Unpopular opinions

[MattRobinson]

• GWR wasn't the most amazing pre-grouping/grouping railway company ever, and their engines are less interesting than many other companies' stock.
• However, broad gauge would have allowed wider trains and faster running and so should have been adopted.
• There should have been a plan for the building of the railways rather than just letting the companies build lines willy-nilly.

 

[fgwrich]

Ok, goingback to potentially unpopular opinions - The HST is a better train with MTU Engines in. Afterall, they are extending the life of what has got to be the best product out of the BR Workshops, and give or take, i think the MTU Engine sounds much more interesting than the Valentas where in there later years of life, were maintenance thirsty, coolant thirsty, oil thirsty, and shall we say, not the best for Emissions. And afterall, most of the screaming sounds came from the Turbos. So give it time, and the MTUs will sound even more beastier! (I liked them from the Start, they just have that Diesel Hydraulic sound which i love!)

Give them a few years and they'll be as noisy, screamy as the DB Rabbits!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyEAtzQX0Hk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NituZArJec0&feature=fvwrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPeyIpCRN0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwTYNAHTufE&feature=related

 

[David]

Good thinking about DEMUs - can a 172 be converted easily?

I asked a similar question about 185s on another forum a while back and the answer was no. Because of the mechanical/hydraulic* transmission it would be just as cost effective to get a new build EMU. Basically, each carriage would need to be completely gutted so your starting from just the body shell again.

* Delete as applicable for each DMMU class.

 

[Schnellzug]

Ok, goingback to potentially unpopular opinions - The HST is a better train with MTU Engines in. Afterall, they are extending the life of what has got to be the best product out of the BR Workshops, and give or take, i think the MTU Engine sounds much more interesting than the Valentas where in there later years of life, were maintenance thirsty, coolant thirsty, oil thirsty, and shall we say, not the best for Emissions. And afterall, most of the screaming sounds came from the Turbos. So give it time, and the MTUs will sound even more beastier! (I liked them from the Start, they just have that Diesel Hydraulic sound which i love!)

Give them a few years and they'll be as noisy, screamy as the DB Rabbits!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyEAtzQX0Hk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NituZArJec0&feature=fvwrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPeyIpCRN0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwTYNAHTufE&feature=related

Of course, they're the older 12V956 engine with the loud turbos; the 12V4000 ones are a bit quieter, but they are good illustrations of the German design philosophy, aren't they, and the kind of power/weight ratio you can get from diesel-hydraulics. They're rated, I think, at about 2700 hp, and weight about 80 tonnes. Compare that with a 47 or 50 at about 120 t for the same output.

Perhaps Swindon was right. How's that for an unpopular opinion?

 

[Smudger105e]

Compare that with a 47 or 50 at about 120 t for the same output.

But 47's and 50's were not products of the 21st Century...

 

[Schnellzug]

But 47's and 50's were not products of the 21st Century...

Neither were they, they were intoduced about 1968.

 

[87015]

DB218s (yes, the "loud" ones) are rubbish and probably the most overrated locos in Europe...

 

[SprinterMan]

Of course, they're the older 12V956 engine with the loud turbos; the 12V4000 ones are a bit quieter, but they are good illustrations of the German design philosophy, aren't they, and the kind of power/weight ratio you can get from diesel-hydraulics. They're rated, I think, at about 2700 hp, and weight about 80 tonnes. Compare that with a 47 or 50 at about 120 t for the same output.

Perhaps Swindon was right. How's that for an unpopular opinion?

If Swindon were right, I wonder if the 52s would still be going today instead of the 47s. A DRS Compass livered 52 doing the summer Great Yarmouth drag would be something to behold. :P

Adam

 

[tbtc]

I asked a similar question about 185s on another forum a while back and the answer was no. Because of the mechanical/hydraulic* transmission it would be just as cost effective to get a new build EMU. Basically, each carriage would need to be completely gutted so your starting from just the body shell again.

* Delete as applicable for each DMMU class.

Cheers David
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If Swindon were right, I wonder if the 52s would still be going today instead of the 47s. A DRS Compass livered 52 doing the summer Great Yarmouth drag would be something to behold. :P

Adam

Nah, we'd all be bored of 52s instead

 

[NightStar]

GidDay, I do want to apologize for my rant yesterday. Some of the ideas I have spoken of would truly be madness.

Now about all of this dmu talk. Would it not be better to use coaching stock and convential diesels or electrics? I understand that if one of the two unit DMU sets has issues that it can side line the whole consist? With coaching stock all you need to do is either replace the power unit, or add a another power unit to the point for traction power while the unit with a main engine problem, or traction motor problem could supply all of the HEP for the coaches. If a car has problems it could be setout and the train continue on its way. I realize I do not understand a whole lot about dmu operations. Here in the US we use conventional cars and GE diesels on our passenger trains. Probably the biggest advantage I see would be in the ability to add or subtract cars from a consist depending on demand. I understand that the dmu consist are stuck in fixed formations correct?

Robert

 

[MattRobinson]

The post above mine was asking about loco hauled stock, but this has since been edited out of it. Here is my original response, but I find it disappointing that as soon as I answered, the original post was deleted.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd also like to go back to the days of predominantly loco hauled stock, but doing so would require hiring a hell of a lot of people for shunting duties. When you have to run around stock, you're likely to not want that controlled from a signal box, which is understandable. You'd therefore need someone to change the points, couple/uncouple the train, etc. Which really would require a secondman (the driver could do it, but it would generally be a lot of faffing about, or the guard could do it, but he has other responsibilities).

A secondman's duties on a diesel are basically the same as a fireman's duties on a steam locomotive, but without tending to the boiler. Therefore, they don't have a great deal to do, so companies don't like to employ them...

Either that, or employ a shunter for every place that locos need to be attached or detached?

 

[fgwrich]

I'd also like to go back to the days of predominantly loco hauled stock, but doing so would require hiring a hell of a lot of people for shunting duties. When you have to run around stock, you're likely to not want that controlled from a signal box, which is understandable. You'd therefore need someone to change the points, couple/uncouple the train, etc. Which really would require a secondman (the driver could do it, but it would generally be a lot of faffing about, or the guard could do it, but he has other responsibilities).

A secondman's duties on a diesel are basically the same as a fireman's duties on a steam locomotive, but without tending to the boiler. Therefore, they don't have a great deal to do, so companies don't like to employ them...

Either that, or employ a shunter for every place that locos need to be attached or detached?

Or just do as the germans do, and build modern loco hauled stock with driving trailers / similar set up to the DBSOs.

 

[Schnellzug]

Or just do as the germans do, and build modern loco hauled stock with driving trailers / similar set up to the DBSOs.

I don't know if there's any technical reason why they couldn't fit locos with MU style couplers that could just be coupled and uncoupled just the same as with a unit, is there? The 57/3s seem to be sort of half and half, they have those Stauffenberg couplers but they also have the air pipes and ETS cables. Couldn't those be incorporated in the coupling as well? Then it need take no longer than coupling an MU.

 

[MattRobinson]

But the point the OP was making was about lengthening/ shortening stock formations dependant upon the train, as per in steam days. I agree though, the German way of doing it makes a lot of sense.

Another unpopular opinion: maybe forum users shouldn't remove posts when someone answers their questions?

 

[fgwrich]

Shouldnt be too much of a problem to come up with - Alstoms reccent proposals to replace IEP included a redesigned and more up to date Class 180, with a specially designed loco capable of coupling up to, and working with the unit to allow drags away from the wires.

 

[Schnellzug]

**

There is actually a great deal to be said for hauled stock, particularly if they went back to the days of adding or subtracting carriages depending on demand, then train lengths could be adjusted for the time of year, anticipated demand and so on, without having to double the length of the train. The prejudice against them seems to be on grounds of performance- although acceleration of, say, a Taurus doesn't look too shabby - and that a loco takes up platform space; but nearly every station used by long distance trains was designed to accommodate 12 coaches + a loco easily, so that really shouldn't be too much of an issue. An MU has distributed power so there's redunancy in the event of a failure, true, but then, modern locos* are, like mdoern cars and Aircraft, very much more reliable than in days of old.

* well, perhaps with one or two exceptions *cough*GE*cough*

 

[NightStar]

My apologies to Adam for deleting the post to which you responded. I put my original post back so yours would fit in correctly into the discussion.

Regarding the dmu and emu units. Is there not a collection of older units that could be de-motored and turned into loco hauled coaching stock? Here in the US in the 1950's, the Budd company built the RDC for branch line duties, with the intention of offering railroads a affordable, small, self contained unit that could work the branch lines. The self propelled cars suffered from continual mechanical problems and the idea ultimately failed. However a lot of these cars are now used with no engines, or traction systems as conventional diesel hauled coaches on some tourist lines, and even on certain commuter lines today. Maybe old dmu/emu stock could be fitted for diesel service in a similar fashion? Also a new Class 73 type electro/diesel certainly looks attractive, but as a tri mode unit. One that can run from catenary, third rail, and diesel power.

Robert

 

[DXMachina]

Also a new Class 73 type electro/diesel certainly looks attractive, but as a tri mode unit. One that can run from catenary, third rail, and diesel power.

Robert

The only current locomotive (92) to have 3rd rail + 25kv is HUGE. If its size is necessary to accommodate the equipment, how can all that plus a diesel engine big enough to be useful be fitted on one chassis?

 

[LE Greys]

OK, a few 'unpopular opinions' from the head of Greys' Group (Trains)

• Fares are not too complicated, on the contrary, they should be made even more so, since it would guarantee that everybody gets the best deal
• The most important thing about a passenger train is seating capacity - comfort, catering, toilets, luggage space and lining seats up with windows simply detracts from trying to get as many bums on seats as possible and thus making a lot of money
• The people who travel on trains are customers, just like those who go into Tesco's
• Enthusiasts know nothing about the modern railway
• Passenger focus groups are for whingers
• We can pay our staff what we see as fair
• Booking offices are not necessary, only luddites don't book on-line

Can I have the East Coast franchise now, please?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The only current locomotive (92) to have 3rd rail + 25kv is HUGE. If its size is necessary to accommodate the equipment, how can all that plus a diesel engine big enough to be useful be fitted on one chassis?

Returning to the world of the sane, is all that space really used? How much is taken up by the equipment necessary for them to run in France? Still, I reckon a modernised version of the design without any D.C. equipment could be equipped with a diesel engine (say an MTU 12V for instance) and a generator and it would make a decent electro-diesel freight engine.

 

[NightStar]

The class 92 units are considered modern by most of us, but lets not forget that the class 92 units are 1990's technology. They were designed for use in the channel tunnel for both the ill-fated Nightstar, and for freight workings which they are mostly used for now. Since these units are designed to work in two countries, and on multiple signaling systems, as well as setup for ETS for the Nightstar cars. Its no wonder these units are as large as they are. I remember reading somewhere that the transformers are the largest and heaviest part of the 92? For a Britain only electro/diesel certainly some of the systems could be eliminated, or down sized to allow for a slightly smaller body. What is the largest passenger unit that is allowed through out most of the railway network?

Robert

 

[LE Greys]

The class 92 units are considered modern by most of us, but lets not forget that the class 92 units are 1990's technology. They were designed for use in the channel tunnel for both the ill-fated Nightstar, and for freight workings which they are mostly used for now. Since these units are designed to work in two countries, and on multiple signaling systems, as well as setup for ETS for the Nightstar cars. Its no wonder these units are as large as they are. I remember reading somewhere that the transformers are the largest and heaviest part of the 92? For a Britain only electro/diesel certainly some of the systems could be eliminated, or down sized to allow for a slightly smaller body. What is the largest passenger unit that is allowed through out most of the railway network?

Robert

Size, either a Deltic or a Peak, they've been all over on tours. Axle load, probably a King (R/A 10), or a 67 for modern traction (R/A 8).

 

[NightStar]

Well then. It would seem like a possbility to build a new class of electro diesel units for passenger service? Considering the possibilities of using newer modern components we have available today, I would think a lighter unit would not be out of the question? The 92 is monster for sure. But a smaller cousin would not be out of the realm of reality.

Robert

 

[Schnellzug]

The 92 was basically designed by a committee, wasn't it, for the sleeper service (now what was it called again...) that turned out in the end to provide a good bargain for VIA Rail Canada. :roll: Plus it used the technology that was cutting edge at the time, but now as they can get quad voltage (1.5 + 3 kv dc and 15 + 25 kv ac) in the Bombardier TRAXX and Siemens ES64, I'm sure the elctrical side needn't be impossible to sort out.

 

[Mike99]

450s are ideal units for the Waterloo - Portsmouth service.

That really made me laugh, I agree but the whinging that goes on fron the no450 group!!!

 

[Hydro]

The only current locomotive (92) to have 3rd rail + 25kv is HUGE. If its size is necessary to accommodate the equipment, how can all that plus a diesel engine big enough to be useful be fitted on one chassis?

It's so big because all the equipment is duplicated to conform to Channel Tunnel operating regulations.

 

[HSTEd]

Also because having all that weight is not really a disadvantage at the low speeds it operates at.
It gives it tractive effort a Class 90 could only dream of.

 

[fgwrich]

Re the 450s on the Portsmouth & Poole services - Perhaps there would be less winging if they were as per the original Class 450/5 order (Which would have seen 5 Car 450s brought into use with the 350/1 interior)? Still, they could always convert some to suit a more longer distance service, although im sure they won't.....

Unpopular Opinions - Sir Roy Mc Numpty, Hitachi & the IEP Contract. And National Express are rubbish, with virtually one of the only ways to desribe them by is a leach - well, the last ones more of my opinion / very low opinion of the New National Express (Post Midland Mainline).

 

[Schnellzug]

Unpopular Opinions - National Express are rubbish, with virtually one of the only ways to desribe them by is a leach - well, the last ones more of my opinion / very low opinion of the New National Express (Post Midland Mainline).

Unpopular opinions? Only with NX, i suspect.

 

[SprinterMan]

A 395 is nothing more than a jumped up 323 and should not be marvelled at. 375s with 2+2 seating are far better than them.

Adam

 

[RobShipway]

Even though they have no toilets, the class 455's are more comfortable on the Waterloo - Reading route than class 458 due to the superior quality of the mk3 coach being used within this train.