Ron Ron Ron

actually I dont agree, I think BPRC will be an increasing " niche" especially as Li tech improves. I suspect its a long way from mainstream As you say, an increasing niche, not mainstream by any imagination. err = DCC The context was full track voltage as opposed to battery power, combined with direct radio transmission of control signals. With the control signals handled by direct radio comms. it doesn't matter whether the full track voltage comes from either DCC, DC or even on-board batteries. Batteries come with a list of problems and issues. In the context of direct radio control (using Bluetooth, wifi or whatever), using a DCC power source for traction power only, is useful purely for legacy reasons (already have that power source in use or available), or for dual running of DCC and "other" (Bluetooth, wifi, etc,) locos on the same track. ​There are no " misgivings" The integrity of DCC signal transmission is not the issue and never was, good old power pickup , good track work and an ability to wire properly are the main issues causing problems , no more for DC then DCC I think you are reading something I haven't written. ​The misgivings are usually on the part of people who advocate dead rail. However, as you say, the integrity of the DCC signals depends largely on the quality of the rail/wheel interface. The track power element is usually more resilient at full voltage. Taking away the control signals from the rail/wheel interface increases reliability and removes one (key) potential point of failure. ...sure , to a point , there is no reason why any new layout today is using dead frogs I agree there is no reason not to use live frogs and wire correctly. But again, this relates to the dead rail proponent's argument. Stay alive can just as easily deal with breaks in momentary power supply, dead frogs etc, as batteries; without all the drawbacks of using battery power. p.s. In case there's any misunderstanding, I'm an avid fan and user of DCC. I own 3 different DCC systems. However, I also recognise that more advanced, easier to use and potentially cheaper technology is readily available to do the same job. .

It's the additional cost of packaging and selling them as two separate items. It attracts all the overheads of packaging, logistics (transportation, warehousing, distribution), marketing and sales, twice over. e.g. A loco retailing at £150. Two of the same would cost £300. Package them in one box as a set and they could reasonably sell the pair for much less, let's say £230, £240 or so. .

...and not to be recommended, unless you want to run the high risk of burning the motors out in your non-DCC models. .

Indeed Bluetooth is only just one type of communication medium. Another brave player has now entered the market with a very similar product (no hardware control system, just an app), but using WiFi instead of Bluetooth. Anyone who's pinning their hopes on battery power as a mainstream solution, is whistling in the wind. Direct two-way radio transmission of the control and other signals, combined with full voltage track power, removes almost all the misgivings about the reliability of sending control signals through the rails. Stay-alive covers momentary interruptions in the power supply and with the right sort of stay alive, it covers the issues around live/dead frogs. Building in the on-board battery option, for those who really need it, or those who just like it that way, is a bonus. This is very true, however a recent piece in one of the American mags (online IIRC) has pointed out that there is a difference between the plethora of incompatible, pre-DCC era, digital and non-digital command control systems and the new technology based alternatives to DCC, that have started to emerge. By making them compatible with DCC, it also minimises the risk for anyone wishing to try them out. Especially when hardware costs are minimised. Even if there was enough inertia, based on sales and take-up, for a particular new standard; the general consensus in the USA appears to be that the NMRA is far too slow to keep up with the vastly increased pace of change. By the time they had got their heads around the subject, most likely in the face of a rapidly changing technical environment, it would be 10 years or more too late. As such, for now it will be good old DCC, until some Big Bang occurs and a new system takes off commercially, on it's own. I think it's inevitable and just a case of when and what it'll be. . .

Well one big silly error, is that Hornby have listed the pack containing the 2 class 800 driving cars as a "Train Pack" and the pack containing the 3 other coaches as a "Coach Pack". Isn't that the wrong way around? The prototype driving vehicles are unpowered trailers. Depending on your point of view, running just the pair of driving cars together, on their own, is either at the fantasy end of rule 1, or just plain daft. It's no better than bunging a black beetle in a couple of Maunsell or Gresley coaches and running them without a loco attached. By the way, it's £450 m.r.p. for the combined Class 800 set, compared with £394 m.r.p. for the other (delayed 2017) GWR 5-car release. .

In that version, you can clearly see how the originally specified requirement for 125 mph running on diesel power, has been removed from the bi-mode trains. Section 3.8 (page 21) .

This is very much, way off topic. I'm not quite sure what you mean, but if you mean a sort of recreation, or partial semblance of the drivers cab, then yes that has been attempted in various ways. In the simplest form, just speed dials... A bit more sophisticated, touch screen control with a working graphic of the cab or footplate, complete with working virtual controls (and video, if a loco mounted camera is included)...... Quite a bit older and using physical control levers..... A software train simulator control desk, adapted to work with a Zimo DCC system..... This guy has gone the whole hog and linked his DCC system and on-board video to a homemade cab simulator.....

Which according to RTT, ran on time (slight delay approaching Wooton Bassett jct) and arrived in Cardiff 1 early. . .

They used to serve industrial grade, catering supplier's baked beans in our staff canteen (when I was still working). Yuk. After many protests, the catering company started buying in a much better tasting version. Much nicer. .

From a passengers Tweet.....

That would be the previous Labour government then, continued on by the Tory/Lib Dem coalition. ...and no, we wouldn't necessarily have had foreign Bombardier trains either (even if assembled in the UK). In the case of the IEP, the only manufacturing groups who remained interested in bidding at the final round, were.... Agility Trains (inc. Hitachi being the train builder) and.... Express Rail Alliance (inc. German based Bombardier + Siemens as the train builders). .

Nobody in the DafT, nor any civil servant "designed" the train. The people involved with the programme (IEP) drew up the specifications. Hitachi designed the train to meet the specifications. Then they had to redesign it to meet the changes asked for. Incidentally, in the earlier stages of the programme, some rail industry consultants were involved in drawing up the specs, or at least advising the programme team. I remember certain names of senior industry consultants being mentioned in articles on the subject. I've no idea of the details, or what happened later regarding professional involvement. . .

I only remarked on comments posted by people who reckoned they've seen the pans up at Reading. e.g. I think Mike has indicated the likely reason for these observations. i.e. they were mistaken. .

The passenger trains will obviously have to have it. The article is only about the programme to provide installation in freight locos. .

No. They are being paid for by the banks who are financing them. Nobody has actually bought these trains. Hitachi are building the trains and are being paid for them by Agility Trains (of which Hitachi is the major shareholder). Agility are borrowing the money from the banks to be able to do this. Agility will raise the money to pay back their loans by renting out the trains (leasing) to the respective TOC's who operate the GW and ICEC franchises. The TOC's will pay the leasing costs from their revenue. If the franchises are running profitably, then there is no cost to the government** (and thereby, taxpayer), other than the hypothetical case that there might be higher premiums paid to the exchequer, if cheaper trains had been ordered. On the other hand, as the premium payments are set out at the commencement of the franchise, it's arguable that cheaper trains would have mean higher profits for the TOC's instead. If the franchise runs at a loss and the eventual outcome is a public subsidy (would equally apply to a state owned operator), then there might be an argument that says there's "effectively" an element of the taxpayer paying for the trains. That's not a watertight argument though, because the leasing costs are only one part of the cost of running the franchise. It's largely irrelevant though, because the same would apply to any and all trains being leased by a subsidised TOC. [** The cost to the taxpayer has been for the very expensive procurement process, made more than twice as expensive by the subsequent circus of ministerial, departmental and revue body interventions.] The taxpayers, through their elected representatives and respective government apparatus, did have an influence in where the trains would be built. Most of them, apart from the small number of pre-series trains, are being built in the UK (Newton Aycliffe), from parts and components made in the UK, other countries in the EU and Japan. (Some of the non-IEP versions are being built in Italy, but that has nothing to do with the IEP) The alternative bid (Bombardier/Siemens), would have seen the trains built either in the UK, or in Germany, from parts made in mostly EU countries, including the UK. (note that Bombardier have sourced some components from China for other trains they build in the UK) Nothing to do with the trains. The franchise issues are quite another thing. .

Oops! I don't know if that was a typo, or the bl**dy autocorrect. Well it was long past midnight after all.....that's my excuse and I sticking to it. .

Ian, Loco names in this context, refers to the use of alphanumerics. Numbers and letters. Therefore a "loco name" could be entirely composed of numbers. e.g. using "92220" instead of "Evening Star". .

It's a tempting challenge, but I think I'd prefer a death from natural causes. If you catch my drift? .

How about sponsorship from a well known sandwich franchise...... Subway ???? .

Hi Jim. As you correctly say, from next May (in 5 months time!) TfL will replace the Heathrow Connect service...but will run it under the TfL Rail banner until Crossrail proper (i.e. The Elizebeth Line) commences in December. From next December, the Elizebeth Line will commence running initial services through the central core, from Paddington (Crossrail Station) eastbound to Abbey Wood. The 10 new central and east London stations will come into operation. This is what the Crossrail piece is about. (N.B. Heathrow - Paddington will still be using the Paddington main-line station at this point and Shenfield services will still run into Liverpool St. main-line.) As it's a staged process, in May 2019 (in only 1yr 5 months time) Shenfield services will transfer from using Liverpool St. mainline into the tunnel and terminate at Paddington (Crossrail station). Finally the full set of Elizebeth Line services, to Heathrow and Reading will be implemented in December 2019. So yes, the Lizzie does start in just under a years time, but won't be fully up and running until 2 years from now. p.s. For those that don't know, TfL have already taken over the stations they will run west of Paddington. . . ..

It was. It was initially called HST 2. That's what they (the DafT in the form of the IEP) originally asked for....an all-diesel HST replacement for the GWML.....but also an all-electric version for the ECML and a Bi-mode for the non-wired, top end of the ECML. That's what Agility (in the form of Hitachi) proposed and won the IEP completion on. That's what was going to be ordered........... ......Then, out of the blue came the decision to electrify the GWML....the IEP having already specified, put out to tender and selected a train design expressly for use in the absence of wires on this route. Electrification was obviously going to have a significant impact on the whole IEP, so the incumbent Labour government stalled the procurement programme. In the immediate post crash financial environment, there came questions about the whole cost of the project. Sir Andrew Foster was called in to review the whole programme = more delay. Then a change of government in 2010 . The new government didn't want to rush into a decision until the review had been completed and they had got a handle on what was happening and the costs involved = more delay. There were also widespread misgivings over the Bi-mode being able to perform adequately off the wires, using a single diesel engine. Meantime, some bright sparks, somewhere in the system, recognised that as the diesel version was no longer needed, big powerful diesel power cars weren't needed either. Multiple underfloor engines in the Bi-modes will do just as well they said....and so it came to pass. Could it be that 125 mph running on diesel, went out of the window at this stage, before the formal orders were placed? Mike asks a similar question.... .

Now just under one year to go before the Lizzie proper starts. http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/one-year-to-go-until-beginning-of-elizabeth-line-services-that-will-transform-travel-across-London .

It would require a universal recognition that a step change to more modern technology base, would deliver significant benefits. That would probably mean a completely new digital control standard. There's certainly more modern technology "out there" and some "alternatives to DCC are using these technologies. As for DCC and loco addresses, at the present time is it necessary to change when we can already use 5 digit TOPS numbers and up 16 character alphanumeric names, if we have the right system? For example, I can use TOPS numbers or names and also rapidly select or switch between locos just by recognising their photo image or icon. .

Interesting comment Rick, considering that by all accounts, the Class 800 has better leg room than the HST's on that route. There are lots of comments on various forums and in the media, declaring surprise at the decent amount leg room. The adverse comments usually seem to relate to the firmness of the seats. .