david.hill64

Alstom has developed the AGV - a distributed power TGV - complete with articulated bogies, but as far as I know the only customer has been in Italy. They are reported to be working on a double deck variant. SNCF of course partly own the design rights to the TGV having paid for its development prior to the EU banning such nonsense and there might still be commercial advantages to SNCF in maintaining the procurement of traditional TGV designs. Or of course it is entirely possible that SNCF will understand, as BR did, that if you want an intercity train longer than about 5 coaches, you are much better off with power car(s) and trailers..........

Ken, We now pack threaded crankpin bushes with these kits to help overcome the clearance issues. Regards David

Traction return currents in electrified areas pass along rails and will seek the path of least resistance. If this happens to be from one rail to another via the wheelset and bogie frame of a passing DMU it will do so. Fitting brushes to prevent electrical damage to bearings is good practice.

Two issues here: First: there are no applicable standards relating to Stress Corrosion Cracking in rail vehicles. I expect one will be developed. Second: there is a Technical Standard for Interoperability and supporting Euronorms relating to fatigue loading of rolling stock components. These standards are mandatory and it is illegal (at least until, and if, the relevant EU legislation is removed from UK law) to specify any stricter (or more lax) requirement. Unfortunately it appears that vehicles running on UK track are likely to experience higher loadings than the standard mandates. When assessing vehicle compliance, the Notified Body responsible for certification can only confirm compliance with the standard. Having said that, Hitachi were provided with sufficient information on track geometry for them to have worked out that mere compliance with the standard was likely to be insufficient to prevent fatigue. They could have designed according to the likely actual loads and then submitted for assessment evidence that the vehicles complied with the standard.

Not quite. Alloys are combinations of metals which form a common crystal structure. The structure forms on solidification by grains growing from nuclei in the melt. Eventually these grains meet up so there is a boundary between grains of different orientation. The grains themselves have similar chemical composition and do not act as electrolytic cells in the same way as you get, for example by mixing aluminium and steel components in the same vehicle. The grain boundaries are a source of weakness in the alloys and in certain materials (eg aluminium alloys) are prone to rupture in the presence of a corrosive medium and stress. Metallurgists make a lot of effort to negate the effects of the grain boundaries and various mechanical working, heat treatments and added elements can be effective at improving strength depending on the base alloy. In certain critical applications - eg aero engines - parts are grown as a single crystal to ensure that there are no grain boundary effects.

Also check for photos of BRR stock: several of these vehicles were used to make up brake force in test trains after they were displaced from the E-G services.

Agreed, but you might want to add noise mitigation. You will remember Roger Gawthorpe - head of aerodynamics at BRR- who once told me that one term in the equation for noise generation was raised to the ninth power of velocity and above 200mph it becomes significant. The other issue is of course maintenance, especially of the OHL and energy consumption.

I am sure that I read that there was also a demarcation problem: electrical equipment could not be serviced by mechanical fitters. I wonder how many steam sheds had a large contingent of electrical fitters?

Ken, Take care with the smokebox. The wrapper is just the right size and if the smokebox is formed larger than it need be, the wrapper will be a bit short. I have had customers caught out by this. Dave

We have decided that the range of GWR centenary coaches and super saloons is not a good fit with the rest of our range and we are seeking to sell these on to another supplier. If these are not bought we will take orders for a final run of kits to be produced early 2022. Please let us know if you either want to acquire the range or wish to reserve for the final run. Thank you. David railwaycitytrains@btinternet.com

No it's not just you, it's a sign of the times. Endless reams of standardised paperwork and process that may very well improve safety but if you did the analysis the cost of producing them compared to the marginally improved safety benefit may not be ALARP. An example: a colleague compared two schemes requiring the installation of lineside signals/stopping boards. Shortening the process to make a point, traditionally the scheme would have been drawn up, installation drawings produced and a signal sighting/siting committee convened that would inspect the location and report. As he put it, when on the ground you might very well find that an electrification mast got in the way of the optimum sighting and you might be better off locating the signal two feet to the left. Drawings and installation amended, job checked and signed off, job done. On Crossrail every stopping board/signal has its own risk assessment and design review file, compiled at great expense by contractors. For an ATP fitted railway operated mostly under ATO, you really ought to ask whether a generic assessment might have been sufficient. In my opinion, in recent years we have gone backwards a little. Late BR/early privatisation was a good period in which risk based analysis based on sound engineering judgement replaced slavish compliance with standards that were designed to prevent the reoccurrence of accidents that had happened before. The same thing happened with rules for operation. BR migrated its engineering standards to be goal setting rather than prescriptive, supported by Codes of Practice that showed you how the goals might be achieved. Now we work to a set of Euronorms, which for the most part are an excellent set of integrated standards, compliance with which is checked in a predetermined and limited manner. There is no scope for an assessing engineer to require more detailed analysis. I am quite sure that Interfleet's engineers will have done a competent job of assessing the Hitachi trains against the mandated standards. Would BR have got it better? I suspect that the stress corrosion cracking might not have been foreseen, but I think DM&EE would have seen the damper bracket loadings from acceptance tests and perhaps identified that fatigue would be an issue. (Incidentally, as I read the ORR report I think it states that fatigue only occurs above a certain load. This is true for ferrous materials but not usually for aluminium). Anyway railway safety assessments continue to give me some extra pocket money on top of my pension, so I'll continue to ride the gravy train for longer. Rant over.

Agreed. Vehicle structures and their attachments must, by law, be designed to take the loads specified in the relevant Euronorm (EN126631). The independent check for the vehicles assesses the structural calculations against that input. If the specified inputs are wrong for any reason, such as the actual loadings are greater than those specified in the standard, or if the standard has failed to consider fatigue of aluminium, then there is a potential problem. It has been reported that Hitachi was given a lot of track reference data, but this may have been used to assist ride quality determination (any other vote for 'fail' on this point?) rather than structural issues. The ORR report states that damper bracket cracking results from fatigue and lifting pocket cracking is from stress corrosion cracking. Stress corrosion cracking is not considered in the standard. Clearly now a significant omission.

He was a passenger. He was an operations manager for London Transport returning home to Glasgow. He had been concerned that with just a Black 5 time would have been lost to the extent that his train would have to be looped somewhere to let the Scot pass. Why would he lie?

A good friend of mine, and a railwayman to boot, will often over a pint regale me of trip he had in the early 60's from Euston to Glasgow on the relief Mid Day Scot, which ran 15 minutes ahead of the main service. Britannia from Euston to Crewe, Duchess from Crewe to Carlisle, the shock, horror, a black 5 from there to Central. He fully expected to be looped and have to take a banker for Beattock, but the driver was having none of it and assaulted the bank with gusto. Bob doesn't relate whether they were right time on arrival, but he does offer it as an example of what was just about possible with an engine in good condition and a willing crew.

Ken, I found that the fixing of the bogies to the tender body works better if you open out the holes in the bogies to take a 4mm scale 1/8" axle bearing. You can then tighten the 6BA screw through that. Dave

I must try and find my missing slide collection. I know that I have a photo of a TOPS data panel purporting to be for a 48 taken on one of the locos on Tinsley depot. In my memory it was blue, but then these days i have enough trouble remembering that today is October............. It was the only TOPS data panel I ever photographed.

UK government has a golden share in RR, so no foreign takeover possible unless the government relinquishes that share.

It was! BREL built a series of EMU's for Taiwan based on a Mk2 bodyshell and riding on a narrow gauge (3'6") version of a standard BR EMU bogie. Introduced in 1978 they were withdrawn from regular service in 2009, though one has been retained by TRA as a working heritage unit. They rode very nicely. Interior fixtures and fittings were very BR Mr2, except the seats which in Asian fashion were a comfortable rotating design so that you always travel facing forward. I remember being sent to the Taiwan Representative Office in London to pick up a visa for my manager who was being sent out to help resolve the teething issues, but when I rode on one in 1998 all was good.

In a standard air brake system, a distributor is a device in every vehicle that uses a drop in the pressure of the train brake pipe to determine how much air is fed to the brake cylinders from the vehicle's air brake reservoir. I would not use the term 'vent' in association with the local reservoir. The air pressure in the brake cylinders is proportional to the drop in brake pipe pressure over the normal operating range. Note that there is some hysteresis in the system: things take time to react. When doing brake trials with new brake pads on HST's we found that although the brake cylinder pressures for full service and emergency applications should be the same; in practice cylinder pressures were always higher for the full service brake application. This was attributed to the hysteresis effect, with the distributor acting more quickly with the faster reduction in brake pipe pressure under an emergency application. (In normal service applications the system is slugged to protect the train against longitudinal dynamic effects. The slugging is different for passenger and goods, hence the goods/passenger changeover control). Although emergency brake applications on normal air braked trains didn't specify a higher brake force, it did specify a faster application. The advantage that a distributor has over the older 'triple valve' is that is allows proportional release, which a triple valve doesn't but otherwise the principle is the same. Some trains - eg HST- had a control signal that operated the brake controller at both ends of the train. This was done to reduce the brake signal propagation time, ie get the brakes applied on all vehicles as quickly as possible. When you need fast application times - suburban multiple units for example - the control signal is electric to every vehicle. Moreover, in an attempt to reduce SPADs that had been attributed to deficiencies in the brake design of 3-step controlled disc braked units, the emergency brake rate was increased from 9%g to 12%g for those vehicles whose bogie designs could accept the higher forces,

It's all speculation. Linked to the SNP's push for independence. SNP policy is to be a nuclear-free zone so either the remaining UK negotiates sovereignty of Faslane or it has to find a new home for the nuclear fleet. Some strange options have been mooted, including France and USA.

Going live Monday 17th!

Designing something that exceeds the requirement of a TSI is not illegal. Having a procurement specification that requires compliance with something more restrictive or better than the TSI is illegal unless a derogation exists. The vehicle acceptance process is done by a Notified Body (NoBo), which checks compliance with the TSI's and a Designated Body which checks compliance with any National Notified Technical Rules that are still in force. The NoBo can only assert that the requirements of the TSI and its subordinate EN's have been met. It doesn't have any flexibility to say that 'although your design complies with the standard we think it ought to be better'. Given that the cracks are apparently in the base metal, and not in the welds, then provided the base metal is what it should be, then I think we can say it is not a manufacturing defect (for the 800s).

Gladiator Models New Website The new Gladiator website is about to go live! Addresses are the same as before so any existing links should lead you to the new site. The new site features a more user-friendly interface, better graphics, extra photos and some additional features. It shows stock levels and allows you to set an account, so your details are remembered between orders. There are new sections for components of different types; these will be populated over the next few months. Instruction copies will be available for free download where we are permitted to do so. It will take us a little time to scan and upload these so please be patient. As well as the existing payment interface with PayPal, which lets you use your PayPal account, credit card or debit card for payment, there are now options for payment by bank transfer or by cheque. If you select payment by bank transfer, your order will be reserved, put on hold and a reference given. You will still need to instruct your bank to make the transfer using the reference number and our account details. When payment is received, we will post the order. Similarly for payments by cheque: your purchase will be reserved until we have received the cheque and it has cleared. Our input costs are rising sharply, but we will try to hold current prices until after Guildex. We have tried hard to test the site and de-bug it, but if you do find any broken links or strange behaviour, please let us know. Thanks go to everyone who has provided photos for the site. We are still missing photos for some items and would be delighted if you can supply the missing ones. The website addresses are: www.gladiatormodels.com www.gladiatormodels.co.uk www.gladiatorkits.co.uk www.gladiatormodelkits.co.uk Thank you! Dave and Trisha

And if you look at the upper diagram, the affected area is above the yaw damper bracket, while the lower diagram shows the lifting point highlighted...................

Yes, what you post is all true, but it requires effort and agreement. UK could for example have put forward a legitimate case for electrification clearances to be a special case as these are closely aligned to gauging, but didn't so we end up with a network that isn't compliant with the TSI (not that it matters for existing installations) and an inability to afford future electrification projects because of the civil works requirements. (And I admit in this case the ORR wanting to take an unreasonably pessimistic view on safety and the application of electricity at work regs). Yes you can get derogations from TSI's (eg Crossrail) but these are in the gift of the European Commission. The rolling stock TSI and EN12663 do not allow any specific exemption for UK to deviate from specified acceleration levels mandated in the standard (at least in the versions that I have - 2014) so unless I have missed something I'll stand by my statement that it would have been illegal to specify different load cases for the 800s. (Even if DfT had the gumption to understand it might be necessary). Design scrutiny used to be a very valuable tool that BR used to ensure standards were interpreted correctly and it worked. BR had developed goal setting standards supported by codes of practice. Quite different to the continental approach where standards traditionally prescribed engineering solutions. BR representatives on the drafting committees lost the battle to continue the UK approach. Nowadays acceptance is based more towards ticking the boxes that the standard mandates. The absurdity of this approach was brought home to me when assessing Shinkanshen stock for Taiwan. Our newly recruited German engineer became very frustrated at the delay in getting his PC up and running. It transpired that he had brought with him the entire suite of DIN standards for rolling stock with him on CD and wanted to assess whether the design was acceptable or not by checking against these standards rather than assessing whether the vehicles complied with the contract. He didn't know how to do anything else. I think the industry generally has lost out by adopting the current approach, but I am probably in a minority. So my point is that if the new vehicles are designed to EN12663, then CAF and Hitachi will probably have met the contract requirements, even if the vehicles are not robust enough to cope with UK conditions. (And I said before that I haven't seen the procurement specs and design calculations for these trains so readily admit I could be wrong). Only the lawyers will win.