Yes, indeed and there is perhaps a certain irony in this shot of mine! However, the fact that juice rails CAN be coated in plastic for the reason you describe surely shows that the process is also feasible for accidental contact reduction?
Except for the West, where without the Turbo cascade we will be forced to suffer the continual short forming and overcrowding for the foreseeable future.
Well, I am saddened by; a) the fact that we won't be getting 'new' trains on my line in the foreseeabe future, and b) that, despite claims of useful knowledge gained, such a long time and large amount of money has been wasted/spent on this project (notwithstanding the source of that money), both of which could have been used for a more fruitful outcome for passengers. It appears that the dignitaries' return run from Reading a few weeks back may well have been a requiem after all. So, we are stuck with the 165s, which, despite a superficial redecoration inside, are inadequate and which GWR seem to be treating with disdain, as they have decided not to label the first class accommodation in any way before putting them back into service, while still happliy charging passengers first class fares to sit in unmarked and frankly still pretty grim so-called first class accommodation. Very poor.
Demand on Gatwick runs still often justifies the use of four car trains on the NDL. Certainly recent outings of two car 165s on the line have been ill-received!
As we have learnt over the last few years in the west, just because demand justifies it, doesn't mean you will get it. Short forming is very quickly becoming the norm, and the Cardiff to Portsmouth route, which is longer and very often very busy is a prime example of a service which shouldn't be short formed but often is.
Has there been any indication of anything specific that caused the dft to pull the plug?
Someone said on here a year or so ago that these units would never enter service with GWR. All the people who dismissed him have gone very quiet
The end of the lease being April 2023 was mentioned upthread as appearing to have made it an easy decision.
Yes, particularly given the lines on which the 769s were to be used on aren't the greatest money spinners in the area.
Just simply sticking up the wires to Basingstoke (from Southcote) and along from Didcot to Oxford / Banbury would solve some of the problems. The North Downs is the harder one.
I can still remember after I 'emigrated' from SR land to GWR land as a teenager, being at Bath Spa and my train back to Bristol was a DEMU on an inter-regional service. The traction motors sounded (as they would) exactly like an EPB. Made me feel right at home. Even now, 50 years later, for me a rail line looks naked without a conductor rail.
Regardless of what can be re-used, there will still be a considerable amount of wastage in this. Compared to Northerns, or TfWs 769s, you have to remember that these had a full scale repaint, refurbishment, air cooling, External CCTV cameras & associated cab modifications, a bespoke bluetooth system for multiple working, cab modifications to appease the unions and all the associated kit to run them as Tri-Mode units over Northerns (which remains essentially a duel voltage unit) and TfWs more basic DC version. And that's all Porterbrook's money. Then there's the modifications made to Network Rail infrastructure, new signage, platform upgrades specifically for the 769s, signalling upgrades, platform extensions etc. All in all, while some components may be able to be used elsewhere, quite a bit of it wont. And we've already seen promise of re-using bits from the refurbished 442s in the rebuilt 458s, which look to face the same fate as the 442s did.
I note it's appeared in RMWeb with the same wording.
They are refurbishing the 165s at the moment.
They are... well, being refreshed. But as mentioned by @Clarence Yard in the Turbo refreshment thread, this is the third attempt to get the fleet refurbished and has to be done to the price (and parameters) set by the DfT.
Alright, thanks, wasn’t aware of this, maybe I should find the appropriate thread.
Shouldn't that be, "hard to think of a line more ideal for a battery train?
You're saying there would be sufficient recharging capability when running on 3rd rail and turning around at Gatwick and Reading.
If they are sized correctly, there's no reason why they wouldn't give similar service to those in a regularly used car. It's the control of the charge/discharge cycle and the operating temperature of the battery that impacts most on their working life. We should presume that on a large installation that would have well-defined duty cycles, ant temperatures would be well known in the design phase.
That’s how I understand it too, should allow about 2% degradation each year, so normal practice is to start about 20-25% bigger battery, so still meeting requirements after 10 years.
