|
Post by d7666 on Mar 25, 2024 21:38:12 GMT
In trawling other forums in search of 230/484 gen, it is alleged elsewhere TfW 230s are soon to get both a battery upgrade (to mitigate overheating problems) and diesel engine radiator upgrades (yes, you guessed it, to mitigate overheating problems)..............
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Mar 24, 2024 23:23:40 GMT
Right now I can't seem to find out which 484 is the alleged flood damaged unit due to conflicting wibble reporting on other forums. 484001. At least 484002 and 484005 have been in service over the past week, on different dates.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Mar 24, 2024 16:41:05 GMT
And for the a.n.other reborn D78 fleet iwobserver.co.uk/5-trains-have-become-4-and-swr-are-buying-wheels-from-a-scrapyard/Not going to comment on media reporting but there may be useful gen there. What is not mentioned there is one 484 is currently not working is actually stopped from flood damage; I'd take a guess and suggest if that 484 had good wheelsets then it will have been cannibalised by now, and it /might/ just be the one reported as "decomissioned". Right now I can't seem to find out which 484 is the alleged flood damaged unit due to conflicting wibble reporting on other forums. I had a plan - haha - for 2024 to do Greenford 230s and IOW 484s the same day in the first week of 230s public operation wheneve that turns out to be - looking like that receding over the horizon.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Mar 24, 2024 12:28:35 GMT
If the branch line is ever electrified would there be a need to install signalling immunisation for Central Line trains in the Greenford station area? Not really in my domain and probably others better placed to answer, but, if we are talking about the trains only, these already run into two 25 kV main line stations - Stratford and Ealing Broadway*** - and a possible 3rd location if include Central passing under GWML west of Old Oak Common counts. I would take a punt at this and say no issue as either the trains are already immunised or have no need for it. But this is a guess. And alomost certain to be tested. OTH I would not not like to say the same for Greenford LU signalling infrastructure that may require some local attention. Even then I would suspect LU would demand NR to deliver a 'no impact' solution. Ditto guess. Should 25 kV come ever happen it'll be a known unknown. *** and maybe the reverse is true at those locations at the present time with 92TS CLIP retraction to VVVF drives might need at least immunisation testing if not work; but that is a subject for another thread.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Mar 22, 2024 13:33:46 GMT
What is not clear is whether the fast charge technology will now be picked up by one of the major major railway works, and offer some sort of better battery train. Some are now struggling to fill order books! However new stuff is not always better - what passengers want most is reliability. Certainly the Merseyrail trial using a battery train extension to their route has proved to be nightmare so far. Greenford is THE trial fast charging. This trial is funded by DfT. DfT approves and controls all new main line train orders. DfT is unlikely to sanction a battery train scheme based on fast charging until its own funded trial is complete. So no-one else is going to order new trains with this technology until the trial is over, and is successful. The 12 mo trial period has just started; IMHO it will be at least 12 mo before any orders for anything like a squadron fleet of anything occur. It may well be another trial, using 230s, or something else, might happen, but we are a long long way yet from any sort of new train build that would succeed in filling a makers struggling order book. And you can be sure if someone made a small order for a small scale scheme, at least Litchurch Lane works - the only significant GB builder - will whinge as it always does that small orders are not worth it as they always do no matter who owned it after BREL i.e. ADTranz, Bombardier - and now while it is Alstom the same whinings continue to sound from Derby. Which then leaves only non GB based builders.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Mar 2, 2024 13:45:05 GMT
The standard symbol for mile is "mi". The standard symbol for metre is "m". By what standard ? That is, by what national or international standard ? mi for mile is a recommended not mandated symbol, and even then is from US systems of standards or any derived from that. It is true mi exists to avoid confusion with m (where m symbol for metre and for milli multiplier prefix is a standard) - but mi itself is not in those standards. Furthermore, mph, mpg, etc, continue as recommended symbols for miles per hour, miles per gallon etc. All over the interweb google results do say mi is a standard, but this is a plagiarised answer, never stating which standard, and repeating incorrect data everywhere does not make it correct; a few google responses do refer to the US recommendation, but these state recommendation, not a standard. A company or body may recommended use of mi not m, but that still don't make a standard recognised elsewhere. Anyway, the post that seems to have sparked this referred to 468 m : it must be pretty obvious this is 468 m(etre) not 468 mi(le) - if anyone thinks there is confusion there can they please advise what LU tunnel section is 468 miles long they are confused with, never mind a 468 mile section amid a larger length. Yet further, seeing as we have drifted into pedantry here, if you want to give advice on symbols for miles, you have to go back one step further and differentiate between statute miles and nautical miles, where the recommended (again not mandated) symbol is often M (i.e. capitalised), so there is the whole gamut of confusion with ISO M for Mega, etc. Sure, in context here it is pretty obvious statute miles were being talked about, but once once starts invoking standards, one has to be precise. To be clear, wherever any confusion might arise, mile really ought to be spelled in full.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Feb 15, 2024 16:37:40 GMT
No. It is better to devote resources to debating nonsense in any election run up; even local councilors have vested interests in who is in parliament and (in this case even though outside London) who the next London mayor is.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Feb 12, 2024 15:56:07 GMT
The Central Line planned 11-car articulated trains will feature only 12 bogies compared with the current 8-car trains with 16 bogies, so a 25% weight saving on bogies! That will provide quite a power saving. Now that the prototype new train is designed built and under test, would be interesting if we had any energy use/efficiency stats (akin to the "urban cycle" MPG test of a car) to enable a comparison with the current stocks ie if they were replaced with a "like for like" service pattern/timetable. Is it then reasonable to assume/believe that circa 80% of that net energy consumed by a train (allowing credits for regen energy) results in some form of heat generated? Certainly must know by now the energy consumption of the Air Con/cooling system (When running at max capacity) of the new train. All of this on energy consumption and/or savings and/or auxiliaries, and impact on trackside DC kit, will have been done by simulation before they even start cutting metal; indeed, much of it is probably in the requirements at ITT and specified to be in the suppliers tender response before tender won and order placed. It always appears to come as a surprise to many that we do not do things like order new trains - or new anythings - then figure out the problems. We don't build a train with air-con then wonder if it works. There are all sorts of international and national and UIC and EN standards etc, some legislated for, some recommended practice,to cover all this. The quote " .............. as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. ...... " seems to apply. LU knows the known knowns and the known unknowns; what /does/ happen is the unknown unknowns, and, truly, something is included in original scope and ITT, then the spreadsheet cell pushing mandarins cut into action and cut out or descope thence introduce so called "new" problems that would have been eliminated as a known known before they opened excel. One also has to remember a lot of all this is clouded in contractual secrecy. What often happens is an allegedly "new" unknown eventually appears to those not in the secret circle. This business about having to trim Picc. platform edges I will say 99.99% certainty was a project known - it is when it leaks out to a wider audience the speculation and adverse comment appears as if it was an unknown.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Feb 10, 2024 21:30:17 GMT
The issue appears to annually peak during the winter /cold spells. Often wondered if Sandite is a cause. Could get drawn in. You really do not want any of that in a commutator. Even a tiny bit is damaging. Failures out of phase with sandite season : accumulative fault, so lags i.e. sandite ~ 0ctober to December, does the damage but takes time to develop into faults => December onwards peaking in cold weather but not necessarily a result of it. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Feb 9, 2024 16:41:53 GMT
As some of the Greenford shuttle platforms are only long enough to accommodate 2 car units, presumably GWR will have no option but to remove the middle trailer car and then make whatever cabling and control adjustments are required to create a 2 car unit - ..................... Presumably GWR will want to arrange some test runs of the 2 car format unit based on Reading or Long Marston before anything actually moves to West Ealing? Some gen on this has been posted on another forum - on UK Rail Forums - that explains how GWR run 3car; a question was put there why 230001 now has "crew only" doors and the answer to this yields how they do 3car : 3car 230001 works then. Not that much different than what would be SDO anywhere else, except this case the end doors are permanently blocked to passengers .
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Feb 2, 2024 21:24:07 GMT
I think I have explained it with the word independent where I said there are enough independent parts for wear differential to occur. I don't know a clearer form of words .
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jan 31, 2024 21:02:22 GMT
It suggests that there is a friction element in the drive between the steps and the handrail. Is there a reason for such an arrangement? A safety measure, perhaps. Errrr not sure I follow that; there is friction in all drives - and none of it works unless there is. As I posted, ITYF the issue is differential wear.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jan 30, 2024 23:01:00 GMT
I too find a handrail running fast to be more common than one running slow. Getting the two synchronised is (as I understand it) one of the most complex parts of escalator design. In a new install, getting the design right for simple synchronisation is straightforward. What causes the different speeds is wear over time - the step mechanism is different to the handrail mechanism in that, while linked, there are enough independant parts within each to wear at different degradation rates; it is near impossible to fully re-synch once significant wear starts, which, obviously starts from day one. Getting the design right that takes into account differing wear rates is not so easy. None of this is aided by assets never ever get as much maintenance as they need. Since KGX fire, and general station refurbs, and any recent new stations even several years old, means there are proportionately more new installs than say 30 y ago, and the differential wear rates have not diverged enough yet, which is why we notice this less. However. The above is the engineering answer. An alternative urban suggestion is deliberate design to allow the handrail to run faster in some sort of alleged safety things about keeping user alert, and running it faster so the body CoG shifts forwards if gripping the rail, rather than backwards if slower. I am not convinced by any of this argument, and I think the suggestion, which you will find plastered all over the web, arises from people thinking too hard about it. IMHO Occams Razor applies : the simplest and less convoluted answer is probably the right one.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jan 30, 2024 19:55:34 GMT
Wouldn't passengers prefer a train with mild flats to a gap in the service? The civil engineer may disagree.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jan 29, 2024 23:42:38 GMT
I noticed today on north Overground trains that they were still saying that 'due to a short platform' the doors in the rear car will not open and passengers should move forwards inside the train - even though the doors did open! This was at Surrey Quays and Canada Water. To be fair however, at Canada Water only one pair of doors stayed closed, and the initial message saying that the doors would not open was more generic than about any particular set of doors. Maybe I'm 'late to the party' in noticing this, however I'm normally at the front of the train - where all doors do open! By coincidence I travelled the ELL route late last week, and, as it happened, in the rear car. The announcements I remember were precise, and as they were right I not remember which stations were which, since you tend to note where things are wrong, but where it said "front 4 cars only" they did not open on that coach, and where "rear doors not open" or whatever the exact words were, the front doors did open. Possibly - I don't know, I don't use 378s enough - at affected stations cars 1-4 have different announce to car 5 - at least main line stuff like 377s of the same generic build do that.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jan 29, 2024 22:16:20 GMT
Quoting from a.n.other forum
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jan 9, 2024 6:46:48 GMT
It really is a shame that there have been so many problems with these trains, the concept was truly inspirational. I can't help wondering, though, how their failure rate compares with other "new concept" trains such as the PEPs on Southern. But Pep DID prove the base concept; had they not there would been no 313s for Moorgate no 314s for Argyle line and no 507s for Mersey to name the three key - underground - lines that first drove the production demand for this type of stock. No prototyping is ever perfect - which is exactly the reason TO prototype. It applies to drastic rebuilds as much as new builds. The straight electric 484s seem to work large!y out of the box, the battery 230 is delayed so no-one can refer to failure rates; it is the diesel 230s that have been a problem and covid did not help. IMHO LNW never wanted the things in the first place - not even sure they want the Marston Va!e (or StAlbans) line they are non standard thorns in their otherwise standard operation . VivaRail going bust gave them a perfect get out, using whatever reason they wanted. September last year I got a trip round Birkenhead North EMU depot nominally as pArt of a 508 and 507 trip; all the 230s were on shed, their two passenger turns were one cancelled the other bus; I can't repeat what was said about them as the content contained colourful new expressions I had not heard before............
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jan 2, 2024 22:44:54 GMT
Maybe because a lot of R stock motor cars were originally Q stock cars. But is that a reason ? Surely the Q rebuilds were contemporaneous with R new builds, all one project to make up the cars into sets, so the same question would apply irrespective of where each car came from ? It was Q trailers converted to R driving motors (yes ?) ? As the Q trailers would have no tail light => fitting new tail lights to the rebuild's is actually no different to fitting tail lights to new builds. Anyway, it is more to the point what kind of thinking, on an electric train, on an electric railway, was going to fit 2 red tail lights but single fuse the pair, irrespective of what type of train they were. That way of thinking is the one that leads to an accident first and HM Inspector to recommend a change.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jan 2, 2024 21:10:34 GMT
jimbo did explain in the post above that the two cars were colloquially known, by a small minority, as C08 Stock. I don’t believe this was ever used in official circles. I was asking about "bespoke" and "eastern bloc" neither of which has been explained. One message from jimbo does refer to rebuild, not bespoke build, and nowhere does it say where, never mind eastern bloc, so it reads like it was something else. Especially as "the eastern bloc" ceased to exist from about ~1990 onwards which was way before the events of 2005. Therefore it all read like a different group of cars. Hence my question. So what was the "eastern bloc" connection and are we talking about rebuilds of 2005 damage - or builds or rebuilds of something else ?
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jan 2, 2024 21:05:43 GMT
R Stock were the last to use oil lamps, ending in 1983. The main reason was that the twin electric lights were single fused and if that blew there wouldn’t be any light. CO/CP and earlier Stock only a single electric light. Tube Stock were converted to double fuses much earlier therefore the use of oil lamps ended before. (I had great pleasure in always maintaining a lit oil lamp on the rear of my train while acting as Guard, much to the annoyance of my drivers!) previous thread, in which I gave much the same reply! use of oil handlamps Thanks. One has to wonder why if R stock twin red lights were single fused was a problem why they were not split ..... or indeed who designed things like that in the first place ..... but then again knowing how things are probably arrived at best not to delve deeper into that one as I suspect it came down to trying to save fourpence happenny per unit in 1949. I Didn't find the other thread ! As that dated from 2005 perhaps a re-run of it 19 years later might have been worth it ?
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jan 2, 2024 4:48:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jan 2, 2024 4:34:30 GMT
I recall how some C Stock cars were bespoke built in Eastern Europe! Nicknamed C85 stock! Please explain.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Dec 31, 2023 22:14:50 GMT
According to a usually well informed source posting on WNXX (and duly acknowledged) - expect train testing on the Greenford branch in second week in January *** Update; same source posted third week in Jan now, so, 3 weeks to go?
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Dec 29, 2023 17:47:55 GMT
shortages of critical running items as wheelsets, especially in the autumn where wheelsets are turned more frequently due to wheel damage, and as train fleets come due for wheelset replacement at Overhaul, many of the trains have small wheels so cannot run beyond wheel scrapping size and the trains have to be taken out of service, Enter stage left a Jubilee RAT.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Dec 29, 2023 17:39:00 GMT
In my mind, a "stalled" train is one off the juice, another word for the situation being "gapped". How does a diesel powered Chiltern train get stalled? A stalled train, in railway vernacular, LU railway vernacular yes. BR/NR main line no. Since the immediate question was about a (main line) Chiltern train, a perfectly valid question to ask. Informally AIUI on main line away from LU a stalled train means one that has slipped to a stand or can not move off from standing start due to to poor adhesion but not other use, such as a gapped train, or any of the many other causes. And, I am not only saying that from my own view of it, but a Chiltern driver I know said this is something that is supposed to be imparted in their general training that "stalled" has different meaning on LU infrastructure. Not sure where the LU term came from, or why LU has to be different. Is it an imported north American terms like signal "cabin" on LU but "box" to the rest of the country ? Digressing a bit, but in the same sort of failure scenario, another term with different meaning is "blocking back". I have often heard on LU "blocking back" when a train has "stalled" and there are a number of trains queued behind it. In main line terminology 'blocking back' has a totally totally different meaning under BR Absolute Block (and equivalent signalling block) regulations - and I am not going into it here save to say it has nothing whatsoever to do with queued trains.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Dec 22, 2023 19:08:10 GMT
The sleeper was diverted via the DC lines at least once, with a Diesel on the front to Watford Junction. With the benefit of hindsight, which is always 20:20 vision, I do wish I had done one of those diversions. Eons ago, there was IIRC a Sunday morning when a couple of day trains took the route in the Down direction, 47 hauled. Do rue not doing one of those. Ohh to have a Tardis, but then again if we did, there would be a lot of other things to go for. SEG did try and get a 73 over the route, but it was like trying to get through a Swiss cheese by existing tunnels only. Most of it was practical in most places, but however we looked at it, all of it was not possible everywhere, and one mitigation to overcome one blocking point merely created another one elsewhere. For example, 73 on electric on a 4TC possible, 8TC not, led to run on diesel, but that insufficient power for the Primrose Hill DC tunnel grades even on a 4TC; then 2x73 too long; then the SEG trick of split the train (i.e. 73+TC + TC+73 in 2 portions) as we did on the DEMU over tracks still left other problems which I forget what it was; then there were droplight clearance issues (which no-one was bothered about when a Cig went to Watford but seemed to bother them with a TC; and then the 73 on diesel can't heat the train came up - which has the more important issue of float battery charge and after 30 mins lose things like AWS and taillights on the TC. And so on.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Dec 22, 2023 17:28:54 GMT
I've never heard the Tyneside Metro-Cammell stock referred to as 'tram-derived' before. I suspect that comes down to what one determines is a tram and what is not. These cars are based on the German Stadtbahnwagen type B design, which in practice as utilised by different operators in different towns in different countries can be found on metro or tram or mixed networks. It is not worth trying to literally translate the term Stadtbahnwagen either as it will not yield anything meaningful; the common equivalent term is "light rail car" - which you won't get from a literal translation. The two other systems I have travelled with similar cars are the Frankfurt U-bahn (Class U2 cars), and the San Diego "trolley" Blue line (the original 1980s cars). Trainspotters see the term U-bahn => Frankfurt is a Metro. San Diego street running => tram (= trolley in Americanese). Yet they are the same vehicles with local customisations. I do not think it is wholly wrong to refer to the Tyne Metro Cammell cars as tram derived just someone looking at them from another view.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Dec 22, 2023 16:41:11 GMT
I suppose these days a class 73 could be used for main line haulage over the DC to Euston, or a class 92? No and no. The traction power supply is incapable of such loads.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Dec 20, 2023 18:43:37 GMT
What is the policy re arm rests on the 92 stock? I happened to move to London in early 1994 and the Central was my local line then. I recall these sets were introduced with arm rests, but then they were removed a couple of years later. Meanwhile 96 stock and subsequent stock like S have them. What was the reason for removing them on the 92 stock and not putting them back at the refurb when other lines appear to consistently have them? They suffered from vandalism at an early stage, when it was found vandals could break broke them easily under little deliberately applied tension.
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Dec 18, 2023 16:16:14 GMT
When one considers the Piccadilly tube stock was £1500m at press release at time of order announcement, £250m is not a lot compared with what is actually needed, for which there is none, like Picc resignalling, killing 72TS, resignalling Bakerloo, and even some new battery locos that are not going to go on forever, and never mind track, and lifts, and stations, and escalators. And, as it is pan TFL funding, not just UndergrounD / Overground, spend on non railway stuff (if they must).
|
|