brownandrew15
Member
701002Does anyone know what unit is running tests today?
701002Does anyone know what unit is running tests today?
Yes it was.Was 701005 out on test last night as 5Q52 Eastleigh TRSMD to Eastleigh TRSMD?
Do you know what happened to it, RealTimeTrains is inconclusive, Open Train Times says that it was cancelled due to "Train-crew/loco/stock/unit diagram issues" and charlwoodhouse.co.uk says that it went off route, terminated and then went off route again...Yes it was.
This suggests it got back nearly 3 hours early, but I expect the passing time for Shawford (at 0006) is really what happened:Do you know what happened to it, RealTimeTrains is inconclusive, Open Train Times says that it was cancelled due to "Train-crew/loco/stock/unit diagram issues" and charlwoodhouse.co.uk says that it went off route, terminated and then went off route again...
I am trying to find out the time that it returned to Eastleigh TRSMD
Turned at Brockenhurst then ran as booked, gaining time on schedule, returning to Eastleigh about 0025Do you know what happened to it, RealTimeTrains is inconclusive, Open Train Times says that it was cancelled due to "Train-crew/loco/stock/unit diagram issues" and charlwoodhouse.co.uk says that it went off route, terminated and then went off route again...
I am trying to find out the time that it returned to Eastleigh TRSMD
Would SWR want to attempt a diagram change this complex as they introduce the 701s, as opposed to leaving existing units more or less where they are and replacing them that way?
For the avoidance of doubt I'll quote from The August issue of Modern Railways:One would like to think they were thinking of the pax sweating in the 455s and concentrate on those first, or maybe putting them on the Reading first will allow 458s to displace 455s. But it's entirely likely they're not thinking like that either.
Gen states 701002Anyone know what 5Z70 is today? Eastleigh - Staines - Windsor - Staines - Eastleigh. I was initially dubious of 701 because firstly it's Arlington not TRSMD, and it's on a Z headcode. But I guess it's possible?
Oh ye the gen groups, I keep forgetting! Duh!Gen states 701002
I think it’s only a splitting capability for depot internal purposes, a bit like on Thameslink 700s, (and originally on GatEx 460s.). Will never be seen on the network as a half train.Haven't really been able to see much - but assuming that the train can be split in the middle (someone mentioned whistles on 5 and 6, which suggests these trains are usable as half-units), it would make sense for the geometry on the ends of 5 and 6 to be different - and ideally match the cab ends. If they were to match the cab-ends, then you could mix and match half a 10-car with a 5-car if needed in special cases (but that's just a wild theory).
(Sounds crazy? Perhaps, but I've seen it done in similar situations on other networks.)
Certainly, the class 720 thread suggests the 10-car 720s can be split/have lights and cameras in the middle, but no idea about geometry.
But different geometry on 5 and 6 would be weird - certainly I can't find any good photos myself.
They can be split fairly easily but for maintenance, I haven't heard that they have lights in the middle.Certainly, the class 720 thread suggests the 10-car 720s can be split/have lights and cameras in the middle, but no idea about geometry.
From what I can see from pausing and slowing YouTube videos, the full width gangway “bellows” at the 5/6 position looks just like any other.They can be split fairly easily but for maintenance, I haven't heard that they have lights in the middle.
Haven't really been able to see much - but assuming that the train can be split in the middle (someone mentioned whistles on 5 and 6, which suggests these trains are usable as half-units), it would make sense for the geometry on the ends of 5 and 6 to be different - and ideally match the cab ends. If they were to match the cab-ends, then you could mix and match half a 10-car with a 5-car if needed in special cases (but that's just a wild theory).
(Sounds crazy? Perhaps, but I've seen it done in similar situations on other networks.)
Certainly, the class 720 thread suggests the 10-car 720s can be split/have lights and cameras in the middle, but no idea about geometry.
But different geometry on 5 and 6 would be weird - certainly I can't find any good photos myself.
They can be split fairly easily but for maintenance, I haven't heard that they have lights in the middle.
The hole isn't a problem elsewhere, I imagine they can find a solution! But indeed, not relevant if they won't operate that way (the mix of half/full trains is definitely useful for smaller fleets - e.g. if half a 7-car unit is damaged by a rock as has happened for some trains I've seen - but probably not on the huge SWR fleet).The train will be splittable in the middle by all accounts, but not usable as two halves, not least as there'll be a great big hole in the front of the 5 car portion, before any considerations about coupler compatibility! The oddity that @spark001uk has noticed is that the geometry on vehicles 5 & 6 doesn't appear to match
Spliting will only really be needed for some visits to the wheel lathe and the bogie drop/roof crane at Wimbledon Park.I have no idea how common the splitting might be though.
Is it running with the 701 unbraked with all those extra wagons with at the rear with concrete slabs on?@Domh245 I think you're right, I purposely followed the centre of the unit on today's delivery, and it is somewhat of an illusion. I think because of the fact they're inner-frame bogies, so you're seeing the sides at rail gauge basically, against the what is it, about 9ft? body, from the angle you're standing, it makes it look like one is inset near and the other not.
.
Yes, it is.Is it running with the 701 unbraked with all those extra wagons with at the rear with concrete slabs on?
I wouldn’t say that, but with the inboard bogies leaving no height beam fixings on the outside the arm is more vulnerable from impact risking damage to the frangable material. Better an arc shield takes the brunt of the impact than losing a shoe altogether? Also, this is more akin to the latest shoe gear fitted to the desire city’s and likely to be from the same manufacturer (I would guess brecknell Willis), so get used to this being a common sight for new DC stockThose shoe guards certainly do stand out like a sore thumb don't they! I guess this is just down to the ever tightening health and safety measures?
I expect another bonus from the shoes being shielded this way is that it reduces the hazard to anyone working near a train, the shoes that aren’t directly in contact with the third rail being live all the time because of cross connections.I wouldn’t say that, but with the inboard bogies leaving no height beam fixings on the outside the arm is more vulnerable from impact risking damage to the frangable material. Better an arc shield takes the brunt of the impact than losing a shoe altogether? Also, this is more akin to the latest shoe gear fitted to the desire city’s and likely to be from the same manufacturer (I would guess brecknell Willis), so get used to this being a common sight for new DC stock
edit: also there needs to be an arc shield between bogie and shoe arm/slipper. Older stock had this between the lateral damper and the bottom of bogie so was relatively unobtrusive, so with the damper moved in the new design it was always going to be more visible.
Is the shielding attached the shoegear arm or the bogies - point being if its fixed to bogies shoes are still exposed when there down. Presumable the 710/2's have same arrangement?I expect another bonus from the shoes being shielded this way is that it reduces the hazard to anyone working near a train, the shoes that aren’t directly in contact with the third rail being live all the time because of cross connections.