Ron Ron Ron

DB regional trains.... Ironing boards all round, it seems.

Simple answer. The GWML wasn't going to be electrified at the time the IEP was in gestation and specifying its trains. ergo diesel units and no loco changes were in prospect. Infrastructure costs will have to have attributed to the programme, even if they subsequently come out of other budgets (as has happened with IEP infrastructure costs). I think Waverley was a big problem, IIRC. .

Sadly, it might be the case Mike. However, the world might be unrecognisable in a few years down the line.

That's all Agility Trains problem Mike. They are contracted to supply the diagrams, with serviceable, clean, presentable trains. How they achieve that and what it costs is entirely up to them. Incidentally, I had a glance at the supply contracts, which are very lengthy, in heavy lawyer speak and contain a myriad of definitions and cross referencing. Virtually impenetrable to mere mortals and swamp dwellers like myself. However I spotted plenty of tough talk when it comes to meeting the daily service requirements. Mind you, I suppose it all depends on the implementation and how closely the TOC's and DafT hold Agility to the task. . .

Remember, the intention was that the Diesel engines would gradually be removed over time. Whatever the plans are now (if there are any), or however they will change in the future, the diesels in the Bi-Mode vehicles are not a permanent fixture. .

I can't point to any specific piece of work, but there was quite a bit of detail published, or reported about this, several years ago. It was interesting reading and quite illuminating. That information outlined that the overheads in adopting loco changes would be significantly greater than you are suggesting. The brand new locos needed would have to be procured and built for the task. They would have comprised of an expensive, specialised fleet, with additional leasing costs, requiring separate depot facilities, a wider maintenance requirement, extra maintenance staffing, extra operational staffing, more drivers, additional track access charges for loco positioning (paths) and shunting moves. Waiting locos also gobble up cost, rather than earning money. NR and the DafT also had a high priority requirement, or ambition, with regard to reducing or limiting the weight of the new trains and with the implication for track maintenance and wear, heavy locos didn't sit very well with that. (n.b. That's why Hitachi's original design for the diesel power cars, did without traction motors, to save vehicle axle weight). Then there are other significant infrastructure costs involved. In some of the locations where loco changes might have been performed, the track layout would have to be redesigned and reconstructed to accommodate shunting moves and stabling. Add the complication of re-signalling to support the method of operation. £££££ all having to be factored into the business case and whole life costs of the programme. IIRC, there was quite a bit more. Ron .

Playing devil's advocate here, but have you stopped to consider, that might actually have been the more cost effective way to operate? ...or to consider that rather than using the 33, had the engine, or engines been installed in the trailers that it might have ended up being more efficient than using a dedicated loco? I don't know the answer to that, but the Bi-mode concept wasn't adopted because some bright sparks dreamt it up over a long Friday afternoon pub lunch. The concept didn't originate with the members of the IEP or from within Whitehall. In addition, various loco options were all in the original HST2 and IEP melting pot and the DafT were being driven to search for cost savings over the whole life of the train operation. If loco haulage had been cheaper, they would have grabbed it. But there's something that must take on board to help understand why this course of action was initiated. Using the 60's/70's Waterloo - Bournemouth - Weymouth example as an analogy. Assume your diesel loco (the 33 in this case) was purchased specifically for this one and only role (the Bournemouth - Weymouth portion). Factor in that there is an intention from the very beginning, to gradually extend the electrification further towards Weymouth. Subsequently the electrification is extended to Poole; then to Wareham. Each time the amount of work that the diesel loco has to do is reduced and could be done with fewer locos. The operation becomes more and more inefficient in cost terms and surplus locos lie idle. If electrification is then completed, the diesel locos will be redundant long before they have paid for themselves and if there was no other role for them, they will have to be disposed of. IEP had to take into account, the prevailing electrification plans, during it's gestation period. Let's take a look at the chronology. At first there was going to be no further electrification, not of the GWML or any other large scale scheme. The trains were specified, the tender was let and the winning contractor produced a train design to meet the specification. Diesel trains for the GWML, Electric trains for the ECML and Bi-Mode trains for the ECML extensions beyond the wires. Then everything was turned on its head. Suddenly a U-turn and electrification was going to go everywhere, starting with the NW scheme and the GWML. The IEP train requirement was altered due to the changing circumstances and the DafT wanted a different format and set of configurations for the trains. The original design which had the diesel/battery (hybrid) power unit located in a driving trailer vehicle (class 43 style without the traction motors) was dropped in favour of a switch to underfloor diesel power packs. One of the various reasons driving that change, was the fact that a programme of rolling electrification, would render a reduced roll for the driving vehicles containing the diesel generator power plant. (Class 33 analogy above) The prospect of prematurely retiring these vehicles before they had been in service long enough to have paid for themselves, damaged the whole life business case. The possibility of converting some or all of them to passenger vehicles when their original role was reduced, was deemed to be a financial uncertainty, when looking 8, 10, 15 or 20 years down the road. Plus, being steel bodied and more heavily constructed, because of the extra weight and stresses of housing the power plant etc, it was feared that conversion might have resulted in too heavy a passenger carrying vehicle. Hence, underfloor engine packs, that can be removed when no longer required. Diesel engines that can be sold or reused elsewhere and passenger vehicles that continue operating, just as before. No surplus driving cars, or dedicated (and probably specialised) diesel locos, that can't be reused elsewhere on a non-loco passenger railway. How badly things have turned out. The GWML electrification debacle and political (mis)management of the situation are why, we are where we are today. .

In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxis. ....That is, until Uber came along. .

I have a collection of old power supplies that came with, now long gone mobile phones and other devices. I'm wondering if this one will be suitable and safe to use as an accessory power supply, e.g. for powering Tortoise or Cobalt point motors...? It's a Casio AC adapter that was used to power a (normally battery powered) handheld portable LCD TV receiver off the mains. Casio AD-K90 (for LCD TV receiver) Input: 240v - 50Hz 18W Output: 9v DC - 750mA. Ron

ICE4 / ICx seats...

The cost of any major work within or for the public sector has always been inflated, but in more recent times, those costs have spiralled out of control, whether it's railways, roads, hospitals or anything you care to think about. Even in the private commercial world, costs in the U.K. appear to be much higher than in other countries. Excessive overheads and costs are one of the main causes of the UK's poor levels of productivity.

The use of locos and coaches was rejected because it's a vastly more expensive option. Even BR worked that out at the end. In the case of train services that run under the wires for the larger part of the journey and continue on off the wires for the remainder; 4 options were considered by the IEP. 1. Self-powered (e.g. Diesel) train for the whole journey (e.g. HST ) 2. Change of motive power where the wires end (e.g. Loco change) 3. A train that can run in two modes, both electric and self-powered ( bi-mode) 4. A change of trains en-route (i.e. connecting services) Option 4 was ruled out as being undesirable and even unacceptable in certain quarters. Of the remaining options, option 2, the change of locos, was considered far more expensive than options 1 and 3. Option 2 also failed to meet several of the key objectives of the IEP. Option 3 won out over option 1 for what are fairly obvious reasons. Also bear in mind a key objective was to save money overall, which the DaFT then completely bu**ered up by interfering and micromanaging the project specification and procurement, to end up the trains being the complete opposite of their own original objective.... instead ending up more expensive. Two subsequent independent reviews of the IEP concluded that the option of loco changes was indeed the most expensive and operationally worst option.

More than just a few issues Clive. MRM was published and ran for 3 years, from late 2004 until late 2007. It was a quarterly magazine and IIRC there were 12 issues. When the plug was pulled, Traction magazine was meant to incorporate MRM's role, but I think it only really covered the vintage and historical aspect of D&E modelling. I have every copy stored away somewhere. Ron

It also has all the pipework detail that the very decent Bachmann model doesn't have.

That's just looking at Hornby's catalogue though. It's pretty evident that Hornby has ceded most of the effort in making D&E models to their competitors. Just look at the wide array of D&E models, past and present, from the likes of Bachmann, Dapol, Heljan, DJ Models, Realtrack, Rapido and Sutton Loco Works (....not to mention the brief flurry of models commissioned from ViTrains for the UK marketplace). Basically, despite a period in the middle of the last decade, when they introduced some excellent D&E models ......and a couple of more recent, isolated examples (e.g. Class 800), Hornby have dropped the ball in this sector. . .

Here is a high fidelity RTR Class 66 in H0..... https://www.modellbahnshop-lippe.com/produkt/ESU/29-4-004001-260138-0-0-0-6-10-3-0-gatt-gb-p-0/ein_produkt.html €400 is approximately £355 Ron

Apologies to the OP, but I had to chuckle at this. Hornby are a small to medium sized design and marketing company, operating out of a suite of offices in Sandwich, Kent. In addition they have some international offices, to service their European mainland brands. Hardly a "vast multinational corporation", I would have thought. Many others have already stated the obvious and said the rest. .

The web brochure says.... See here.... http://rs.209492.mrsite.com/ACE_DCS2044_Brochure_V2_2.pdf . .

I have very recently been reacquainted with the Pendolino first class seats. Very comfortable IMHO. I find XC Voyager seats in standard perfectly fine, for up to about two hours or so. After that I get uncomfortable and can't wait to get off. Being quite familiar with the Class 444, the standard class seats don't have much padding, but they seem to be a good shape and are quite comfortable. From recollection, some of the worst seats I can remember were the bouncy sprung bench seats in the old 1st generation DMU's on the GW out of Paddington, back in the 70's and early 80's. When you sat down, clouds of dry tasting, ancient dust puffed out and you felt like you were sitting on top of the seat, not in it. In more recent times, albeit more than 10 years ago now, I found the original standard class seats in the Class 442 Wessex were totally uncomfortable. The 444's were a step improvement, in my humble opinion. .

No you're not the only one. The situation at Steventon is completely ridiculous. If NR are adopting the plan outlined above (60 mph speed restriction), it simply demonstrates to me that a**e covering and ineptitude rule the day, whether the fault for that lies with NR, or the DafT, or both. Yours sincerely Mr. Grumpy Neasden .

It would be interesting to work out how much use of the Steventon level crossings will be possible, once there's an increase in the frequency of trains passing this location. An extra 2 tph to Bristol alone = potentially up to 4 more periods per hour when the barriers will be down. How many minutes will that take up? I'm only pondering the prospect, but I can envision a situation where increased use of the line, results in road and pedestrian access breing restricted to a handful of brief periods each hour. Say, for example, 2 minutes every 15 minutes...or less ???? The locals will be crying out for a new bridge if that happens. .

Another article in the Telegraph yesterday, although it's centred around the Thameslink Class 700's . http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/17/train-companies-claim-uncomfortable-ironing-board-seats-due/ ..

It would require a choice of 2 sound projects, diesel power and electric traction, with the ability to switch between the two. LokSound Select perhaps?

Today's announcement that NR will be cutting back on large capital projects, such as electrification, in CP6, certainly won't be helping the effort to eliminate, or reduce the use of diesel trains by 2040.

I have no technical understanding of the Bluetooth technology, but from what little I know, or have read, I thought that audio was treated differently from other data transmissions, even under BT4. i.e. Not allowing multiple pairings.