Networker Classic

Status
Not open for further replies.

The 375 King

Member
Joined
31 May 2012
Messages
49
Some time ago a southern slam door unit was turned into a networker classic by taking all of its eqipment off and installing it on new bodies. Is it possible to do this with 'PEP' stock as the trains are not very nice to use these days but there is, with some work, many years left in the equipment, and would give us new trains on the cheap.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,332
The Networker classic was a VEP? chassis with a new body bolted on top.

As for doing the PEP, they are an integral body so not really viable, it could be done but would be VERY expensive.
 

317666

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2009
Messages
1,542
Location
Ely
I believe the Networker Classic was a CIG chassis. I think it would be possible to give a PEP the same treatment, but it would be cheaper and less hassle to refurbish them with new seats, air conditioning and the like.

And besides, I'm perfectly happy with how they are now, but I think I'm in the minority :lol:
 

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
Some time ago a southern slam door unit was turned into a networker classic by taking all of its eqipment off and installing it on new bodies. Is it possible to do this with 'PEP' stock as the trains are not very nice to use these days but there is, with some work, many years left in the equipment, and would give us new trains on the cheap.
Why would you want to do this? The equipment on the "PEP" family is pretty much the oldest and least reliable on the network (especially DC versions). If anything it might be better to fit new equipment to the existing bodywork as it is the lightest still in service and therefore needs less power etc to run.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
Some time ago a southern slam door unit was turned into a networker classic by taking all of its eqipment off and installing it on new bodies. Is it possible to do this with 'PEP' stock as the trains are not very nice to use these days but there is, with some work, many years left in the equipment, and would give us new trains on the cheap.
It was very definitely just a new bodyshell bolted on to the old 'Slammer' chassis, intended as a cheaper option than replacement stock. I'd have to agree though that the 'PEP' stock is pretty life expired, or certainly appears to be.
 

zn1

Member
Joined
3 Sep 2011
Messages
428
the bodies on the 507,508,313,314,315 are all sound, 313 suffers from problems with DC because they are not supposed to be on DC for long periods, they were originally built in 1976 for short bursts along the moorgate tunnels. when the 1st batch of the squadron moved over to the new lines extra shoes were added due to the gaps and their time on DC was massively extended. for a fleet thats 36 years old 507,508 & 313 are all doing pretty good for their ages, I fancy the production peps will have last alot longer than the newer kit going around today.
 

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
the bodies on the 507,508,313,314,315 are all sound, 313 suffers from problems with DC because they are not supposed to be on DC for long periods, they were originally built in 1976 for short bursts along the moorgate tunnels. when the 1st batch of the squadron moved over to the new lines extra shoes were added due to the gaps and their time on DC was massively extended. for a fleet thats 36 years old 507,508 & 313 are all doing pretty good for their ages, I fancy the production peps will have last alot longer than the newer kit going around today.
The 313s transform and rectify AC to DC and then feed the DC to a normal DC camshaft control equipment and then to the motors. If running off DC the transformer is isolated and DC goes straight into the control equipment

The DC equipment is in use when powering from AC or DC. So where does the idea that 313s are only supposed to be used on DC for a short while come from?

The 314s and 315s are different.
 

SprinterMan

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2010
Messages
2,340
Location
Hertford
The 313s transform and rectify AC to DC and then feed the DC to a normal DC camshaft control equipment and then to the motors. If running off DC the transformer is isolated and DC goes straight into the control equipment

The DC equipment is in use when powering from AC or DC. So where does the idea that 313s are only supposed to be used on DC for a short while come from?

The 314s and 315s are different.
They are fitted with less shoegear than 507s/508s, so could get stuck on some dead sections.

Adam :D
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
I've never been quite sure about this idea. How much of the original vehicle was left? Did it retain the entire underframe or just part of it? Were the bogies replaced? It's very much in the Southern's 'recycling' tradition, Bulleid did the same to many Maunsell-era 4-SUBs, themselves modified from Urie loco-hauled stock. Still, I think this particular idea was taking it a bit too far. Recyling equipment in the 442s is fine, but ripping the body of a 1950s coach and replacing it with a modern body designed for integral construction was a mistake. Rebuilding the PEP-based stock, or indeed the MkIII-based stock such as the 455s, would probably be more practical if we simply replaced the electrical equipment and refitted them internally, as several others have suggested.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,760
I've never been quite sure about this idea. How much of the original vehicle was left? Did it retain the entire underframe or just part of it? Were the bogies replaced? It's very much in the Southern's 'recycling' tradition, Bulleid did the same to many Maunsell-era 4-SUBs, themselves modified from Urie loco-hauled stock. Still, I think this particular idea was taking it a bit too far. Recyling equipment in the 442s is fine, but ripping the body of a 1950s coach and replacing it with a modern body designed for integral construction was a mistake. Rebuilding the PEP-based stock, or indeed the MkIII-based stock such as the 455s, would probably be more practical if we simply replaced the electrical equipment and refitted them internally, as several others have suggested.
Judging by the projected price of the rebuild I wold imagine the entire underframe was retained.
And as to the age of teh vehicles when they would be scrapped (atleast 15 years after the rebuild), they would probably still be younger than the stock that they were planning to replace with the money they saved by not buying new stock to replace the Mark 1 units. (The units with the pre frame underframes that were still around in the late 80s/early 90s).

The old fashioned electrical equipment tends to be highly reliable simply because its enormously overbuilt, being mostly solid blocks of metal. Although not quite to the same extent as the systems from the Mark 1 Southern units.
As I understand it this project also would have provided dual voltage capability on atleast some of the units, apparently by simple expedient of fitting a transformer to one of the trailer vehicles in each set and plugging it into the 750V bus through some rectifiers.
 

Smudger105e

Member
Joined
5 Jan 2010
Messages
1,012
Location
N 52° 53.492 W 001° 15.493
As I understand it this project also would have provided dual voltage capability on atleast some of the units, apparently by simple expedient of fitting a transformer to one of the trailer vehicles in each set and plugging it into the 750V bus through some rectifiers.
Would have been interesting to see how it was proposed to fit a pantograph to the 'long' trailer of a VEP or CIG!!
 

Robbies

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
1,997
Location
Berkshire
I've never been quite sure about this idea. How much of the original vehicle was left? Did it retain the entire underframe or just part of it? Were the bogies replaced? It's very much in the Southern's 'recycling' tradition, Bulleid did the same to many Maunsell-era 4-SUBs, themselves modified from Urie loco-hauled stock. Still, I think this particular idea was taking it a bit too far. Recyling equipment in the 442s is fine, but ripping the body of a 1950s coach and replacing it with a modern body designed for integral construction was a mistake. Rebuilding the PEP-based stock, or indeed the MkIII-based stock such as the 455s, would probably be more practical if we simply replaced the electrical equipment and refitted them internally, as several others have suggested.
I know this is going to sound a weird idea, but for me the best trains to salvage are going to be the class 313's as there are dual voltage. My idea would be to put on them a body similar in style the class 450's and them have them do a Oxford to Brighton service via Wokingham, Guildford and Gatwick.
 
Last edited:

electra27000

Member
Joined
17 Jun 2011
Messages
111
Location
Low Moor
One proposal was to rebody the class 312s, I seem to recall, using them on peak hour workings out of Fenchurch Street. The plan was dropped when the class 357/2 fleet was ordered instead.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
All very interesting, thanks for the information. I seem to remember an article about the new units coming in around 2002, and it seems that the remaining CIGs were managing about 100,000 miles per casualty, while the 375s were closer to 20,000, so it seems there was a sound basis to the idea. I'm still not so sure about the safety of non-integral construction vehicles, wasn't there an incident involving a Pacer at around that time?
 

Smudger105e

Member
Joined
5 Jan 2010
Messages
1,012
Location
N 52° 53.492 W 001° 15.493
...it seems that the remaining CIGs were managing about 100,000 miles per casualty...
Another problem with the '63 stock (and its brethren the '25, '36, '51, '57 and '66 stocks) is that the (ancient) method of speed control is the use of huge resistors monted underneath (they weigh 1/4 tonne each and there are two of them!). They can be seen clearly to the right of the motor coach underslung eqipment on a CIG/BIG/VEP.

Generating heat is not an efficient way of reducing power to the traction motors, and weak fielding is also not the best way to increase the speed. Thyristor control is a better way of doing it...
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,760
Another problem with the '63 stock (and its brethren the '25, '36, '51, '57 and '66 stocks) is that the (ancient) method of speed control is the use of huge resistors monted underneath (they weigh 1/4 tonne each and there are two of them!). They can be seen clearly to the right of the motor coach underslung eqipment on a CIG/BIG/VEP.

Generating heat is not an efficient way of reducing power to the traction motors, and weak fielding is also not the best way to increase the speed. Thyristor control is a better way of doing it...
Yes, it is not the most efficient way of doing it... it is however extremely reliable and well proven.

Reliability is extremely important on such an intensively used railway.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
24,939
Location
Yorks
huge resistors monted underneath (they weigh 1/4 tonne each and there are two of them!). They can be seen clearly to the right of the motor coach underslung eqipment on a CIG/BIG/VEP.
Was that the big box like thing with the grille on the front ?
 

Smudger105e

Member
Joined
5 Jan 2010
Messages
1,012
Location
N 52° 53.492 W 001° 15.493
Was that the big box like thing with the grille on the front ?
If you look at the motor coaach of a CIG/VEP, with the guarlds compartment to your left, the equipment underneath is (from left to right) equipment link (in it's little open fronted shroud), line contactors (vented equipment case, these go 'pop' when power is switched off, the noise is that of the electricity breaking), the a couple of curved covers which contain one reverser, PGS and RGS group switches, then the square box which is the camshaft, the a small curved box which is the second reverser, then two big metal frames containing what look like big flat horizontal springs. These are the start resistance grids.

I will try to find a photo when I get home, too many sites are restricted here at work...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top