Search results

There are strict instructions for movement within the depot. At that point polarity was being checked, and subsequently corrected. This was movement on a single motor. Subsequently one group, or bogie, has checked out OK with movement of a couple of feet.

Yes, a DBSO power controller is a pot with detents, take away the detents and it’s in effect a rotary version of the DVT’s controller.

The feedback loop on 86/87 is slow so you could without too much difficult find that the tap changer is still being run up passed the required notch. In that case yes you’d overload the loco. As above the maximum current for the loco is applied in the calculation for demand. That’s loosely...

When the slave is an 86 or 87 yes, equally it could be a 89/90/91 in which case they’d apply the requested TE.

TE demand uses 8 TDM channels. This gives you 8 bits and therefore 256 intervals between 0 and 100%. The TE demand is taken, converted to a crude current demand. This takes into account a max current limit that differs between 86 and 87. There’s a simple algorithm which then runs the tap...

Short answer is the same as if a DVT had detents at third, half, 3/4 and full power. TDM manages TE demand, the loco side control then interprets that. In effect your TE demand is converted to current demand which will depend on a variety of things so it does not derive a specific notch...

Yes, anything TDM fitted, give or take few restrictions, can work in multiple.

86s have sanders though. Presumably that’s a lack of working sanders.

Severn Tunnel energies at the end of the month.

CAF’s issue is noise getting back into the supply resulting in other traction detection irregularities and falling into degraded operation, at best. Impacted Pendos and 92s. And, yes, Siemens haven’t been immune but have been better than most.

Ish, 89 is a little more complex than 90/91 but not materially.

Mmm. I’d strongly disagree with that. Many of the new providers have made a dogs dinner of this. Hitachi and CAF recently have both had to make fleet wide changes as they got this wrong. I’d tentatively add Stadler too.

This is it. Though unclear why 90 was OK and 89 wasn't. As you say, these track circuits are long gone and should the need arise I cannot see an issue in clearing 89001 through to Euston. More challenging is availability of staff at NR for this work currently.

The correct answer is track circuits, no longer an issue of course. It made it as far south as Wembley and did plenty of testing up and down the WC including the Liverpool branch.

You load bank diesel engines/gen/alternator. AC locos just require 25kV. Toton for paint.

The CAF units were found to be problematic, not the 92s. It was they that were causing 390s as well as 92s to limp.

The 90s vs 92s discussion is about six years old. The short answer is that the bid that won the contract featured Mk5s and 92s/73s. Any reference to 90s is missing this very specific point and is ultimately irrelevant.

If and when that happens.

Where have those numbers come from? I'm guessing the rule of thumb 5kW per ETS index of 1. That's a guide, that's not the actual rating. And you've plucked the DC ETS rating for 92. 90 is 500kVA and 92 is pretty much double that.

This isn’t solely about pantographs, it’s primarily about the overhead infrastructure, and the ECML is particularly hampered.