'CHARD Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 It would be possible to modify the PMSO vehicles and put the TSOL vehicles into storage, as part of the overhaul Indeed it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Whilst I am all for new rolling stock I don't understand why the 314s have to be disposed of and not made available to other TOCs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 The Class 170 units are not being released until the following year Instead they will only be used at peak times Useful... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caradoc Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Whilst I am all for new rolling stock I don't understand why the 314s have to be disposed of and not made available to other TOCs. As a regular passenger on the 314s, I have to say that they are totally unsuitable for the 21st century; Low-backed seats, no toilet, and every door open at every station whether needed or not (which is great in winter when a set sits for any length of time, eg the off-peak 25 min turnround at Neilston). These sets have served the railway for a long time but there's only one place for them now, the great carriage siding in the sky ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 But a refurb would resolve seating and door issue, a toilet can be fitted as well. It's seemed odd that the Scotrail contract said they have to be disposed of, surely that is for the ROSCO to decide not Scotrail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Whilst I am all for new rolling stock I don't understand why the 314s have to be disposed of and not made available to other TOCs.If they were still suitable ScotRail would have retained them The units are ideal for their current use; up to 50 minutes, no toilet, high density commuter However, they are now becoming unreliable, even with the latest overhaul It had been hoped to update the door electrics at that overhaul, but the cost was excessive The new franchise has a requirement of auto door close, to be installed on all units by 2018, and the Class 314 would fail this Units with isolated traction motors are often pressed into service, you can easily identify these as the driver end is silent and loses time to/from Neilston Sadly reliability is everything now, just look where we were with the Class 303 when they had passed the end of their expected life span Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 It's seemed odd that the Scotrail contract said they have to be disposed of, surely that is for the ROSCO to decide not Scotrail?The authority decides the rollng stock (DfT or TS) The RoSCo utilises the availabe rolling stock The only exception is First Great Western which owns some of its rolling stock outright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesysmith Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 If they could get them off lease early enough, it would be interesting to rip all the EMU bit of them, fit a cummins 6 cylinder 8 litre euro5 engine (available off the shelf as fitted to busses now) and the ZF/voith box conversion as fitted to a SWT 159 already. These would make a excellent stop gap DMU for the short time they would be needed, and I have always been curious as to why a DMU version of the PEP design was never done. If there was some spare PEP design coaches off lease somewhere, from either the 508 or such, they could be used as a design/test rebuild as to how practical this would be. The PEP under frame would be strong enough, and the rest such as doors would be done at a heavy overhaul that would be required at the same time. The only thing that would be difficult would be fitting the drive from the box to the bogies. If you was being really tight with the cash, and doing a cheap as possible DMU, you could reuse the engine and gearbox off a 142 withdrawn at the same time, as IIRC they have been fitted with the voith box and newer engines over the years anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 You'd probably fit a generator and drive the existing traction motors as with the converted D78. That would avoid the problem of mechanical linkage and mean the engine could be anywhere, even on the un-motored car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 The authority decides the rollng stock (DfT or TS)The RoSCo utilises the availabe rolling stockThe only exception is First Great Western which owns some of its rolling stock outright This is not the case. The owning RoSCo will decide what it does next with the fleet. The Authority doesn't decide the rolling stock although certain stipulations will have been made that could preclude cost effective modifications to reach compliance. In this case the various franchise bidders will have opted to include or exclude any given fleet. So the 314s have reached the end of their service in Scotland. Other operators do own stock outright. Arriva to give a prime example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerr Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 You'd probably fit a generator and drive the existing traction motors as with the converted D78. That would avoid the problem of mechanical linkage and mean the engine could be anywhere, even on the un-motored car.Great idea but even more highly inefficient (and probably fail current emissions requirements) Option A, diesel conversion using existing traction motors : Removing the transformer and replacing with one high power engines No loss of seating, pantograph core used for diesel exhaust Option B, diesel conversion using mechanical propulsion : Removing transformer, traction motors, bogie conversions, and install three low power engines No loss of seating, driving cars require exhaust manifolds Great in theory but the cost is probably so prohibitive compared to a full overhaul rather than conversion You could overhaul the Class 314 units as they are, but the existing issues would eventually return within 5 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caradoc Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Thanks for all the interesting comments and suggestions regarding the Class 314s. All I can say as a regular user of them is that I will be glad to see them go; Personally I would have preferred the 303s to remain, which IMHO were better in every way (except ride quality, due to the 314's air suspension) than the 314s. Mind you, how reliable the 303s would be if they were still in service today is another matter ! I do believe that just as the comfort of cars has continually improved, so must the standard of rail passenger vehicles, and what was regarded as acceptable in 1980 is not in 2015. Good quality seating, toilets, and I would suggest even Wi-Fi, should be standard on all new trains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Good quality seating, toilets, and I would suggest even Wi-Fi, should be standard on all new trains. WiFi is being mandated for all future franchises. Toilets aren't essential for Metro-type journey patterns (enter bus/ tram equivalents here). Seating inevitably demands a range of alternatives, good quality I would agree is essential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.