125, class 43, HST

[ralphchadkirk]

It needs to be mentioned that mk3 coaches don't have the structural integrity of modern rolling stock. They were great compared to mk2 and in particular mk1 stock but by modern standards they are weak. Southall and Ufton Nervet were examples where the shortfalls in integrity were mentioned in the accident reports. Lack of bogie retention, coupler strength and resistance to buckling all were noted.

You only have to note the Grayrigg derailment to see how good modern coaches are.

 

[tbtc]

If a Mk3 or 4 doesnt comply with the latest safety standards, then that would show the regulations up for being a load of tosh

You are aware of "grandfather rights"?

Mk 3s were built to comply with the 1970s regulations (when they were first built). They complied with the relevant regulations on safety/ disability/ materials used etc etc (where such regulations existed).

That doesn't mean you could build them brand new today - safety needs to be a lot tighter etc.

Of course old coaches/ engines/ units can still run around now, but that doesn't mean you could build a Pacer/ Mk 3/ APT today (identical to the originals).

Saying "APT had big windows, why can't 390s" ignores all the progress made in train safety since then. Can you imagine only one person dying in a 100mph crash like Grayrigg in a Mk 3?

 

[4SRKT]

You are aware of "grandfather rights"?

You are aware of the concept of 'being patronising'?

Saying "APT had big windows, why can't 390s" ignores all the progress made in train safety since then. Can you imagine only one person dying in a 100mph crash like Grayrigg in a Mk 3?

However, saying "395s have sensible windows so why can't 390s?" does not ignore this, so we're back to the conclusion that Pendo windows are more a result of bad design than anything else. Also, much as I loathe 180s, I understand they are 125mph capable, and they have visibility as good as a mk III, so it's either possible for modern high speed trains to have large windows or for the HSE to be bought off in some way.

By your logic trains operating on HS2 probably won't even be allowed doors, never mind windows of any size, and the Southern Railway cars withdrawn from the Waterloo & City Line around the early 90s must have been the safest trains ever made [/IRONY]

 

[junglejames]

You are aware of "grandfather rights"?

Mk 3s were built to comply with the 1970s regulations (when they were first built). They complied with the relevant regulations on safety/ disability/ materials used etc etc (where such regulations existed).

That doesn't mean you could build them brand new today - safety needs to be a lot tighter etc.

Of course old coaches/ engines/ units can still run around now, but that doesn't mean you could build a Pacer/ Mk 3/ APT today (identical to the originals).

Saying "APT had big windows, why can't 390s" ignores all the progress made in train safety since then. Can you imagine only one person dying in a 100mph crash like Grayrigg in a Mk 3?

Yes im aware of grandfather rights.
I also still firmly believe Mk3s are strong enough to be built 'as is' to this day. Yes there are better (just), but they are perfectly good enough. Its not like we are expecting crashes everyday. But thats my opinion. As i said before. Everything can be built better, but is it necessary? Some people will say yes, others will say no. 30yrs ago I would have said yes, we do need better (well i wouldnt have done cos i was still in my mummys tummy!). But nowadays? Im not sure. If we start having more accidents, then it may be worth it. But accidents are so rare. Improve other aspects yes. There are definitely improvements to be had elsewhere, but in the sturdiness of coaches? Not sure its necessary.

Now, will you stop going on about APT v 390, big v small. Virtually everybody has nullified the argument that the 390 has small windows to make sure it complies with safety regs.
Yes this may make them sturdier, but it hasnt been built like that to comply with anything, and nobody is ignoring advances in train safety.
Also, even if it does make them sturdier, is this necessary? No it dam well isnt. The way you are talking, before long trains wont have windows. Then not long after that, cars will be banned, then soon after that trains will be banned. You cant travel by train because there is a very very slim chance you could die. Hey crikey, next you cant have children, because there is a slim slim chance either you or the child will die whilst giving birth.
What next?

Regarding Greyrigg. I never once said the pendos were bad. Ive even suggested they are sturdier than Mk3s. Would only one person have died if it were a Mk3? How the hell does anybody know. It depends partly on what passengers are doing at the time. I would take a wild guess that all the coaches would still have been virtually intact, and the number of fatalities would have been minute.

 

[tbtc]

Yes im aware of grandfather rights.
I also still firmly believe Mk3s are strong enough to be built 'as is' to this day. Yes there are better (just), but they are perfectly good enough

Mk3s may be "perfectly good enough" as existing trains, but you couldn't build new ones today. What was acceptable in the 1970s wouldn't meet the criteria for *new* trains today.

I like Leyland Leopard buses, from a similar generation to the Mk3s, but I appreciate you couldn't build them today.

Similarly, my railway introduction was the Class 27, wonderful locos, but you wouldn't use asbestos as a building material if you were designing new ones today.

The rules change and they sometimes change fast. Look at the way that in a short period of time the Class 185 coaches went from being designed/ built to then not meeting "improved" criteria (on emissions?)... if a 185 coach doesn't meet today's requirements then a 1970s coach certainly won't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However, saying "395s have sensible windows so why can't 390s?" does not ignore this, so we're back to the conclusion that Pendo windows are more a result of bad design than anything else. Also, much as I loathe 180s, I understand they are 125mph capable, and they have visibility as good as a mk III, so it's either possible for modern high speed trains to have large windows or for the HSE to be bought off in some way

I'm certainly not suggesting 390s are the only way of designing a modern train (albeit a 140mph capable one which tilts and has passengers in the leading vehicle does need to meet additional criteria), and it's partly due to accepting the same design used in Italy, but that's not the same as suggesting we could get away with building new Mk3s in 2010.

 

[junglejames]

Mk3s may be "perfectly good enough" as existing trains, but you couldn't build new ones today. What was acceptable in the 1970s wouldn't meet the criteria for *new* trains today.

I like Leyland Leopard buses, from a similar generation to the Mk3s, but I appreciate you couldn't build them today.

Similarly, my railway introduction was the Class 27, wonderful locos, but you wouldn't use asbestos as a building material if you were designing new ones today.

The rules change and they sometimes change fast. Look at the way that in a short period of time the Class 185 coaches went from being designed/ built to then not meeting "improved" criteria (on emissions?)... if a 185 coach doesn't meet today's requirements then a 1970s coach certainly won't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



I'm certainly not suggesting 390s are the only way of designing a modern train (albeit a 140mph capable one which tilts and has passengers in the leading vehicle does need to meet additional criteria), and it's partly due to accepting the same design used in Italy, but that's not the same as suggesting we could get away with building new Mk3s in 2010.

Wow there. You said a 185 doesnt comply with emissions regs. Thats nowt to do with crashworthiness regs. They may well comply with them. Or are you comparing it to your 1970s road coach? Sorry, perhaps i misunderstood you.
As for whether we could build more Mk3s now. We shall agree to disagree.

And as for emissions regs. They are the biggest load of tosh ever.
A Valenta engine doesnt comply with emissions regs, but the latest cars do. Yet if you took 2 Valenta engines, and 90 modern cars (450/5), the Valenta engines produce less emissions.
I know what they have done with these regs, but it is extremely unfair.

Dont get me started on passengers in the front coach of a train going over 100mph. Safety regs? Wheres the safety regs in that?

As for asbestos. Asbestos is very very dangerous. Mk3s are not. Thats my argument there. Asbestos ruling was needed. Saying you cant build Mk3s? Well, you know what i think there.

 

[tbtc]

Dont get me started on passengers in the front coach of a train going over 100mph. Safety regs? Wheres the safety regs in that?

There are significant number of safety aspects to this, such as the "crumple zone", which partly explains why there are so few seats in the front vehicles (I think a Voyager has 40/42 seats in the leading coach - which means about 30 in the First Class equivalent)?

Certainly not ideal to waste all this space, but these are the rules which have to be worked around. It's no optional for manufacturers, sadly, and I appreciate that more people are killed in car crashes etc, but designers have to work to the current rules.

Maybe you can argue that we'd have been better off with separate engines/ DVTs instead of Voyagers/ Pendolinos being built as "units", since they would have had the "wasted" space inside them, and I get that argument, but there's no shortcuts round the regs.

 

[junglejames]

There are significant number of safety aspects to this, such as the "crumple zone", which partly explains why there are so few seats in the front vehicles (I think a Voyager has 40/42 seats in the leading coach - which means about 30 in the First Class equivalent)?

Certainly not ideal to waste all this space, but these are the rules which have to be worked around. It's no optional for manufacturers, sadly, and I appreciate that more people are killed in car crashes etc, but designers have to work to the current rules.

Maybe you can argue that we'd have been better off with separate engines/ DVTs instead of Voyagers/ Pendolinos being built as "units", since they would have had the "wasted" space inside them, and I get that argument, but there's no shortcuts round the regs.

I dont think youve followed my point. We shouldnt be travelling in the front coach.
There are shortcuts. Thats what im getting at. At one point you couldnt travel in the front coach of a train going over 100mph. Now you can. Yes they have crumple zones, but are these as good as a whole 87? Or 43? I somehow doubt it. The way the rules have been relaxed is stupid.
Voyagers and pendos should have been built as locos and coaches

 

[ralphchadkirk]

A Valenta engine doesnt comply with emissions regs, but the latest cars do. Yet if you took 2 Valenta engines, and 90 modern cars (450/5), the Valenta engines produce less emissions.

What a ridiculous argument! I might as well say if you took 90 valenta engines, and 2 modern EMU's then the EMU's would produce less emissions - but that would be stupid wouldn't it?

 

[junglejames]

What a ridiculous argument! I might as well say if you took 90 valenta engines, and 2 modern EMU's then the EMU's would produce less emissions - but that would be stupid wouldn't it?

Yes it would be daft saying that. Since when could 2 EMUs take the same amount of passengers as 45 HSTs? I used the figures i did, because 90 cars with 5 people in each, is about the same as a HST.

As I said, I know what they have done, but whilst old large engines remain more economical than a load of modern small engines, it is unfair (in my eyes) to pick on the larger engines.

 

[tbtc]

Wow there. You said a 185 doesnt comply with emissions regs. Thats nowt to do with crashworthiness regs

I used the 185 example to given an example of how the rules change in a very short space of time. If 185s are only a few years old, but already couldn't be built "as is" (due to tighter regulations) then I hoped that put your thoughts on 1970s designs into context.

Of course 185s and Mk3s are fine to run around, but you couldn't build more of either (for whatever reason)

As for whether we could build more Mk3s now. We shall agree to disagree

You couldn't. Simple as that. They wouldn't meet modern standards. You can argue about the rules, you can lobby the Government, but the facts are that the Mk3 design wouldn't be allowed for new builds.

And as for emissions regs. They are the biggest load of tosh ever.
A Valenta engine doesnt comply with emissions regs, but the latest cars do. Yet if you took 2 Valenta engines, and 90 modern cars (450/5), the Valenta engines produce less emissions.
I know what they have done with these regs, but it is extremely unfair.

Again, these are the rules which we have to work around. Railway safety is much more tightly regulated than road safety - the same can be said of emissions.

If the rules say you can't build engines for the railway as polluting as Valentas, then that's what we have to accept. Railways and airlines are always going to have to meet much stricter criteria - there's no getting round this.

Enthusiasts love Valentas too, but regulations moved in. Similarly, the ten litre buses which worked so well round these parts can't be built any more, so we have to have seven litre ones (more efficient emissions etc etc). They are gutless, but they meet the regs. You can't argue with these things (sadly)

As for asbestos. Asbestos is very very dangerous. Mk3s are not. Thats my argument there. Asbestos ruling was needed. Saying you cant build Mk3s? Well, you know what i think there.

We know its dangerous *now*, but people didn't when it was built. I'm just trying to find examples of what was once acceptable (but clearly wouldn't be allowed for new builds today) to put the Mk3 into perspective.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Yes it would be daft saying that. Since when could 2 EMUs take the same amount of passengers as 45 HSTs? I used the figures i did, because 90 cars with 5 people in each, is about the same as a HST.

:x
But it isn't an accurate comparison.

Since when has each and every EMU only taken 5 people per carriage?

 

[junglejames]

What a ridiculous argument! I might as well say if you took 90 valenta engines, and 2 modern EMU's then the EMU's would produce less emissions - but that would be stupid wouldn't it?

Reading this again, what the hell are you on? At least my argument had something vaguely substantial behind it, and there was thinking behind what i said/ believed. Where the hell have you got 90 Valentas and 2 EMUs from? Even if it was 2 DMUs it still wouldnt make any sense. But you really do show yourself up using EMUs. When did they have engines?

 

[90019]

As I said, I know what they have done, but whilst old large engines remain more economical than a load of modern small engines, it is unfair (in my eyes) to pick on the larger engines.

All new build engines have to comply with emissions standards, regardless of size.
A valenta engine couldn't be built for a new train in the same way an older car engine couldn't be put in a new car today if they don't meet the standards applied.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But you really do show yourself up using EMUs. When did they have engines?

EMUs still produce emissions, just mostly indirectly. It's a valid comparison to make.

 

[junglejames]

:x
But it isn't an accurate comparison.

Since when has each and every EMU only taken 5 people per carriage?

What the hell. I said modern day cars take 5 people. I never mentioned any train taking 5 people.
Cars as in things with a steering whell, which run on roads.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Reading this again, what the hell are you on? At least my argument had something vaguely substantial behind it, and there was thinking behind what i said/ believed. Where the hell have you got 90 Valentas and 2 EMUs from? Even if it was 2 DMUs it still wouldnt make any sense. But you really do show yourself up using EMUs. When did they have engines?

Ok, use two DMU's - your argument of a fair comparison being a full HST against a number of half empty DMUs (only 5 passengers per coach!) is utterly ridiculous - and I would have expected even you would have realised that. Your argument has nothing substantial behind it whatsoever.

Where is the facepalm or head banging against a brick wall smiley when you need it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What the hell. I said modern day cars take 5 people. I never mentioned any train taking 5 people.
Cars as in things with a steering whell, which run on roads.

They why put in brackets after it a 3rd rail EMU class number?

 

[junglejames]

All new build engines have to comply with emissions standards, regardless of size.
A valenta engine couldn't be built for a new train in the same way an older car engine couldn't be put in a new car today if they don't meet the standards applied.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


EMUs still produce emissions, just mostly indirectly. It's a valid comparison to make.

Yeah we know what they are doing with the regs. Just seems unfair.

As for EMUs. The regs concern engines. So no it isnt a comparison in this sense.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ok, use two DMU's - your argument of a fair comparison being a full HST against a number of half empty DMUs (only 5 passengers per coach!) is utterly ridiculous - and I would have expected even you would have realised that. Your argument has nothing substantial behind it whatsoever.

Where is the facepalm or head banging against a brick wall smiley when you need it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


They why put in brackets after it a 3rd rail EMU class number?

I never. I was explaining why i used 2 Valentas and 90 modern day cars as an example. 450 divided by 5 is 90. 450 is around what a HST carries. 5 is what the average car carries.
So yes, it does have something substantial behind it. When I say cars, i really mean cars.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I never. I was explaining why i used 2 Valentas and 90 modern day cars as an example. 450 divided by 5 is 90. 450 is around what a HST carries. 5 is what the average car carries.

This argument concerns two different types of carriages - mk3, and inbuilt EMU's. I fail to see where road transport comes into it.

 

[90019]

I never. I was explaining why i used 2 Valentas and 90 modern day cars as an example. 450 divided by 5 is 90. 450 is around what a HST carries. 5 is what the average car carries.

You can't compare a valenta to 'cars' as emissions in different cars vary so much. It's like comparing apples with vegetables. It's far too wide a comparison to make.

 

[junglejames]

This argument concerns two different types of carriages - mk3, and inbuilt EMU's. I fail to see where road transport comes into it.

I have never once included any sort of EMU in my calculations. I have never mentioned an EMU.
90 modern day cars can take about the same number of people as 1 HST. The HST didnt used to comply with emission regs, whilst the cars did. Yet the HST gave off less emissions overall.

Im getting at the fact old large engines are better than numerous new small engines.
That is why im saying in most cases it is unfair to pick on lagre engines.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I have never mentioned an EMU.

Quite - you never mentioned the cl390 did you?

The HST didnt used to comply with emission regs, whilst the cars did. Yet the HST gave off less emissions overall.

So where did you get your emissions figures from - such as amount of C02 produced per kilometre? I looked, but couldn't find any. So I'd like to know where you got your figures from?

 

[junglejames]

You can't compare a valenta to 'cars' as emissions in different cars vary so much. It's like comparing apples with vegetables. It's far too wide a comparison to make.

Im mainly getting at large and small engines. I see what they are doing, but to me its unfair to pick on large engines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Quite - you never mentioned the cl390 did you?

So where did you get your emissions figures from - such as amount of C02 produced per kilometre? I looked, but couldn't find any. So I'd like to know where you got your figures from?

Not in this argument i never mentioned a 390. It doesnt have an engine, so why would i.
Im using MPG figures. Usually a good idea of emissions. HST with Valentas being between 1.5 to 2 Gallons per mile (per train).
Cars being on average about 40 miles per gallon.

 

[tbtc]

Im getting at the fact old large engines are better than numerous new small engines.
That is why im saying in most cases it is unfair to pick on lagre engines.

Train manufacturers have to comply with the legislation relating to train design.

Saying "ah, but cars pollute loads more" isn't going to make any difference.

If a Valenta doesn't meet current regs, then that's that.

 

[junglejames]

Train manufacturers have to comply with the legislation relating to train design.

Saying "ah, but cars pollute loads more" isn't going to make any difference.

If a Valenta doesn't meet current regs, then that's that.

Oh i understand that, and i see what they are doing. I just think its unfair to be as strict on large engines. But hey, thats my opinion.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Oh i understand that, and i see what they are doing. I just think its unfair to be as strict on large engines. But hey, thats my opinion.

Why is it unfair to be as strict on larger engines? The bigger the engine, the more emissions - therefore, regulations are stricter for larger engines!

 

[junglejames]

Why is it unfair to be as strict on larger engines? The bigger the engine, the more emissions - therefore, regulations are stricter for larger engines!

Oh heavens above, ive already explained why. Because usually a large old engine is better than numerous small modern engines. Why should large railway engines have such strict regulations when they are already much better even without complying with regs.
Its like Bus engines shouldnt have as strict a regulations as car engines.
My belief. Sorry if you dont like it, but its my belief.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Saying "APT had big windows, why can't 390s" ignores all the progress made in train safety since then. Can you imagine only one person dying in a 100mph crash like Grayrigg in a Mk 3?

Wasn't Colwich a much more energetic impact that Grayrigg?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because usually a large old engine is better than numerous small modern engines.

I'd agree older engines are better. Certainly for cars - my car is about 14 years old, pre-electronics, and does the same MPG as the modern hybrids and far more MPG than most modern pure petrol engined cars do.

Which goes to demonstrate that all the modern computerised engine control systems do nothing of real value. Far better to concentrate on genuine engine efficiency and ( in the context of this argument ) the OVERALL emissions level.

 

[asylumxl]

I'd agree older engines are better. Certainly for cars - my car is about 14 years old, pre-electronics, and does the same MPG as the modern hybrids and far more MPG than most modern pure petrol engined cars do.

So your car is 1996, does not have a fuel injection system, and by extension, an ECU, a Mass Airflow Sensor or Throttle Position sensor or Lambda sensor (to name just a few). What car is this?

I do agree old engines are better, but is nothing to do with electronics, and all to do with construction and the set up of the electronics. Modern car engines are generallY aluminium (including internals), compared to cast iron and forged steel. As such they are unable to take heat as well and the ECUs are mapped to run rich to act as a lubricant and retardant, and prolong the life of the engine.

 

[jopsuk]

I reckon if your driving is such that you get outstanding fuel economy out of a 14 yr old engine, you'd get astounding economy out of a modern engine. Fuel economy has a lot to do with driving style.

 

[DarloRich]

I use the WCML all the time. I like the Pendolino. I am not some Neanderthal throw back who wants double headed 50's on the WCML north of Crewe and Roarers south!

The Pendos (and NR work to upgrade the line) have revolutionised WCML travel. They are faster and more frequent than ever before. The normal passengers like them precisely because they tilt, are fast and frequent. They have become a victim of there own success.

HOWEVER - they are by no means as comfortable or spacious as the stock they replaced. They are cramped, dark, smelly and uncomfortable. There is no where near luggage space as is required ( a common problem on all modern trains cf LM 350/TPE 185) and there is far to much first class on most services.

Ask people who travel on the prentendolino whether they prefer the comfort of the MkIII or the Pendo they will pick the MKIII, ask them if they like looking out of the window from a proper seat and they will say yes ask them if they want to get to Euston 10 minuets quicker and they will pick the Pendo. There is the rub for the normal passenger

To paraphrase a mantra from Animal farm, "old trains bad, new trains good" (but some New trains are beter than others?)