|
Post by grahamhewett on May 20, 2013 22:11:12 GMT
christopher125 - alas, the deal has been "in the process of being signed off" for nearly a year now; first, financial close was scheduled for last autumn, then by the New Year, then in March. Ford's First Law - Beware any deadline expressed in terms of the seasons - applies. DfT has not explained why the close has been delayed but TLK franchise bidders suspect that the contractual structure has made it difficult for Siemens to raise the finance. GH
|
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on May 21, 2013 7:23:37 GMT
Servus; Latin for a slave (2nd declension masculine, goes like dominus). Latin also has Serva (1st declension, feminine, goes like mensa) a female slave. Also the formally jocular greeting of one Austro-Hungarian imperial official when addressing a colleague (and still used facetiously by waiters in country restaurants...) G Servus Oida! .....A standard informal greeting between friends and colleagues in Vienna even now...Used it myself many times but didn't know how it arose.Out in Tyrol they tend to use more familiar language which discomfits even other Austrians. The best,though,is the sarcastic Viennese Kaffehaus Ober who says to a difficult lady customer "Kuess die Haendchen,Gnaedigste Frau" (I kiss your little hand,most gracious Lady.....) Dontcha love thread-drift!?
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on May 21, 2013 9:33:05 GMT
christopher125 - alas, the deal has been "in the process of being signed off" for nearly a year now; first, financial close was scheduled for last autumn, then by the New Year, then in March. Ford's First Law - Beware any deadline expressed in terms of the seasons - applies. DfT has not explained why the close has been delayed but TLK franchise bidders suspect that the contractual structure has made it difficult for Siemens to raise the finance. GH The order that christopher125 is talking about is NOT the Thameslink order, but the potential order being put together by Southern for units additional to class 377/6 and 377/7 recently ordered and under construction. There would cover the lack of cascade of units from Thameslink due to delays. This is explained in the link which was given.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on May 21, 2013 11:10:25 GMT
Sorry, my mistake (couldn't get the link to work, alas) - what is not clear is that if TLK has to be run by a mixture of 319s and 377s whether it will meet the performance targets which would seem to require stock with, probably, 3 wide doors per side, and (b) what the knock-on effect will be on various planned cascades. This assumes that (some of ) the 319s are not released by the 377s because the new TLK spec will require the entire existing 319 fleet and the extra 377s. Otherwise, TLK opens with something less than the advertised frequency or the derivative cascades fail. Either way, I'm not clear how the extra 377s get you out of both jams.
GH
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on May 21, 2013 11:37:16 GMT
Sorry, my mistake (couldn't get the link to work, alas) - what is not clear is that if TLK has to be run by a mixture of 319s and 377s whether it will meet the performance targets which would seem to require stock with, probably, 3 wide doors per side, and (b) what the knock-on effect will be on various planned cascades. This assumes that (some of ) the 319s are not released by the 377s because the new TLK spec will require the entire existing 319 fleet and the extra 377s. Otherwise, TLK opens with something less than the advertised frequency or the derivative cascades fail. Either way, I'm not clear how the extra 377s get you out of both jams. GH Or the other option is that the final enhanced Thameslink timetable just has to wait for the new dedicated rolling stock and that the extra units (not necessarily 377s of course as the order is still in progress and the specification includes 110 mph running) will would instead replace the class 319s which would have been cascaded. The DfT press release only mentions that the new units 'could' initially be used on Thameslink services, before being cascaded to other recently electrified routes once the dedicated fleet arrives. I can see the extra units as being a backup, if the dedicated Thameslink fleet isn't ready in time. I've also seen no evidence that the Desiro City units would have more than the standard 2 doorways per side. The DfT documentation webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100203063430/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/thameslinkrollingstock/rollingstockhighlevespecif.pdf only states 16 doors per side of a 162 m train, which would equate to two doorways per coach.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on May 21, 2013 12:23:52 GMT
andypurk - indeed, what it boils down to is that if the new TLK fleet isn't ready in time, someone has to go short. It will be a huge embarrassment to DfT if that is TLK (but equally embarrassing if the Lancashire/Welsh valleys routes have to go without their electric stock.) Like you, I thought the Desiro units would have two sets of doors per side (and that this would make meeting dwell times tricky) but when I said so on this forum, I was (very rudely) told that I was talking nonsense and was wildly out of date, 3 pairs of wide doors were the thing. If DfT have revised the spec since they published the documentation (which is what I based my comments on) then it has been done away from the gaze not only of lay members of the public but also away from the gaze of prospective operators. Talk about open government... Unlike you, I have no faith in lawyers' ability or willingness to speed things up (after all, they are almost certainly working on daily rates). They have been at it into extra time now for the best part of a year without any sign of progress. DfT have been silent on why the deal is stalling but when I last reviewed the documentation for a bidder (not Siemens), two particular areas seemed to be difficult: the legal firewall preventing operators sueing manufacturers for poor designs which meant that they (the operators) couldn't meet the performance spec, was inadequate; and the option that operators had whereby they could swap the train maintainer from the manufacturer to some third party, was financially very unattractive - most manufacturers hope to make their major profits on maintenance. GH
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on May 21, 2013 17:01:57 GMT
@ Unlike you, I have no faith in lawyers' ability or willingness to speed things up (after all, they are almost certainly working on daily rates). They have been at it into extra time now for the best part of a year without any sign of progress. DfT have been silent on why the deal is stalling but when I last reviewed the documentation for a bidder (not Siemens), two particular areas seemed to be difficult: the legal firewall preventing operators sueing manufacturers for poor designs which meant that they (the operators) couldn't meet the performance spec, was inadequate; and the option that operators had whereby they could swap the train maintainer from the manufacturer to some third party, was financially very unattractive - most manufacturers hope to make their major profits on maintenance. GH Where do you get the idea that I have faith in lawyers? You really must start trying to properly read and comprehend what is being talked about, rather than making personal comments about what YOU think that other people believe. The point where I entered this part of the thread, was when the topic was the Southern / DfT prospective order for extra units to cover potential late running in the delivery and commissioning of the Siemens Thameslink stock. I made no comments AT ALL about the cause of the delay. Indeed, if the order was signed off in the next six months, there would still be plenty of time for construction and commissioning of the whole fleet before the final 2018 deadline (revised from 2016 to keep the infrastructure costs down).
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on May 21, 2013 17:13:05 GMT
Like you, I thought the Desiro units would have two sets of doors per side (and that this would make meeting dwell times tricky) but when I said so on this forum, I was (very rudely) told that I was talking nonsense and was wildly out of date, 3 pairs of wide doors were the thing. If DfT have revised the spec since they published the documentation (which is what I based my comments on) then it has been done away from the gaze not only of lay members of the public but also away from the gaze of prospective operators. Talk about open government... If that was in the Crossrail thread, then that is a different order. The Thameslink and Crossrail stock will (most likely) be to different designs. Do you have any evidence that the Desiro City UK units for Thameslink will have three doors, as opposed to the class 345 Crossrail units being procured at the moment?
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on May 21, 2013 18:06:21 GMT
No - none at all other than what was said there, where it was made plain (for example in specific references there to the need for 3 sets of doors to achieve the prescribed dwell times) that it was the TLK stock that was being referred to, although the thread was, as you say about the cl345 - I had made the mistake of making an aside comment relating the TLK builds and the cl 345). Like you, I based my comments the published documentation which assumed 2 doors per side; I was then firmly told that that was out of date and the project had moved on since 2010. But no, there is no public evidence to support that
GH
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,222
|
Post by rincew1nd on May 21, 2013 18:15:48 GMT
Please can we return to discussing Pacers on the GOBLIN.
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on May 21, 2013 19:43:38 GMT
Hear hear!
It's not clear where the aforementioned Pacers will come from. In theory, the cascades set off by the unmentionable major project in central London ought to release Pacers "at the bottom of the pile" but the continuing shortage of half-decent DMUs for strengthening the former RR AlphaLine services such as Cardiff-Nottingham or Brum-Peterborough seems to mean that the Pacers will get mopped up in small numbers all over the place.
There is also the possibility that the rumour/threat of Pacers is merely a DfT ploy in the dance over who pays for electrification.
GH
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,358
|
Post by Chris M on May 21, 2013 21:40:11 GMT
Logic[1] would suggest that any units used to enhance capacity on the Goblin should be compatible with the existing 172/0s, at least for pushouts if not multiple working. Are the 144s compatible?
Looking at pictures, they both seem to use BSI couplers which suggests that mechanical compatibility shouldn't be an issue. But what about electrically? The 144s are sufficiently old that there is unlikely to be any sophisticated computerised TMS on them, but modern software can be very picky about what it talks to - would this be an issue with the 172s systems? If so how easy is it to isolate it and couple mechanically only?
[1]Yes, I know.
|
|
Fahad
In memoriam
Posts: 459
|
Post by Fahad on May 21, 2013 21:56:23 GMT
They do both indeed use BSI couplers. In an emergency, 14x units can couple to 17x units but the brakes will be isolated on the former, so speed will be restricted. This should suffice for pushouts. Multiple working is presently not possible due to the pins being in the wrong order, and I understand that there is a notice in the cab of 17x units reminding drivers of this. However, the pins in 14x units could be rearranged to allow coupling with 17x units. Class 15x Sprinters have a switch to select between the order of pins, so that they can be coupled to 14xs or 17xs, although not both at the same time. This could be retrofitted to 14x units allowing multiple working. I think that this would also allow trains to be formed mixing 14x, 15x, and 17x units! I would assume that if 17x TMSes have no issues with Sprinters, that they would be fine with Pacers If modifications are made to Pacer couplers, I'd hope that they also upgrade the capacity of the power bus, allowing 12-car working. Some 12-car Pacers could then be sent to the GW to supplement the HST fleet. This would hopefully shut the Reading commuters up about overcrowding
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,358
|
Post by Chris M on May 21, 2013 23:15:55 GMT
I dread to think what the ride quality would be like on a Pacer at 125mph Talking of multiple unit configurations, a few years I was at Newport to see what traction the rugby final in Cardiff brought. ATW were using some mark 2s top and tailed by Class 50s, FGW ran a service from Bristol formed of iirc a 143, two 153s, two 150s and a 158. It wasn't long after they'd taken over from Wessex Trains so every unit was in a different livery!
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,222
|
Post by rincew1nd on May 21, 2013 23:33:59 GMT
I dread to think what the ride quality would be like on a Pacer at 125mph The same as at 12.5mph, bloomin awful!
|
|
Fahad
In memoriam
Posts: 459
|
Post by Fahad on May 21, 2013 23:42:13 GMT
I'm sure some theme parks would sponsor research into this
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2013 1:57:29 GMT
And I wonder if a Pacer solution would be easier, quicker and simpler to implement than the proposals I put:
1) use a trailer car from spare 508s to insert in the 172/0 to make a 3-car unit; or 2) run the 508s with traction motors and third rail shoes temporarily removed as push-pull units with spare diesels with HEP/ETH - such as 47/4, 47/9, 57, 67 etc.
In particular, I wonder what the lead time would be to:
a) acquire 4 two-car pacers; b) modify the pin allocations to MU them with 172/0; and c) test and commission 3-car trains made up of 1 solo Pacer car with its non-cab end coupled to a 172/0.
As any of these solutions shout TEMPORARY, they have the advantage of keeping the pressure on D_fT to sort the silliness out.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,358
|
Post by Chris M on May 22, 2013 12:47:24 GMT
Is the bay at Gospel Oak long enough for a loco+stock option?
If it is, surely a couple of rakes of mk2+47s or 67s or maybe even 31s would be easier to acquire than waiting for some Pacers to be cascaded and modified? Better comfort too.
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on May 22, 2013 15:31:41 GMT
Is the bay at Gospel Oak long enough for a loco+stock option? If it is, surely a couple of rakes of mk2+47s or 67s or maybe even 31s would be easier to acquire than waiting for some Pacers to be cascaded and modified? Better comfort too. The bay was long enough when Silverlink ran a class 33+TC formation in the 1990s, due to a DMU shortage. However, unless such push-pull stock was used, there would be little capacity advantage. Top and tail operation takes a lot of space up with locos and there are not really any driving passenger coaches available (most spare driving coaches are DVTs with no passenger space) with suitable locos spare to go with them. I doubt a loco hauled train, even a short one, would be capable of keeping to the current timings either. A better use of loco haulage might be to release some spare DMU stock. Maybe Chiltern could be persuaded to accelerate introduction of loco hauled trains, to release some 3-car class 168s. After all, they have sufficient stock in hand to operate the future Marylebone - Oxford trains.
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,222
|
Post by rincew1nd on May 22, 2013 21:38:06 GMT
Top and tail operation takes a lot of space up with locos and there are not really any driving passenger coaches available (most spare driving coaches are DVTs with no passenger space) with suitable locos spare to go with them. What's happened to all the Mk2 DBSOs from Anglia that have now been replaced by the Mk3 DVTs?
|
|
|
Post by andypurk on May 23, 2013 0:24:17 GMT
What's happened to all the Mk2 DBSOs from Anglia that have now been replaced by the Mk3 DVTs? A combination of being converted for service stock (5 with Network Rail), stored at various locations (7 coaches) with the last of the surviving vehicles moved to Northern Ireland. However, as well as extensive refurbishment (last coaches withdrawn in summer 2006), these vehicles would need modification to work with any of the existing diesel locomotives available, as none of the TDM converted class 47/7 remain in mainline use.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2013 0:50:57 GMT
Is the bay at Gospel Oak long enough for a loco+stock option? If it is, surely a couple of rakes of mk2+47s or 67s or maybe even 31s would be easier to acquire than waiting for some Pacers to be cascaded and modified? Better comfort too. No, not without extension - which means moving points, signals, etc to the east - nae so cheap!! You can see from the satellite images how short is the platform. Posters with railway knowledge tell us that NR rules on terminal bays have changed which further restrict GO. I'm sure short-term exemptions can be negotiated. Latest discussion suggests 4-car sparkies, so a 67+508 combination would be consistent length-wise with that - if correct. (Surplus electric locos could substitute for the 67 until the cascades are done. I wouldn't be surprised to find the 315s cadscaded to the electrified GOBLIN after the 345s have been delivered to Crossrail for the Shenfield start-up.) Mk2 coaches would have far too long dwell times.
|
|