anamyd
On Moderation
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,011
It's a Class 15x thread, but yes the 175s are in the least refurbished state and I've seen the tattiness of the interior panels175, which is the one under discussion.
It's a Class 15x thread, but yes the 175s are in the least refurbished state and I've seen the tattiness of the interior panels175, which is the one under discussion.
I still don't get why there would be any need to rewire them. Just couple back to back, fit a disabled bog in one, remove the bog entirely from the other, and lock the cabs OOU.
Off the top of my head the only rewiring required would be to disable the uncoupling buttons. When they formed pairs of 2HAPs into 4CAPs they just took the buckeye chains off.The argument of returning Class 153s to 155s has been done to death. It will not be done, mainly for the high cost involved. The people in the Engineering world know say it is not just a matter of coupling two 153s together as there would be re-wiring required for one thing. Pacers and 153s have worked attached in the Exeter area for years until recently.
But that's what a 155 is... essentially two class 153s coupled together, permanently, isn't it?It would still be a pair of 153s and the flexibility of using 1 or 2 cars would then be lost if they were to be permanently coupled.Why could you not simply couple small cab to small cab permanently?
It's a Class 15x thread, but yes the 175s are in the least refurbished state and I've seen the tattiness of the interior panels
I would prefer to take the advice of Engineers. They would still be 153s if this was done.
That's right, let's worry about a few vinyl numbers rather than the passengers that a 155 would help.I would prefer to take the advice of Engineers. They would still be 153s if this was done.
Other way round, really. Two 153s are a 155 split in half.But that's what a 155 is... essentially two class 153s coupled together, permanently, isn't it?
Surely in simple terms, cut the wires at either end of the small cab and join them together.
Whether it's worth that faff, I'm not sure.
Northern should just order more 195s. The class is already at risk of being a medium sized micro fleet as it is.
Will the Azumas last for over 40 years? - any opinions?
But they wouldn't be banned.
The government wants to ban the sale of diesels after 2040.
Any purchased before then are fine to operate after.
But that's what a 155 is... essentially two class 153s coupled together, permanently, isn't it?
Politically things have turned very rapidly against diesel and associated air quality problems in the last 5 years, so it's not impossible a that future government will be even stricter on diesels.
If I was a leasing company I'd be very wary about financing a pure DMU in the future, expecting it to still be operating as built in 2045.
Especially as the ban use of diesel only in rail starts in 2040.
The current view and draft recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change is that total land transport decarbonisation is needed by 2050 which gives new bi-modes a max 30 year shelf life.
Without further modification either removing engine or adding fuel cells etc.Bi-modes could of course simply be used as EMUs after the deadline with no work done at all other than cleaning the fuel out.
Has this actually been written down in any legislation? As far as I can tell it was an unscripted remark by Jo Johnson which everyone took as gospel, even if he's long gone from the DfT.Especially as the ban use of diesel only in rail starts in 2040.
The current view and draft recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change is that total land transport decarbonisation is needed by 2050 which gives new bi-modes a max 30 year shelf life.
No it hasn’t ,you are right in saying it was simply an ambition of jo Johnson’s that everyone has taken as the new law! But given so many people have misunderstood it, it seems pointless correcting everyone.Has this actually been written down in any legislation? As far as I can tell it was an unscripted remark by Jo Johnson which everyone took as gospel, even if he's long gone from the DfT.
Unfortunately lots of us are having to take it seriously and start planning until we hear otherwise as no one from DfT has said anything different since.No it hasn’t ,you are right in saying it was simply an ambition of jo Johnson’s that everyone has taken as the new law! But given so many people have misunderstood it, it seems pointless correcting everyone.
Has this actually been written down in any legislation? As far as I can tell it was an unscripted remark by Jo Johnson which everyone took as gospel, even if he's long gone from the DfT.
we seem to be diverting away from what the real purpose of 14x/153 was in the first place.But that's what a 155 is... essentially two class 153s coupled together, permanently, isn't it?
Surely in simple terms, cut the wires at either end of the small cab and join them together.
Whether it's worth that faff, I'm not sure.
Northern should just order more 195s. The class is already at risk of being a medium sized micro fleet as it is.
I suppose CAF will build you a single car 196 if you give them enough money. Can’t see it myself.we seem to be diverting away from what the real purpose of 14x/153 was in the first place.
that is, to provide a service at minimal cost to communities that would otherwise have had their lines withdrawn due to the expense.
NONE of the recent rolling stock orders is covering that base.
on these lines, it is not about profit,it is about minimising your losses.
now 153 is basically withdrawn,and the pacers are shagged out,there is a need for a direct replacement.(and as I've said before,a lot of these routes include a run up small stretches of mainline too,which rules out 230)
doesn't really matter,because the actions of DaFT over the last few years will make ALL transport operators belive it is gospel...and will be planning their fleet replacements accordingly......Has this actually been written down in any legislation? As far as I can tell it was an unscripted remark by Jo Johnson which everyone took as gospel, even if he's long gone from the DfT.
It hasn't been denied since...It was just a few words for the Rail Minister but it seems to have caught on. It is in keeping with the direction of government policy. The legislation for a target of an 80% cut by 2050 should become law next week. There is already an argument within the Tories about whether the target should be changed to zero net emissions by 2050. The other parties will no doubt be in favour of that. In this political environment funding new DMUs has huge risk. Bi modes are a better long term bet. Hopefully 769s enter service and more are ordered, easing the DMU shortage.
they have a 15m bodyshell they use in spain somewhere.2 of those back to back would work.I suppose CAF will build you a single car 196 if you give them enough money. Can’t see it myself.
CAF...cheap as .......?I suppose CAF will build you a single car 196 if you give them enough money. Can’t see it myself.
if they see a niche and nobody else wants to touch it,then there's a market for about 200-300 of those.
CAF...cheap as .......?
I think oop north there is still a need for shorter wheelbase vehicles to negotiate some very tough curves.Stadler would I'm sure do a downrated FLIRT based on the WINK. That's exactly what you're talking about.
The 230 is similar in concept though obviously not new.
Having said that, other than the Marston Vale is there even a case for short vehicles? A 2-car Class 195 (very similar to a 172) is basically the ideal branch line unit now, isn't it? You could fit a more eco-friendly method of propulsion, but 2x23m is basically the sweet spot for branch lines once you have the space taken by a disabled bog etc, no?
Indeed, it seems to me ironic that Northern are ordering perfect local-stopping-service units (2-car, fast acceleration via mechanical transmission, ironing board seating) and running them on regional expresses, while at the same time putting classes 170 and 158 (neither of which are in any way suitable for branch lines/local stopping services) on precisely those services.
I think oop north there is still a need for shorter wheelbase vehicles to negotiate some very tough curves.
Is there? On what lines can Classes 156 and 158 not operate "up north"? Must be very few.
Tight curves are no great issue for bogied units (and provided the stations aren't on the curves you can have as much overthrow as you like as there's nowt for it to whack). And I doubt anyone is suggesting building 4-wheeled cattle wagons new!
Isn't it the Sarfeast that is the land of the 20m vehicle, anyway?