Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Traction & Rolling Stock' started by AventraFlex, 26 May 2018.
London (into Moorgate).
As an example of the wire still being there even though it isn't used for power, just keeping a pantograph out of the way of the roof.
I think I slightly misremembered, as it looks like the wire definitely goes into the tunnel, but not the full distance (you can't see it on videos at some of the intermediate stations).
When will the TOPS numbers be revealed?
I'm not sure, although I think it's logical to assume the DMUs will be Class 197 and the tram trains a Class 399 subclass.
It will not be a 399 sub class as that is a completely different model in the CityLink series , the 399 is pretty much a tram whilst this is much closer to a train that can also be used as a tram as mentioned.
It doesn't really matter whether they're used on light rail or heavy rail more than the other. The Supertram and TfW Rail Citylinks will still share the same platform (the one difference is the TfW Rail ones will be high floor), therefore it is logical to assume the latter will be given a 399/? subclass designation.
I don't think it would be the same class to be honest.
The design of this specific CityLink is a train tram and not a tram train. There are many sub models on the CityLink platform , the CityLink platform consists of trams that can be used as trains and trains that can be used as trams , I'll post the models when I get home. Also I believe the FLIRT Demus will be 2xx and the tri modes will be 7xx.
Everything I can find about TfW Rail's Citylinks, including on Stadler's website, refers to them as tram trains.
I think that's a given.
Yeah this is clearly not a train-tram.
A train-tram isn't a thing tram-train is a spectrum and some citylinks are closer to one end of each, it's a term to say that a tram train is closer to a train in which the citylink for Wales is as it's confirmed to be a heavy rail train north of queen street and managing director of KA said that it's closer to a train so did Ken Skates.
This is a train-tram:
A mainline train adapted to use urban tram infrastructure.
I will show you the citylink series:
Firstly, this is the Mallorca Citylink which is the closest to a tram and is used on routes where it has a short section of train mode running:
This is the Chemnitz Citylink which the supertram 399 is based on:
This is the Metrovalencia Citylink which is for majority train running and short tram running like the Welsh Citylink
Lastly, the vehicle in the middle is the Welsh Citylink which is designed for majority train running:
It's all good concentrating on the branding of the machine, but that doesn't define what it is, as branding history has kept showing over time.
The South Wales Metro Citylink will be an amazing LRV.
Eh? You said they're train trams and now you're saying train trams aren't a thing.
It still doesn't matter whether a tram train is used on heavy or light rail more than the other, it is still a tram train. There aren't any specific variants of a tram train.
The Supertram Citylinks and the TfW Rail Citylinks will be based on the exact same platform (the only difference between them is the TfW Rail ones will be high floor), and because of this I would say it's logical to assume they will share the same class number.
Personally, I will be very surprised if TfW Rail's tram trains aren't designated as Class 399s.
It's a different train mate that is very unrealistic and flawed 399 is a tram-train from years ago and is different. 357 and 377 are the same so is the 379 and they're way more similar than the citylinks. This is extremely unlikely.
Other than the floor height, no, they are not different. The TfW tram trains will use the exact same Citylink tram train platform as the Class 399s.
Having been on three of them, I would not call the Class 399 "flawed", and they were only built a couple of years ago.
I stated that the assumption that they will be a 399 subclass is flawed.
As you're someone who doesn't know what PRM is, I'll take what you say about this with a massive pinch of salt and await a more credible and reliable source.
Sorry, I am rather lost. You claimed you were going to "show" us the Stadler Citylink for Wales. This suggested you are well informed, yet you then show the above sketch?
Here is the actual Citylink metro tram-train from Stadler. Note, there is utterly no difference in using the term tram-train or train-tram. The correct term is tram-train and that is what the entire Citylink family is. TfW shall be using the term Metro unit, derived from either the FLIRT or CityLink.
I've long thought it odd that 20m Desiros are only 3 subclasses - 350 (gangwayed 25kV capable), 360 (non-gangwayed 25kV capable) and 450 (gangwayed non-25kV capable) while there are a million and one Electrostar classes. Was this just a case of running out of numbers from the suffix?
Not really, it largely makes sense to me. There's just been far more permutations of the class.
357 - AC only (1st gen)
375 - Dual voltage or DC (1st gen) originally tightlock
376 - Transverse metro
377 - Dual voltage or DC (1st gen) Dellner from new
378 - Longitudinal metro
379 - AC only (2nd gen)
387 (since 380 already used) - Dual voltage (2nd gen)
Wrong, train-trams do exist. Look further up.
I don't see how it is, they're both going to use the same platform.
How can these things be put together / divided if they don’t have a bogie or share a bogie with another coach?
Current edition of Modern Railways fills in some more blanks.
14 X 3 car CAF's will be introduced as standard only and then have First Class sections retrofitted in them for Dec 2024 launch of 1st Class on Manchester to Swansea services. So enough of them to fulfill hourly service.
The Milford Haven services will be 2 car units detaching/attaching at Swansea. Other West Wales services will be 3 car Class 170's plus 2 car 170's on HOW.
Only 21 x 2 car CAF's will be fitted with ETCS. Is that pool big enough for Cambrian/Birmingham/ 2 hourly to Holyhead?
I think there would have to be a big Timetable change, i.e. separating the Cambrian from Holyhead. In other words Cambrian to Birmingham and returning to Cambrian. Or, possibly, might manage just by removing the 3 Diagrams that currently go south from the equation.
Won’t that limit flexibility only fitting 21?