Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
And the best English uses short words and short sentences unless longer words are necessary.
Please look at my posting # 6958.
And the best English uses short words and short sentences unless longer words are necessary.
PS. The very first post on this thread mentioned 75 trains as being a possible order for the 230`s from Northern. Perhaps Vivarail were targeting that as a potential order for 75 x 3 car DEMU 230`s? That potential order clearly did not materialise. As you say project going for four years no 230`s yet in service. However Vivarail have stated that the market is moving towards electric trains and about 18 months into the project Vivarail put a lot of effort into developing the 230 BEMU. Latest videos on you tube show it in test running and the company say it is now ready to order. The latest Vivarail press release is not about cake it is dated 13/12/2018 about a tie up with a battery developer to keep improving the 230 BEMU which have been designed for ease of switching power packs onto the vehicle. So in four years Vivarail have developed a DEMU and a BEMU and both are available for sale. They appear to have very patient backers who as you state may be able to offset losses here elsewhere. If the project fails they appear to have the option to scrap the 400 or so units for a total of around £3.7 million. That would assist in recovering the overheads expended. Also note that Vivarail are attempting to protect the intellectual property rights of what they are developing by filing patents, as another poster has already stated such a move could hold future value for the company.Sorry that you are troubled in this way. Briefly, four years have elapsed, in which time all the total project overheads (do I have to tell you what this word means?) have had to be paid with little or naught in the way of sales monies in return.
PS. I note you are in your 70`s and a retired businessman, and probably retired due to ill health? I also note Adrian Shooter is 70 is a serial entrepreneur who has had a lot of success and few unsuccessful ventures. You appear not to like him, have you met him in a previous business life and fallen out? I think upcycling the D78s into 230s is a fantastic idea and I wish the project well. The finished trains external and internal look great. I do not like the whine of the 230 BEMU at low speed, however that appears to fade as the train attains speeds of 25 mph plusAnd the best English uses short words and short sentences unless longer words are necessary.
Many on this website, including the forum staff, have been aware of an unfortunate side-effect of the stroke that I suffered in July 2012 at the age of 67, which meant that my cognitive reasoning ability was affected and when in print, I have a tendency to write in a way that my brain thinks that I should express my thoughts. Before that unfortunate event, I prided myself on having a good command of the English language.
Wouldn’t wanna get my hand trapped in the doors. No mercy given there eh! Interesting video.
I asked this when the images first came out but I was told it was just an artists impression.
Does anyone know what that yellow button is/was for next to the DSD? It’s just visible in the video above. I’m just curious.
Travelled on the route once and that was before Bedford- Cambridge closed so can't remember line let alone station and level crossing frequencyEh? These units aren't going to run to Oxford. They are going to run between Bletchely and Bedford on local services until E-W pays out. Then I expect the local service to be included in whichever operator takes the E-W route. We should then get a newer unit with selective door controls. The reason these trains are needed is to allow the 3 x 150's ( and some 153's?) to move to northern land meaning LNWR have nothing suitable to run these services. Perhaps they should just give up and we can all walk to work? What is your solution for this issue. Shall we cancel the unit transfers to Northern where I suspect they are badly needed? LNWR really need 4 x 150 so which Northern services shall we not enhance? Your call. I am very happy to keep the 150. Remember this line is a diesel island in an electric sea. It is always going to be a micro fleet.
BTW at what point between Bedford and Bletchley does a unit stopping every half inch exceed 60 mph? Perhaps you could tell me. I know the answer but wonder if you do.
BTW 2 - the Vale is maintained to a higher speed than 60 and has some decent quality track work .
Why not have the 3 150/0 units and keep them together and will give you capacity in the peaks being 3-car.
Also there are only two 150/0s...Because the branch can't support trains longer than 80m due to signal/level crossing positioning, which is the whole reason they aren't using Class 170/172!
And the best English uses short words and short sentences unless longer words are necessary.
What about a short one?Agreed, I fail to see the point of using an unnecessary long word when a diminutive one will do.
my mistake, I thought there were 3.Also there are only two 150/0s...
You could do even better cos the correct grammar is unnecessarily long word.Agreed, I fail to see the point of using an unnecessary long word when a diminutive one will do.
You could 60 years ago. What's changed?Because the branch can't support trains longer than 80m due to signal/level crossing positioning, which is the whole reason they aren't using Class 170/172!
Because the branch can't support trains longer than 80m due to signal/level crossing positioning, which is the whole reason they aren't using Class 170/172!
Agreed, I fail to see the point of using an unnecessary long word when a diminutive one will do.
Congratulations, I am confused but mainly why a secondary route can only take short formation trains.Eh? You can't use 3 car 150s (approx 60m), or 2 or 3 car 170/172s (approx 47m/70m), because the line can't take trains longer than 80m? That's a bit confusing.
Why maintain such a short route to a higher line speed limit if trains can't reach that speed in day to day operating. Bonkers. Harrogate line is maintained to 60/65mph but running trains capable of 100/125 mph that could run at 80/90 between stations as 99% of the track is cwr on concrete sleepers and deep ballasted and 90mph signalling spacing and sighting. Equally bonkers.
I think you should keep your 150s. You are welcome to them after experiencing 170s on my local line and I am sure Northern could spare 3 or 4. They have 156s, 158s and 170s cascaded from Scotland coming out of their ears at the moment with 195s and 769s to come. Although having said that, the 150 refurbs are acceptable but not great.
Why not have the 3 150/0 units and keep them together and will give you capacity in the peaks being 3-car.
The advantage for LNWR with a 230 is that they will get an off peak return ticket from me. If they stuck with Sprinters, I don't think I would bother.
Congratulations, I am confused but mainly why a secondary route can only take short formation trains.
You could 60 years ago. What's changed?
Think he meant 40m...
because a three car 150 wont fit in the majority of the platforms due to platform lengths, signal positions and level crossings. That is also why we cant have a 170 or 172. The only trains that will fit are 2 car 150's 1 x 153 ( unsure if 2 x 153 will fit) Pacers ( again unsure if a double pacer would fit)
A number of the platforms have been moved the other side of the level crossing (with associated signalling changes) so that the crossing doesn't have to remain closed while the train is standing at the platform. This was done on the cheap
Tinkering to improve the lot of the car driver always buggers up the lot of the rail user.
To be fair, bicyclists, horse riders, nor pedestrians can pass a closed level crossing either.Tinkering to improve the lot of the car driver always buggers up the lot of the rail user.
To be fair, bicyclists, horse riders, nor pedestrians can pass a closed level crossing either.
Tinkering to improve the lot of the car driver always buggers up the lot of the rail user.
2 x 153 won't fit (and so a double Pacer won't either as that would be 2x32m, though a single one would probably do the job fine), there was a discussion about using only 153s (with the toilets removed), but if they had they would have had to increase the frequency at certain times of day as a single one is inadequate for the school trains, which would have broken the Takt.
You're right about that but even so, knowing what the D78 sounded like in its original guise, there's no hiding that is one noisy traction inverter, probably the noisiest I've encountered outside a Velaro, which you can forgive a bit more as they are much more soundproofed inside and are capable of near enough 200mph. In this case, it just sounds cheap. Not a problem in of itself, but I genuinely think that'd be quite unpleasant when travelling on these units - internal footage shows it's very clearly audible inside too. Given the use case of these units, you don't get away with the reduction in noise at high speed that mitigates this issue on the 800s, you'll be hearing it a lot on the Marston Vale and probably most other routes the 230s may end up on. In my humble opinion, that could do with some work to be made a little quieter. It's not a dealbreaker for using the trains at all, but it's a disappointing flaw I think, in what otherwise looks like a genuinely neat engineering solution.The whine is typical of a good many three phase drives, and tends to be a lot less obtrusive in real life than it sounds when recorded on a mobile phone or video camera.