LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
:roll: The UIC classification system is most certainly not EU-exclusive.
And Network Rail is a UIC member.
But "Europe" is where everything bad is supposed to emanate...
:roll: The UIC classification system is most certainly not EU-exclusive.
This is a map of member countries of the UIC. It contains a couple more countries than the EU :roll:And from March 2019 (post Brexit) we will be able to ignore European regulations for any stock that remains exclusively within UK.
Only to make the transition easier. Then there would be a longer process of repealing the stuff that doesn't make sense, before which things like this would just not be enforced.
Because train vehicle numbers are going to be near the top of the list for repealing, aren't they?
But we've just established that they are not going to be "repealed"...
Who's going to enforce something like that?
And Network Rail is a UIC member.
And from March 2019 (post Brexit) we will be able to ignore European regulations for any stock that remains exclusively within UK.
Most of the regulations are either British anyway (eg for our gauge), or are international (eg diesel emissions).
Anyway the manufacturers are all EU-owned and will conform to EU regulations wherever possible.
You what?
Bombardier is Canadian.
Stadler is Swiss. Switzerland is not in the EU.
Hitachi is Japanese.
So basically that leaves Alstom and Siemens, doesn't it? And Alstom's products don't seem massively in favour at the minute, possibly because they don't want to bid for the UK market, and possibly because of the amount of trouble they have generally been (Pendolino aside). So in practice it leaves Siemens as the only large scale UK supplier which is from the EU.
Are you really suggesting that Network Rail goes around breaking their own contracts?
Let's be honest, Europe has always done trains better than us...
I've seen the design and I think I could tweak it a bit. maybe adding 3 doors onto it would help?
The single door on the end vehicle is deliberate. It's because they are slightly more than 60m long, so in a 6-car double set the back coach can hang off the platform without needing SDO.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The home market is very significant for Stadler, and they have plenty of exports to the UK, Norway, some to Russia and Belarus, and a bunch of others outside the EU.Stadler may be Swiss, but the EU is their biggest market so their products will be geared towards those standards: any variations will most likely be derived from an EU-compliant base.
Eight car double set, the new units are four car.
Sure, but my point is that in the way some classes have been handled, then surely just the act of making one type 4-car would only justify a subclass, not a whole different class? I contrast it with the 37/9's which were regulars through my home station when I was a kid - class 37's but completely re-engineered, and yet not deemed to be 'sufficiently different' to be a new class.
Maybe I'm just looking for logic where, particularly in 1970/80's BR, there just wasn't any.
Probably that. I would agree a subclass would have been fine - there are a few differences (such as the 508 unitsbeing built with passenger operated doors and the 507s not) but they aren't *that* much different.
Whether or not a multiple unit formation is given its own class or subclass is basically at the whim of the applicant. Best example I can give is SWT changing some units from 158 to 159 for their own administrative purposes. It is only the individual vehicle number that is normally sacrosanct.Sure, but my point is that in the way some classes have been handled, then surely just the act of making one type 4-car would only justify a subclass, not a whole different class? I contrast it with the 37/9's which were regulars through my home station when I was a kid - class 37's but completely re-engineered, and yet not deemed to be 'sufficiently different' to be a new class.
Maybe I'm just looking for logic where, particularly in 1970/80's BR, there just wasn't any.