|
Post by br7mt on Apr 22, 2013 12:28:05 GMT
Dan, the thing I struggle to understand is that a trailer car is basically a metal tube with seats in it. Is the cost of isolating several pipes/cables and installing replacements to 92ts arrangements really that hard? The reprogramming of the ATO and on-board controllers to handle the different load characteristics (both electrical and physical) is a once-off exercise that can be applied to any number of trains as required (after 1000 mods, just another!). Door mechanisms, brakes, brake pipe connections - these are maintenance consumables. Surely no big deal? (I don't mean free, but a hell of a lot cheaper than having new jigs and tooling set up to do a short run of vehicle bodies and bogies). DVA, etc. These have been upgraded on old stock. What's the issue, really? A trailer car requires the least amount of new kit. Based on history, one could reasonably expect a further 15 years of service out of an adapted trailer - matching the rest of the stock. I've actually done a similar exercise to add two 67TS motor cars in the middle of a 4-car 72TS unit. Now I had to do loads of design modifications to brake system control just to make two very similar stock types compatible and to overcome the Motor-Trailer pair configuration inherent in 67 / 72TS design (effectively making the two Trailer cars unique Special Trailers). The PEA circuit also needed a lot of work because one set of vehicles had been through a refurbishment and modification programme and the others hadn't. That was for two stock types that share a common build platform and technology. 92TS is so different that the effort expended would just not be worth it. You would suddenly have two different stock types to manage and that always leads to increased costs. There would be all the additional spares to carry in stores (I don't know about Hainault, but I'm always told that Ruislip stores is full). To put it simply you would probably have to rip the guts out of the donor trailer car (I'm assuming 67TS ones at Eastleigh) and then put in something that is 92TS compatible. Even then it would be a massive bodge. Regards, Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Apr 20, 2013 21:16:48 GMT
It's very tricky with Central Line - any additional trains (new build) would need more signalling equipment for what is, essentially, an obsolete system. You might be able to swap ATO and ATP boxes around from middle cabs but you lose some flexibility doing that. Similarly a lot of the traction control equipment on 92TS is probably obsolete as well (GTO chopper control. DC motors) so getting hold of enough for new 92TS vehicles is unlikely.
Modifying different stock types to operate within a train of another stock type, unless they are of a similar age and build philosophy, is not worth the pain or cost.
Mind you, there will be some new ATP controllers built for future engineers vehicles, so its not beyond the bounds of possibility to provide enough signalling kit to fit in a new build.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Apr 19, 2013 11:37:46 GMT
It's a case of "I wouldn't start from here", hence my comment about them being entirely incompatible!
The changes required (not a definitive list, this is just a brain dump):
- New drawgear (bar and autocoupler); - Total rewire of all control systems including a significant design element(PEA, door control, PA, DVA, lighting, emergency power); - Replacement of air system and reconfiguration of brake control (72TS is a two pipe EP / air brake, 92TS is single pipe with regen and WSP); - Total interior refresh to vaguely match 92TS; - Reconfiguration of traction control to account for un-motored vehicles.
If you wanted it to become a motor car then you would end up replacing the bogies with the new Siemens type, addition of all the traction control equipment, re-design of the centre pivot mounting etc. You would also need to find someone who makes DC traction motors, not an easy thing now that AC motors are the norm.
It would probably be cheaper to buy new 92TS cars, but of course they would have a limited life of 12-17 years.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Apr 18, 2013 12:33:29 GMT
General Question related to the 92ts and possible cascades: how difficult would it be for a 72ts (Mk i or ii) trailer to be incorporated into 92ts trains? Would they be a liability, other than reducing performance? Is this a possible interim step towards meeting needs on the line? The two stock types are entirely incompatible. Regards, Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Apr 14, 2013 12:51:00 GMT
I don't think one solution has been chosen yet, it is all at the ideas stage before proposals are written.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Apr 13, 2013 14:47:40 GMT
I think the bigger challenge will be trying to find stabling space for the extra train sets on both lines, rather than deciding whether to clone, transfer or buy a new design.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Feb 20, 2013 19:36:14 GMT
You are right that once a section of line is switched over to TBTC then only TBTC fitted trains can operate on it amongst the passenger trains, as that is the system now providing protection. Non-fitted trains can be operated in a possession as the only train on the line, but without protection and under special procedures.
All the Battery Locos fitted with Central Line ATP have had TBTC fitted and can be used on the Jubilee Line. They will be signed off on the Northern but this is awaiting availability of resources / locos as the priority is to get the passenger fleet working. TRV will not be fitted with any more systems and records TBTC areas in a possession. AIT is going to be fitted with all the current and proposed systems (four plus tripcock), indeed it will be the prototype for integrating multiple ATP systems on one vehicle / train.
The 38TS is not scheduled to have TBTC fitted. One of the biggest challenges is generating a set of guideway data for the train based on its braking and acceleration characteristics. At the moment there is a set of data for Engineers Trains (BLs, SLs, Tampers etc.) and for 95 / 96TS (the AIT will conform with the latter for braking). To generate a new set of data costs into six figures for each computer section (five on the Jubilee, eight(?) on the Northern), which is a significant cost. It could be made to use the Engineers Trains one but that would mean restricting it to first / last train or cancelling several passenger trains to fit it in on an ATO railway. Then you have to factor in the cost of equipment and testing runs to prove the system. Not really viable.
I understand that the Heritage Fleet is included in the Bombardier contract for the sub-surface lines.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Jan 18, 2013 13:09:21 GMT
Whilst the train might well be able to operate, there is a question mark over whether people can get to London to travel on it.
Personally I hope it does run as I'm on the last departure from Moorgate to Earls Court!
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Jan 4, 2013 23:26:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Dec 29, 2012 19:38:08 GMT
I've read about the proposal for the Bakerloo Line taking over the Hayes branch, can't help but thinking the DLR taking it over would be a retrograde step. Unless they plan on keeping the same inter-station distances, in which case a similar journey time might be achievable.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Dec 24, 2012 11:48:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Dec 13, 2012 22:21:30 GMT
3061 and 3161 were down there for component swapping (to give us some 67TS bits) and for asbestos removal. Now back at Acton Works for the ERU to practice with.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Nov 11, 2012 22:44:56 GMT
Various units in strategic store (including the AIT, 3213, and its donor unit 3214, at one time). Shoeburyness is no longer used for vehicles storage and the last two 72TS Mk 1 4-car units are now at Eastleigh being stripped of asbestos before scrapping.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Nov 5, 2012 22:27:03 GMT
The old 38TS Weedkilling Train is next on that road for cutting up.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Oct 24, 2012 18:20:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Oct 22, 2012 18:44:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Oct 11, 2012 21:09:17 GMT
Yes, absolutely.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Oct 10, 2012 18:24:50 GMT
Went by road last Thursday. We're getting the heavy overhaul of new cars 3079 and 3179 done there plus conversion to AIT spec and repainting to match the rest of the train. Also various other configuration changes to the existing cars now it's in 6-car format.
The yellow front is for running over NR lines and was chosen early in the project, before my time. I think it looks quite good actually, certainly makes it stand out.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Oct 9, 2012 18:31:25 GMT
Now at Eastleigh Works Regards, Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Oct 6, 2012 17:22:39 GMT
Correct - the JLE PEDs are there to prevent the pressure pulse from knocking people over on the platforms. Given the speeds at which trains travel on the extension I think this was a wise move.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Oct 6, 2012 12:28:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Oct 6, 2012 12:25:41 GMT
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Jubilee Line platforms at Westminster are curved? They have PEDs fitted.
Anyway, if PEDs were fitted at Heathrow T5 you would have to equip the 73TS with a new system for determining whether it had stopped in the right place for the doors to be allowed to open. The business case for doing it just for one station probably wouldn't stand up.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Aug 29, 2012 20:36:42 GMT
Wiring looms not to LU spec, nothing to do with bogies AFAIK.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Jul 28, 2012 17:21:40 GMT
It shouldn't be a major problem getting 72TS, 73TS, 92TS, 95TS and 96TS trains to Neasden. Bakerloo Line trains need a possession to move from Baker Street up the Jubilee to Neasden Depot, so that would have to be planned in advance. The 73TS can have the static converter isolated, all it does is switch off the cab air con AFAIK. It is possible to move 92TS units around using pilot vehicles (62TS) from Ruislip Depot and 95TS can be moved as 3-car units between Battery and Schoma Locos. Jubilee Line 96TS are permitted to operate in Neasden Depot anyway.
09TS will be more difficult due to the perceived gauging issues. The Cravens unit at Northfields Depot is working as it has been shunted around recently and the 62TS sandite can still operate down to Neasden under tripcock protection. A 67TS unit could be brought over (3060, designated as the new Acton Works shunter once transferred from Northumberland Park). TRV shouldn't be a problem either.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on Jul 19, 2012 18:31:08 GMT
Apparently 3061 is still at Northumberland with no forward movement planned for a good long while. Wouldn't bet on that Regards, Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on May 25, 2012 18:21:59 GMT
There was a hybrid 72 / 67TS train in Ealing Broadway just before mid-day today I think there was a signal failure at Ealing Common yesterday, so perhaps D Stocks couldn't get in and out of the depot and the 73TS was available? Regards, Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on May 22, 2012 20:56:17 GMT
ATP kit.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on May 21, 2012 20:03:51 GMT
It's called the "Temporary Configuration" for a reason - it's temporary! The new cars will be overhauled, re-liveried and AIT converted if the testing is successful.
Regards,
Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on May 16, 2012 19:55:22 GMT
We've had it cleaned ready Regards, Dan
|
|
|
Post by br7mt on May 13, 2012 20:24:13 GMT
In the next couple of weeks on the Test Track if all the various workstreams come together as planned Regards, Dan
|
|