three. ....If these vehicles are still running with three discs then I am very surprised that smell has become a problem. HSTs..... The change of brakes on the power cars also helped the trailer cars: originally braking effort was reduced on the power cars at high speed compared to the trailer cars and set higher at lower speeds. I am racking my brain to remember the changeover speed: 70 or 90mph I think.. Yes, the MkIVs do still run with three brake discs per axle. I think the pad type' s been recently changed. The two stage brake on HST power cars was meant to reduce wheel slide when the leading vehicle. Removed, I believe, when the pads were changed, and improved wheel slide prevention fitted making it unnecessary. The changeover was at 90mph, a real pain when at the likes of Aycliffe, braking for the 85 PSR, as releasing them the two stage kicked in and they went on harder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david.hill64 Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Yes, the MkIVs do still run with three brake discs per axle. I think the pad type' s been recently changed. The two stage brake on HST power cars was meant to reduce wheel slide when the leading vehicle. Removed, I believe, when the pads were changed, and improved wheel slide prevention fitted making it unnecessary. The changeover was at 90mph, a real pain when at the likes of Aycliffe, braking for the 85 PSR, as releasing them the two stage kicked in and they went on harder. Thanks for this. A change in pad material might explain the smell. In BR days all proposed friction materials were subject to extensive testing on the brake dynamometer at BR Research. I think that these days if a material has passed the European Technical Standard for Interoperability then the test result for that has to be accepted irrespective of where the tests were done. I am not involved these days so don't know the latest situation. It is quite possible that if some procurement department has decided to buy a batch of cheaper pads without understanding the implications of the purchase, then if the friction coefficient of the new pads is higher than that of the old (and BR's standard asbestos-free pads had a lower friction coefficient than the UIC standard) the new pads will be taking more power than the old ones and getting hotter. (Peak temperatures at the pad-disc interface are roughly proportional to brake force times speed, while bulk temperature of the brake discs is roughly proportional to speed squared). Reminds me of when BR's procurement department bought a very large batch of asbestos brake pads as they were so much cheaper than the new pads. Special offer as it were, which was hardly surprising as they were not interchangeable with the new pads and could no longer be used...........I think the supplier was grateful to have been able to offload the old stock! I am sure you are correct about the 90mph changeover. HST power cars have both wheel mounted disc brakes and tread brakes. The tread brakes provided about 20% of the braking effort and the disc brake 80%. There were two reasons for this. Firstly to condition the wheel tread to improve adhesion for traction and braking (cast iron brake blocks scrub the wheel tread of detritus and leave a film of cast iron dust that acts a bit like the sandite that is applied to combat low adhesion caused by leaf fall). Secondly the energy going in to the brake discs had to be reduced as the original split disc design was right at the performance limit. When the discs were changed to a continuous ring design and the brake pads changed to a more conformable asbestos-free material, it was no longer necessary to have the two stage brake. I was involved in the brake tests for the changeover, which coincided with changes on the trailer cars to the new asbestos-free design. A theoretical drawback of the change was that at speeds below 125mph the braking performance of the sets was slightly inferior to that of the original set-up, though I never heard of any adverse comments from drivers. I can imagine that in the situation you describe at Aycliffe it must have taken real skill to get the train to hit the PSR exactly. We didn't change the WSP at the time of the disc change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted September 18, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 18, 2014 One aspect about approvals which is lost on many is that unless you understand the basis of the approval then certification should be treated with some scepticism. I am not saying that the approvals are not valid but that the nature of the testing, acceptability criteria and what the approval actually says are generally not understood by many. I work for a company who does a huge amount of type approval work and it is amazing how many people complain about a type approved product when the problem is not so much the type approval but that the type approval is not really what they think it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Is there ever going to be a move back to some standard coupling, even if it's just something additional that can only be used in emergencies? The lack of it seems like one of the more insane aspects of the modern railway. Pretty much everything new is coming with Dellner couplings now it would seem, and have been for some time. Whether they are all at compatible heights is a different matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 Out of interest, what kind of couplers with the class 800/801 units have? I'm assuming there's a coupler under the nose cone, as with the Javelin units. Dellner I believe same as the 395/Javelins, and the proposed AT units Hitachi have been hawking. No idea if these are electronically compatible though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Is there ever going to be a move back to some standard coupling. We have standard couplings, its just that the standards keep changing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 The Scharfenburg/Dellner style coupling has been the de-facto standard for new multiple units for some time now, they are even being fitted to the re-engineered SWT 458s so they can couple to Desiros in emergencies. Chris Its a shame the coupler heights or the electrical side of things are not compatible . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenw Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 Oh, has anyone noticed the ex Midland HST on the ECML that has original 125 seats one side of the aisle and 225 style seats the other in at least one coach? I've not seen it for a while so I wonder what has happened to that hybrid. the ex EMT set is now the only set in East Coast grey, and it still has odd seats With the imminent re-franchising of EC it's the only one planned to be repainted in EC gray, Also, in view of the limited time remaining for these sets, it isn't scheduled for refurbishment to standard EC interiors. As it was, still in EMT livery with EC logos, I heard of it dubed the East Midlands Coast Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenw Posted September 19, 2014 Share Posted September 19, 2014 As an aside the 225's are also prone, at times, to have a coach or two smelling like a sewage farm whilst in EC use. It is also not unknown for toilets to be locked out of use due to the water tanks in that particular coach being empty albeit later on in the day. Mind you some of the travelling public do not help, I dread to think what their houses are like. The sets are by routine, watered at terminating points while being prepared for the next journey, though not always possible after delays when too tight a turnaround. Think it's more commonly paper towels the issue here rather than time of day. At least don't need to worry about not been able to use them when standing in stations... just, erm, avoid them when going through tunnels.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ron Ron Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30042801 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Fobe2 Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 What a boring looking clone train! The new Eurostar vehicles IMO are far more impressive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 What a boring looking clone train! The new Eurostar vehicles IMO are far more impressive. I disagree actually. I find the simplicity of its external design to be an aesthetic strength. ROB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 It's also in plain white - it should hopefully look better when it has the final livery applied. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Triang Paul Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Brown. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Brown. Yep, that'll help it look exciting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D1059 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 It's also in plain white - it should hopefully look better when it has the final livery applied. Apparently there has been a delay at Electra Railway Graphics preparing the sides for the new trains - hence the temporary white livery Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmustu Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 For those of you fluent in Japanese, a news report on the IEP with some interesting shots... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Jaxq2LblQ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmsforever Posted November 17, 2014 Author Share Posted November 17, 2014 At least the jobs will be in in the UK and many of the parts are British so it helps the economy unlike the new euro train ,I hope the new FGW livery has another colour besides brown! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southernman46 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 The Scharfenburg/Dellner style coupling has been the de-facto standard for new multiple units for some time now, they are even being fitted to the re-engineered SWT 458s so they can couple to Desiros in emergencies. Chris That's an improvement, I remember a time when 458's often refused to even couple to or "talk to" other 458's when they eventually consented........... I think I've said it before but after being out recently doing some clearance surveys to see how much the IEP doesn't yet fit some of the GWML platforms, I am SOOOO glad the shite will be staying in these things, fertiliser spreading is one aspect of HST's I won't miss especially after being spoilt on a shite-free Desiro'ed Wessex main line for some years previously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenman Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 The Public Accounts Committee has issued a damning report on DfT's procurement of SET and Thameslink trains. Not terrifically surprising conclusions, though Hitachi's 38% reduction in bid price is a bit jaw-dropping. Paul PS: Full report rather than press article is here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 It's good though that they have highlighted that ROSCOs and operators are better suited to procuring trains than the DFT. I wonder what Virgin would have ordered if it had been given the East Coast earlier? That said, would it have ensured the trains were built in the UK, even the DFT managed to let trains be built abroad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakydoke Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I've just read the Guardian piece from the link provided, but will look at the full report later. If the Guardian article is a correct interpretation of the report, then this committees findings are fundamentally flawed, based on false statements of the facts. The UK government have NOT spent and WILL NOT be spending £7.7 billion and £2.8 billion on the trains mentioned. In the case of the IEP, the funding for the Hitachi SET's is being provided by a consortium of finance institutions, managed through HSBC. Those banks and other lenders are providing the £7.7 billion, not the government. The public funding liability is the nominal cost of underwriting the purchase cost, i.e. the government only pay anything if there's a default on repayments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted December 17, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 17, 2014 I continue with an air of somewhat cynical detachment as far as IEP is concerned - ordered by Civil Servants with limited knowledge of procurement proces and even less of railway engineering and operations from a builder with limited experience of UK rail operating conditions to match what could be seen in some respects as a rather suspect and not fully thought-out specification. Now, with diesel engines as part of their prime mover system, to be based in a depot a considerable part of which has a planning restriction on the use of diesel engined rail traction or a depot building which - unless it has been altered (?) has no facility for running-up diesel engines for test purposes as it was designed for electric trains and has no ventilating system. All seems rather amateurish to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakydoke Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 It's good though that they have highlighted that ROSCOs and operators are better suited to procuring trains than the DFT.. In principle yes, but that's conveniently forgetting that no ROSCO was interested in procuring the new trains at the outset, nor were any of the then resident TOC's. I wonder what Virgin would have ordered if it had been given the East Coast earlier? A mute point as the IEP was initiated during GNER's 2nd period of tenure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.