co-tr-paul
Member
I can say that unless something has gone very seriously wrong in the week and a half I've been on holiday, its going ahead (engineering staff) !!
I'm not saying that at all. But when someone posts something so confidently and apparently works for the company, you have to question whether the information is internal.
I can say that unless something has gone very seriously wrong in the week and a half I've been on holiday, its going ahead (engineering staff) !!
Drivers are saying it's cancelled on the coffee shop forum, but unable to back up with source.
Drivers are saying it's cancelled on the coffee shop forum, but unable to back up with source.
Well if there is a problem with from an engineering perspective then presumably it will affect XC and Scotrail conversions.
The alternate possibility is the if the solution is looking more expensive and difficult than expected that maybe DFT/GWR are looking at an alternate solution to the HSTGTI's
Why wasn't the obvious done and part of the GW HST fleet swapped for the SW class 158/159 fleet?
Even with the problems of long/short swing link bogies it must have been possible to do this and increase capacity on both sets of routes
Waterloo-Exeter by HST would be an improvement over the DMUs, while GW would get the DMUs it requires without any need for mods. And all the coaches rendered surplus by the current plan stay in use, increasing available seats
Well if there is a problem with from an engineering perspective then presumably it will affect XC and Scotrail conversions.
The alternate possibility is the if the solution is looking more expensive and difficult than expected that maybe DFT/GWR are looking at an alternate solution to the HSTGTI's
Have you seen the progress made with the 1st short formed HST?
All I will say is that you're trying to make huge structural changes to a vehicle that is 40+ years old. There's the problem and the reason why it isn't happening.
Have you seen the progress made with the 1st short formed HST?
All I will say is that you're trying to make huge structural changes to a vehicle that is 40+ years old. There's the problem and the reason why it isn't happening.
Rail Magazine has confirmed that GWR will be keeping - 43002/005/041/042/185/187/188 for shorter sets.
Thanks,
Ross
Probably because it would lead to a splitting of the two fleets. Probably not a problem for GWR who already have 158's, but would have left the SWR (proposed) HST's not near a depot that services them.
The other thing is cost, you may have to convert more coaches to have a reasonable number in service.
Finally, although not a problem for off peak services if a HST was needed in the peaks (to cover for a failed unit) then capacity into Waterloo could be a problem.
I thought it was (roughly) the same as what now exists on Chiltern Mk3 sets, a proven design?
These being in addition to the 12 First Group owned PCs (43092-094/097/098/122/153-155/158/194/198) plus presumably 43016 is missing off Rail's list as it has already been fitted with the door control mods and repainted GWR colours. That gives a total of 20, whereas I thought the plan was for 24 PCs for 11 sets?
Will there be any other upgrades due to PRM-TSI, such as an audio-visual announcement system? I guess that's a different aspect of accessibilility. Are any of the HST train operators adding this anyway?
The comments have come in response to an NR consultation on ending the use of rolling stock that drops toilet waste on the track, which the infrastructure company wants to see phased out by December 2019. Franchised services are already due to end the practice over a similar timeframe, and NR has suggested that commitments to making the changes should be incorporated into renewed charter Track Access Contracts from this summer.
Keep them at Laira for servicing. It wouldn't be the first time stock on Waterloo-Exeter was maintained there.
As for modification....they wouldn't need any
Would not 43093 also be one of those having just been "painted" green?These being in addition to the 12 First Group owned PCs (43092-094/097/098/122/153-155/158/194/198) plus presumably 43016 is missing off Rail's list as it has already been fitted with the door control mods and repainted GWR colours. That gives a total of 20, whereas I thought the plan was for 24 PCs for 11 sets?
Would not 43093 also be one of those having just been "painted" green?
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Soz should have gone to Spec Savers!!!That's what I wrote, 43092-094...
The MTU's are set to 1500RPM max because any faster increases the frequency and hence the voltage of the auxiliary alternator output, nothing to do with main alternator or traction motors.
Not just 1,500 RPM maximum, but 1,500 RPM at all times, and yes that is to produce 50 cycles AC for train supply.
Even when stopped at a station, an HST engine has to run at 1,500 RPM to produce 50 cycles.
The engine is capable of greater power output and I have previously suggested a very slightly increased engine speed of 1,560 RPM. That would produce 52 cycles AC which should be fine for nominal 50 cycles equipment.
4% more power is worth having.
What a load of complete and utter technically illiterate nonsense.Not just 1,500 RPM maximum, but 1,500 RPM at all times, and yes that is to produce 50 cycles AC for train supply.
Even when stopped at a station, an HST engine has to run at 1,500 RPM to produce 50 cycles.
The engine is capable of greater power output and I have previously suggested a very slightly increased engine speed of 1,560 RPM. That would produce 52 cycles AC which should be fine for nominal 50 cycles equipment.
4% more power is worth having.