Many questions - now with buckeye coupler questions

[route:oxford]

Also, in my opinion, most modern units look very un-attractive.

If you were paying for modern units, you'd be in the position to choose how they look*.




*Within parameters decided by Network Rail, Legislation & the flexibility of the platform you had chosen.

 

[Rhydgaled]

This is just a guess, but you are probably talking about £500,000 - £1 Miilion per carriage of work to be done as they would have to be disabled accessible i.e be able to get a wheel chair onboard with a disabled accessible toilet as well but still be up to the current safety standards set out.

We've already assertained that most of the mrk2s required are already owned by Arriva, with some in use. Since they are in service, they are presumablly wheelchair accessible already, yes?

Then you have the cost of potentially re - engineering a class 47 to be a class 57 which that in itself I belive would cost you anything up to about £3 Million per engine.

Ok, let's stick to existing 57s, 4 are in ATW livery already, are there another 2 available anywhere? and how much would fitting TDM cost?

When you add up the cost of the above, you are looking at a lot of money for something that will probably only last 5 - 10 years at most. I don't wish to put your idea, I think it is great but I think more thought needs to be put into the idea when for the same cost you could potentially get a new train that would last the best part of 30 - 40 years.

Why would it only last 10 years, the whole idea of using 57s rather than 47s is based on the fact they have new engines, so should be good for 25-30 years at least.

I know you will not like this, but you might actually be better with using Class 166 when they come off lease from FGW when it is electrified.

Aren't they the units that require a broad gauge loading guage? May be of use in south and west Wales but that won't directly free up the 158s I'm after (yes, you could displace 175s and have them displace 158s a 4-car LHCS operation can free up 2 158 units in one go). That suggestion also has another problem, which would probablly apply to building a fleet of new 158s too, it would be unlikely to get going until 2015, what I'm suggesting could probablly be introduced by December, if not January, 2012.

 

[RobShipway]

Why would it only last 10 years, the whole idea of using 57s rather than 47s is based on the fact they have new engines, so should be good for 25-30 years at least.

The ten years is not for the engine, but for the carriages which are all ready a good 25 - 30 years old plus as the Mk3 was introduced in 1976, so I would presume that the MK2 coaches were mid 1960's to early 1970's?

With regards to disability access if you are planning to introduce the service in January 2012, the rules for disability access I believe become more strict which may mean that Arriva may have to substitue the carriages either for a train with slide operated doors who look at changing the doors on the Mk2's to be slide operated, which I don't think you can do but you can do that with Mk3 coaches or alternaively if there are any left use the Irish Mk3 coaches as they have slide operated doors built within them.

 

[jopsuk]

Haven't the Mk2s which went to New Zealand been fitted with power doors?

 

[LE Greys]

Because I'd expect such a small fleet of new units to be more expensive than using existing locomotives (albeit with major referbishment) and coaches. Also there's the princable of recycling, metal supplies are finite, much better in my opinion to re-use at least the body shell (I doubt you could use the body shell of INTERCITY 125 class 43s to make a fleet of electric locos, but I'd be asking for that if I thought it was do-able).

Something like this by Owen Hodgson
http://fictitiousliveries.fotopic.net/p26466201.html
It was proposed in the 1980s when APT failed, until they revived several bits of APT in the shape of the Class 91

 

[Rhydgaled]

Something like this by Owen Hodgson
http://fictitiousliveries.fotopic.net/p26466201.html
It was proposed in the 1980s when APT failed, until they revived several bits of APT in the shape of the Class 91

Yeah, I'd want somthing like that but I don't think it would be do-able without building a whole new fleet from strach, defeats half the point (the recycling part).

Anyway, looks like my idea will need some mk3s and mk3 DVTs too, so how much are they being sold for? Still need costs for everything else too. One other thing, if to fit in with other services a through service from station F to station P has to wait for 15mins at station C, would it make much difference to passenger demand if they had to change at station C instead?

 

[Nym]

Right!

Asside from DfT Regulations etc, you want to recycle, it's not just the engine of a locomotive that expires, axles have a lifespan, bogies, frame etc.

When they where looking at making the 57s they had to scrap 3? of the 47's they'd baught in because they wern't useable, mainly due to cracked frames, these things have a hard life. Yes I'm not for scrapping all the 47s and 37s, but we havn't got use for them any more other than freight duties, if you want to use old locos we need a new build of carrages with ETH and every kind of control pass through fitted as standard, so then for example you could easilly have 37+6*Mk5+37 working a passenger service, and then when the locos are life expired, replace them with more locomotives, since the Mk5 carrages are designed to take most kinds of control systems, wouldn't be a problem. Now I'm talking about going all the way back to making them being able to pass through Blue Star etc. through to TDM, HST Compatable wiring etc etc, and including AAR (for Cl 66 and 67). And before somone points out diferent voltages for ETH etc and adding weight by making it work with all kinds of loco, anyone ever heard of modules? Have all the pass through wiring for every kind of loco, and have 1 or 2 module slots into witch you insert somthing to convert the ETH supply or whatever to that compatable with the carrage, so you only carry the transformers you need.

IMO this should form the basis of all LDHS stock replacment, keep coaches and locos seperate! If you want distributed traction, have it, but have each coach the same.
Traction Power Supply, ETH, Traction Control, Passthough etc, should all be seperate, and if you want to couple up faster, Dellners seem to work fine at 125mph...

We should be looking at Mk5, Mk6 and Mk6T (Tilt), to cover all options, but still, off topic, gonna go be quiet in a corner again.

 

[junglejames]

Couple of points. 57s dont have new engines. Everything about them is old, and they seem just as unreliable as 47s. They were a cheap rebuild. They will not last anywhere near 30yrs. Your probably better off with 47s, then move onto 67s as time goes on etc. Coaches will be a problem for the reasons stated. Bloomin regulations. The Irish mk 3s are possibilities though.
166s cant be used in Wales because of the loading gauge. The furthest west they can go is Bristol I believe.

The last track access charges I saw, suggested a 47 plus 5 mk2s would cost about twice as much as a 5 car 158. Its not so bad if its replacing a 175, but if its replacing a 158 then the costs rise quite a bit.

Changing topic a little. You mentioned the fuel economy of a voyager. Does an 8 car voyager use more fuel than a HST with 8 coaches? Valenta and MTU versions?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Couple of points. 57s dont have new engines. Everything about them is old, and they seem just as unreliable as 47s. They were a cheap rebuild. They will not last anywhere near 30yrs. Your probably better off with 47s, then move onto 67s as time goes on etc. Coaches will be a problem for the reasons stated. Bloomin regulations. The Irish mk 3s are possibilities though.
166s cant be used in Wales because of the loading gauge. The furthest west they can go is Bristol I believe.

The last track access charges I saw, suggested a 47 plus 5 mk2s would cost about twice as much as a 5 car 158. Its not so bad if its replacing a 175, but if its replacing a 158 then the costs rise quite a bit.

Changing topic a little. You mentioned the fuel economy of a voyager. Does an 8 car voyager use more fuel than a HST with 8 coaches? Valenta and MTU versions?

Shame there's no chance of building a fleet of additional 158s within a year, as the information provided so far is making me verge on thinking that would be a better solution. Even some cab-less centre cars would do, use them to lengthen some sets to 4-car, releasing the other 2-car unit from the trains in question.

As for fuel ecconomy, figures are here: http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectio...search/T618_traction-energy-metrics_final.pdf. Voyagers use 1.2 litres per 100 seat km. As they are a multiple unit with underfloor engines in each coach this won't vary very much for longer trains. A 2+8 IC125 is about 0.88 or 0.89 litres per 100 seat km.

Have all the pass through wiring for every kind of loco, and have 1 or 2 module slots into witch you insert somthing to convert the ETH supply or whatever to that compatable with the carrage, so you only carry the transformers you need.

I like the sound of that idea, would it be possible to have a through wire for train control and another for ETH etc. on all coaches then have some designed as an end coach which takes an appropriate modular adapter translating whatever signal the loco is sending into the form required by the mk5 DVT, then passing that signal on down the train?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
More questions:

Question 1:

How much time does it take to uncouple a class 91 from it's rake of mk4s, move it away, and couple a second 91 in it's place? (I think they use drophead buckeye automatic couplers)?​

Question 2:

Isn't there some new electrification going on in Scotland. If so is that what the new Scotrail Desiros are for (or are they replacing old stock on already electrified routes), and will any 158s be released that Wales might be able to get hold of?​

Question 3:

What is the correct term for saying somthing is in loading gauge. I think it is not 'route availability' (which I think is to do with weight and weak bridges) and believe it has somthing to do with the 'C3' printed on the ends of some coaches.​

Question 4:

I think the current timetable shows some services leaving Cardiff westbound only 3mins behind another. Is this the headway all the way through to Bridgend? and if so doesn't that mean this double-track line can take 20tph?​

 

[junglejames]

Regarding question 2, the new 380s are basically allowing a cascade of trains around Scotrail. Dont think anything will leave Scotland. They are needed to increase capacity on some lines, and because of the new Airdrie to Bathgate line.

 

[jopsuk]

Aye, the newly opened Airdrie-Bathgate line, whilst electric,, is made up of:
An existing electric line from Glasgow to Airdrie
A newly rebuilt line
A short line that was operated by 158s.
The small number of diesel units released will be used by Scotrail to strengthen services and get rid of the loco-hauled services on the Fife Circle.
The 380s allow a cascade to take place AND are lengthening Glasgow area services.

Future electrification will release diesel units- when the Edinburgh-Glasgow (via Falkirk) mainline and the Dunblane/Alloa routes are done.

 

[MCR247]

Even if 158s were being released, why would they be sent to Wales?