-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Class 67's and Hull Trains?
- Thread starter Shaun1709
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
T
Tom
Guest
Yep... was mentioned over at www.therailwaycentre.com
16CSVT2700
Established Member
Hmm I somehow doubt the 67s will be able to keep to 222 timings, that is if the rumour is true.
I shall ask my Hull Trains contact
I shall ask my Hull Trains contact
ChrisCooper
Established Member
I doubt they will keep to timings at all. A 67 with 5 Mk3s and a DVT isn't going to accelerate very well at all, either from a stand (due to 67s having quite low tractive effort) or at speed. Also, I don't think the Mk3 DVTs are cleared for 125mph, I think they are restricted to 110. In particular on the ECML this might cause pathing problems. I also wonder what reliability and the overall standard of the stock will be like. If it's anything like the 'one' Mk3s or the MML HSTs in ex-Virgin condition they won't give a good impression at all. Then again, if they are planning on keeping them for a while, they might give them a refurbishment, or at least paint them up.
Dennis
Established Member
At least there could be a good reason to visit Hull soon!
devon_metro
Established Member
I'd much rather do it on an HST!
theblackwatch
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2006
- Messages
- 10,806
You already can if you so desire - there's a daily GNER one.
Ascot
Established Member
Wonder if they will have the nice 1st class food like on the 222s?
Take a look at the data panel and think again! Mark 3 loco hauled stock is 125 capable, it was the locos that held them back.
87015
Established Member
"Officially" held the speed back!
I thought they were 125mph but the problem was there no locos to pull them up to 125mph? Not including HSTs as they have special rakes of Mk3s because of the way they're wired.
WCML was limited to 110mph because the 87s/90s couldn't go any faster without gearing alterations. Besides there wasn't many places it could reach 125mph.
The only 125mph Locos are 91s and 67s. 91s obvious can't run to Hull and besides there aren't any spare. 67s are the other option as they're are plenty about and they work with DVTs.
True, they may not keep to timings a lot but it's surely better than a cancelled service? Finally, it would be one of the last Diesel LHCS in the country. So what's everyone's problem with them?
WCML was limited to 110mph because the 87s/90s couldn't go any faster without gearing alterations. Besides there wasn't many places it could reach 125mph.
The only 125mph Locos are 91s and 67s. 91s obvious can't run to Hull and besides there aren't any spare. 67s are the other option as they're are plenty about and they work with DVTs.
True, they may not keep to timings a lot but it's surely better than a cancelled service? Finally, it would be one of the last Diesel LHCS in the country. So what's everyone's problem with them?
I think the set in question was actually being prepared yesterday so I think it's looking pretty likely! They will need to look further to find a more long term replacement though in my opinion, as the public will see 67+mk3s as no comparison to the shiny new 222s. And it will be in completely the wrong livery!
Mintona
Established Member
Is it likely to be running Wednesday? *Fingers crossed*
ChrisCooper
Established Member
The Mk3 coaches are 125mph capable, it's the DVTs that I don't think are. I can't manage to see a DVT data pannel from where I am, but according to Locomotives and Coaching Stock 2005, they are 110mph maximum, and those books are usually right. AFAIK, since the locos and the line were 110mph limited, the DVTs were never certified for any higher speed, afterall, to do so would have required using a locomotive capable of 125mph. The coaches though being near identical to the HST trailers didn't need seperate certification, so have always been 125 capable. The DVTs though have a lot of changes, including a new type of bogie (also used on 158s and 442s), and quite a few structural changes, so would have needed their own certification.
According to the Platform 5 publication, the ex-Virgin DVTs (82101-82152) are 110mph max and GNER's (82200-82209) are 140mph max.
Yeah. Mk3 DVTs just have T4s.
16CSVT2700
Established Member
There is something up with this option.
Class 67s cannot work with the DVT's Time Division Multiplex system without modifications.
The only 67 that can work with a DVT is 67029, however IIRC it was the DVT that was modified for operation with the 67's AAR multiple working system and not the original TDM system.
So unless EWS are about to ching out for a bunch of modifications to it's 67s to work to TDM then I somehow think this will not get far.
Of course, if anyone knows otherwise please, feel free to correct me.
Class 67s cannot work with the DVT's Time Division Multiplex system without modifications.
The only 67 that can work with a DVT is 67029, however IIRC it was the DVT that was modified for operation with the 67's AAR multiple working system and not the original TDM system.
So unless EWS are about to ching out for a bunch of modifications to it's 67s to work to TDM then I somehow think this will not get far.
Of course, if anyone knows otherwise please, feel free to correct me.
A 47/7 would do the trick as all of these are modified to work with TDM.
However given the recent reliability of TDMs and DVTs on XC90s (fails at least 3 times a week because of TDM Issues) we might see Top and Tail 67s purely for reliability along the ECML.
However given the recent reliability of TDMs and DVTs on XC90s (fails at least 3 times a week because of TDM Issues) we might see Top and Tail 67s purely for reliability along the ECML.
Mark 3b. Gangwayed on non-driving end. 125mph. T4 bogies. 45.18t. Cab-shore radio fitted.
82101-82152 BREL Derby 31042/88-90.
Design codes:
NZ5010A ETH 5X.
NZ5010B ETH 6X.
All that is needed for 125 running is a revised exam schedule (and 125mph passed locos).
Below taken from a drivers slip:
82131 4331 NZ5/H 0 VT 125 XC91 18.838 43.700 A Y
AlexS
Established Member
However to muddy the waters further, a 47/7s TDM is different to the one on the DVTs and as they've been modified, the DBSOs.
ChrisCooper
Established Member
There are 3 different systems of remote control that use the RCH (lighting control) cables on coaches. The original system was fitted to the 47/7s and DBSOs when running in Scotland. This isn't TDM, AFAIK it's an analogue system. TDM is fitted to the 37/6s, 86-92 electric locos, both types of DVT, and the DBSOs were fitted when they moved to Anglia. The other system isn't a proper remote control system, but it allows communication between a PCV (propelling control vehicle) and the loco, and was used on parcels and mail trains, with 47s, 67s and 86/4s fitted (the latter having TDM aswell). As far as modifying a DVT to work with AAR on a 67, if this could be done, it would need the coaches through wiring aswell. 67029 has probably had TDM fitted, it can't be that hard considering the fact that 86s and 87s were fitted. Then again they could always use 37/6s.
Were none modified for XC DVTs then?
You seem to be confusing TDM with RCH.
RCH is essentially a lighting circuit through which the TDM (remote control) signals are sent. TDM fitted locos can use this system for multi working.
To confuse matters more, there are two levels of the 'second generation' of TDM...standard and enhanced. Mark 4 stock has separate communication channels for TDM signals making this system more reliable.
37/6 and 92 are not fitted with TDM. 37/6s (apart from the refurbed DRS jobbies) are fitted with RCH though.
You mention the EWS company train; The whole set has been through wired for AAR and 67029 is 'plugged in'. It was deemed easier to configure the DVT to work in multiple with the existing AAR system than to retrofit 67029 with TDM (which isn't that reliable anyway)!
Bearing in mind the last point, it may be that the set includes a DVT (all l/h passenger trains need a brake vehicle/guards accomodation) but the loco runs round at Hull (if possible). Seems uneconomical to be dragging a dead loco on the rear which would also impede timekeeping.
Edit: Just found the following showing all the jumpers on the company train (http://great-western.fotopic.net/p25533911.html)
- Status