The Engine Shed

[asmay2002]

The first batch of 5 streamliners  (i.e the blue ones) differed from the later ones in the shape of the casing below the outside cylinders.  It goes more or less vertical on the first 5

Compare

 

with a red one where it curves under more.

 

Edited January 22, 2018 by asmay2002

[Compound2632]

Indeed, as detailed by Hunt et al. - my point was that there was no change in the method of making the casing - 6220 wasn't a hand-crafted prototype.

[phil-b259]

Very different indeed - on one hand they're struggling to find loading gauge clearance for the top corners of containers yet they're permitting a reduction in overall height on the other !

 

I don't see the conflict, as the fundamental problem with containers is not their height.

 

A coach, loco or traditional wagon has a rounded top profile thus neatly fitting through arched bridges and lower than canopy valances. A Container has a rectangular profile - when measured at the centreline if the wagon a container is lower than the max height of pretty much every loco etc ever built. However at the corners the container is higher than a traditional loco / coach / etc and is likely to smash into station canopies or arched bridges as a result.

 

Thus it is perfectly possible for the overall vertical clearance to be reduced as a result of electrification, deeper blasting, flood prevention, etc while at the same time increasing the loading gauge to permit 9ft high containers and their right angled corners. When the NRM re-streamlined DoH, it was thus necessary to make modifications if they ever wanted to see it out on the mainline in such a condition in future.

 

We can sometimes see similar things at work with regards cylinder clearances - again improved / maintaining clearances for modern stock do not generally align with the outside cylinder positions on steam locos meaning GWR locos can find themselves out of gauge in places they had no issues with back in the days of steam.

[Wickham Green]

I don't see the conflict, as the fundamental problem with containers is not their height.

 

A coach, loco or traditional wagon has a rounded top profile thus neatly fitting through arched bridges and lower than canopy valances. A Container has a rectangular profile - when measured at the centreline if the wagon a container is lower than the max height of pretty much every loco etc ever built. However at the corners the container is higher than a traditional loco / coach / etc and is likely to smash into station canopies or arched bridges as a result.

 

Thus it is perfectly possible for the overall vertical clearance to be reduced as a result of electrification, deeper blasting, flood prevention, etc while at the same time increasing the loading gauge to permit 9ft high containers and their right angled corners. When the NRM re-streamlined DoH, it was thus necessary to make modifications if they ever wanted to see it out on the mainline in such a condition in future.

 

We can sometimes see similar things at work with regards cylinder clearances - again improved / maintaining clearances for modern stock do not generally align with the outside cylinder positions on steam locos meaning GWR locos can find themselves out of gauge in places they had no issues with back in the days of steam.

The point I'm trying to make is that any reduction in overall height is exactly what we DON'T want for a modern railway - unless we ONLY want to carry containers .......... should we not be thinking of increasing clearances - as and when we can - to work towards 'European' loading gauge or Berne Gauge ( yes, another worm-can ! ) .... or towards something big enough for double-deck coaching stock of some sort - to provide much needed INCREASED capacity ................................................................................ or are we just going to be British and bury our heads in the sand - giving up 'cos one or two bridges 'n' tunnels look like they might be tricky to do !!?!

 

OK, that's enough whingeing drivel for the moment .................... what WAS the topic ?

[Hroth]

 

OK, that's enough whingeing drivel for the moment .................... what WAS the topic ?

As I see it, the topic of a thread is only an initial guideline, around which a discussion may spiral, leading to something new and informative.

 

Serendipity is a wonderful thing!

[MikeParkin65]

The point I'm trying to make is that any reduction in overall height is exactly what we DON'T want for a modern railway - unless we ONLY want to carry containers .......... should we not be thinking of increasing clearances - as and when we can - to work towards 'European' loading gauge or Berne Gauge ( yes, another worm-can ! ) .... or towards something big enough for double-deck coaching stock of some sort - to provide much needed INCREASED capacity ................................................................................ or are we just going to be British and bury our heads in the sand - giving up 'cos one or two bridges 'n' tunnels look like they might be tricky to do !!?!

 

OK, that's enough whingeing drivel for the moment .................... what WAS the topic ?

I agree in principle but in practice its going to cost mega money to increase the clearances on existing infrastructure  - tunnels and bridges not being the least of the obstacles! As a segue back some semblance of topic I am having to increase the clearances of my curved platforms as it seems where a Bachmann Deltic will easily fit the huge swinging overhang of a Duchess wont!

[Wickham Green]

I agree in principle but in practice its going to cost mega money to increase the clearances on existing infrastructure  - tunnels and bridges not being the least of the obstacles! As a segue back some semblance of topic I am having to increase the clearances of my curved platforms as it seems where a Bachmann Deltic will easily fit the huge swinging overhang of a Duchess wont!

But if you'd got rid of your Deltic in favour of a Triang "Polly" - and reduced your unnecessary clearances to suit - it would cost you even more meggabuxx to allow the Duchess to run !

[Dunsignalling]

The point I'm trying to make is that any reduction in overall height is exactly what we DON'T want for a modern railway - unless we ONLY want to carry containers .......... should we not be thinking of increasing clearances - as and when we can - to work towards 'European' loading gauge or Berne Gauge ( yes, another worm-can ! ) .... or towards something big enough for double-deck coaching stock of some sort - to provide much needed INCREASED capacity ................................................................................ or are we just going to be British and bury our heads in the sand - giving up 'cos one or two bridges 'n' tunnels look like they might be tricky to do !!?!

 

OK, that's enough whingeing drivel for the moment .................... what WAS the topic ?

Unfortunately, on most routes, it will be pretty much all the bridges and tunnels that have to be replaced or rebuilt.

 

The problem is that, because there's no foreseeable return from piecemeal investment, it only gets done as and when existing structures become life expired.

 

Example: on the Waterloo - Exeter route, we have a nice high tunnel (though probably not high enough) at Gillingham (Buckhorn Weston) which had the floor lowered in anticipation of overhead electrification as long ago as 1958 and new, tall footbridges at Honiton, Axminster and Exeter Central built to Berne gauge, all of which have one or more neighbouring tunnels and/or road bridges that most definitely weren't. It is also the case that all three will almost certainly wear out and be replaced at least once before the clearance they provide will ever be exploited. 

 

That's pretty much it and the cost of enlarging everything else on just the one route would make the enormously inflated cost of the GW main line electrification look like small change.

 

John

Edited January 22, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[phil-b259]

The point I'm trying to make is that any reduction in overall height is exactly what we DON'T want for a modern railway - unless we ONLY want to carry containers .......... should we not be thinking of increasing clearances - as and when we can - to work towards 'European' loading gauge or Berne Gauge ( yes, another worm-can ! ) .... or towards something big enough for double-deck coaching stock of some sort - to provide much needed INCREASED capacity ................................................................................ or are we just going to be British and bury our heads in the sand - giving up 'cos one or two bridges 'n' tunnels look like they might be tricky to do !!?!

 

OK, that's enough whingeing drivel for the moment .................... what WAS the topic ?

 

Again, some people don't appreciate that the big problem with double deck trains is NOT the headroom available. Its the fact we have high level platforms. If you examine pretty much all double deck passenger coaches in use in Europe the 'low section' between the bogies is the same width as the rest of the coach body (i.e. quite a bit wider than the bogies or underframe etc) and as such would be sliced open by our high platforms.

 

Until trackside furniture (including platforms) at ground level is moved outwards* to provide a significantly wider loading gauge double deck trains over here are a non -starter and an extra couple of inches in height makes sod all difference.

 

* Which then means platforms cannot be served by 'normal' UK stock due to stepping distances / disabled access. Things would be a lot more simpler if the GWR hadn't decided to provide a high level platform for Queen Victoria and set a prescient all those years ago....

[JSpencer]

The double decker train (RER A) I take each morning in Paris is from high level platforms. So that is clearly not a blocking point.

[phil gollin]

Unfortunately, on most routes, it will be pretty much all the bridges and tunnels that have to be replaced or rebuilt.

 

The problem is that, because there's no foreseeable return from piecemeal investment, it only gets done as and when existing structures become life expired.

 

Example: on the Waterloo - Exeter route, we have a nice high tunnel (though probably not high enough) at Gillingham (Buckhorn Weston) which had the floor lowered in anticipation of overhead electrification as long ago as 1958 and new, tall footbridges at Honiton, Axminster and Exeter Central built to Berne gauge, all of which have one or more neighbouring tunnels and/or road bridges that most definitely weren't. It is also the case that all three will almost certainly wear out and be replaced at least once before the clearance they provide will ever be exploited. 

 

That's pretty much it and the cost of enlarging everything else on just the one route would make the enormously inflated cost of the GW main line electrification look like small change.

 

John

.

 

According to another part of this set of boards the Government has said that ALL third rail DC electrification will be replaced by overhead AC when it requires replacement.

 

I think that is very unlikely, but that is what they say.

 

See ;

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/130260-is-new-third-rail-totally-banned-in-the-uk/

 

 

.

[phil-b259]

The double decker train (RER A) I take each morning in Paris is from high level platforms. So that is clearly not a blocking point.

 

Unless you know for sure that said high level French platforms are identical to those provided in the UK (with respect to closeness to the track) it would be unwise to use French practice as the arbiter if what is possible in the UK

[JSpencer]

Unless you know for sure that said high level French platforms are identical to those provided in the UK (with respect to closeness to the track) it would be unwise to use French practice as the arbiter if what is possible in the UK

 

Going OTT, The RER A was a single decker train. Platforms in Paris for this train were high (I'd say about 4ft about the rail) while those in the suburban areas were low (less than 2 feet). The trains had steps by the doors that would go up (to match high platforms) and down (to create a step down) for the low platforms.

They recently re-highted all the suburban platforms to match the Paris ones. While being higher, they are no further or closer to the trains compared to the original low platforms (I can take a pic to show you next time I take the train).

 

Obviously a French train uses a bigger loading gauge than UK so they won't run the UK today as is.

[Andy Hayter]

Again, some people don't appreciate that the big problem with double deck trains is NOT the headroom available. Its the fact we have high level platforms.

 

Sorry Phil but you are starting from a major misconception.  Most high intensity suburban services across Europe that demand double deck coaches also demand that standing time in stations are minimised.  This means wide doors and high platforms to avoid delays at the door as people climb up or down.  So low platforms has nothing to do with it there.

 

I will admit that the UK has additional problems due to the narrow loading gauge, but I doubt that that could not be engineered out much as it has in France, The Netherlands and Germany.  I suggest that the deal breaker is indeed the lack of headroom.  I see this also demonstrated in the French TGV double deck sets where the lower deck is decidedly claustrophobic so that the overall height remains within the loading gauge.

[Oldddudders]

 This means wide doors and high platforms to avoid delays at the door as people climb up or down.  

 

The 4-DDs suffered massively from their slam doors, meaning dwell-time at London Bridge, where people both alight and join in serious numbers, was a disaster. 

[Wickham Green]

The 4-DDs suffered massively from their slam doors, meaning dwell-time at London Bridge, where people both alight and join in serious numbers, was a disaster. 

I think it was more the narrow stairway up to the top 'deck' that held things up ......... don't forget the Southern used to reckon twenty seconds was a long stop for SUB or EPB stock and today's sliding-door railway would be very envious of anything approaching that !

[Cor-onGRT4]

There is a new Engine shed today about the Lord Nelson

[Wickham Green]

There is a new Engine shed today about the Lord Nelson

..... next one should be 16th Feb.

[9402 Fredrick]

Nellie is looking pretty good so far, I can't wait.

[Legend]

There is a new Engine shed today about the Lord Nelson

 

Thanks for that, wasn't expecting one this week.  A good read . Not my thing but the Lord Nelson looks superb and quite well advanced .  They even congratulate you on spotting that the LN was in the 2018 line up .  Well done The Engine Shed team. Nice to see you back on form

[G-BOAF]

https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/news/the-engine-shed/bringing-you-up-to-date-with-the-lord-nelson

[Derails Models]

Looking really good that!

[GreenGiraffe22]

Hmmm I'm a raging grouping Southern modeller but I'm struggling to get excited about the Lord Nelson...  it just doesn't quite excite me the same way a C Class or E4 does aha.

[toboldlygo]

Hmmm I'm a raging grouping Southern modeller but I'm struggling to get excited about the Lord Nelson...  it just doesn't quite excite me the same way a C Class or E4 does aha.

I'm sure the MiM can help with stoking your enthusiasm

[GreenGiraffe22]

I'm sure the MiM can help with stoking your enthusiasm

 

 

Haha locos like that just... lack the character that older locos have, don't get me wrong I love me an original Merchant Navy, just big express locos with ugly smoke deflectors don't do much for me.