Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2014 23:17:48 GMT
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification - dunno what I was thinking of in that case, then!
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on Jul 26, 2014 7:56:42 GMT
It certainly should be possible to put modern Euro6 engines in these as modern engines are quite small compared with their earlier counterparts. If you look at the size of a bus that propels a current double decker weighing around 11 tons unladed, a tiny little 6.8 litre engine puts out more than 180bhp; a Routemaster weighed 7.5 tons unladen and has an enormous 9.6 litre engine which puts out 120bhp.
Look at the current class 73 rebuild programme which now fits a 1600 hp engine in the space previously occupied by a 650 hp engine.
The MTU engines fitted to the Southern DMU fleet could probably fit under the floor on D stock.
|
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Jul 26, 2014 8:17:01 GMT
I thought that the problem now was with the filters and converters, to ensure that the exhaust is cleaner (but still not clean enough to make a difference) - so for pretty much any new Diesel Locos, a new design would have to be found. The class 68 for example would need something like an extra 3ft of body, and a much heavier axle weight, if it were to be delivered in 2015 because of the new standards. Whilst you could easily fit a powerful engine into a small space, with all the new emission controlling devices you almost certainly couldn't. Hence the consensus in a number of places that we have seen the end of underfloor engines.
|
|
|
|
Post by malcolmffc on Jul 26, 2014 12:06:52 GMT
Thoughtful as these ideas are, none of them answer the most important question: Why would anyone up north want to use LU's 35 year old cast offs? This is not the same situation as the Iale of Wight where tube stock were all that were suitable.
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Jul 26, 2014 14:53:26 GMT
Thoughtful as these ideas are, none of them answer the most important question: Why would anyone up north want to use LU's 35 year old cast offs? This is not the same situation as the Iale of Wight where tube stock were all that were suitable. If you read the article you will see it is not just up north. They have relatively new bogies and the refurb gave them another 15 years. They give a very good ride and have wheelchair spaces. |
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Jul 26, 2014 15:06:01 GMT
Thoughtful as these ideas are, none of them answer the most important question: Why would anyone up north want to use LU's 35 year old cast offs? This is not the same situation as the Iale of Wight where tube stock were all that were suitable. If you read the article you will see it is not just up north. They have relatively new bogies and the refurb gave them another 15 years. They give a very good ride and have wheelchair spaces. Indeed, the refurb gave them another potential 15 years on their home system, the LUL District Line, which is what the article points to. Whether or not the massive costs of adapting them to run on another network is more cost effective than buying a brand new train that will last for three times as long or adapting an existing network rail train for less cost is questionable isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Aug 19, 2014 9:35:37 GMT
It's unbelievable that a credible railway magazine should be publishing such ephemera. Copy must be in short supply.
|
|
|
|
Post by malcolmffc on Aug 19, 2014 12:24:44 GMT
Agreed, this idea is second only to Waterloo & City line extension in the list of silly ideas on this forum that seem to resurface every few months.
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Aug 19, 2014 13:05:51 GMT
It's unbelievable that a credible railway magazine should be publishing such ephemera. Copy must be in short supply. The story comes from a company intending to do trial conversions. It was part of a feature about the lack of any diesel engines which can be fitted to trains for the UK. That is some story. |
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Aug 19, 2014 13:13:36 GMT
Fortunately, this sort of speculation or idea, however misguided, silly or daft, is indeed just that - just speculation. It has no influence on our day to day lives, doesn't affect the stock market or the bank rates and at the most can only elicit contempt from a small minority who occasionally take this subject far too seriously.
Since taking the time to calm down in life I've come to realise that train-nuts are harmless, and if a few of them happen to post elaborate but largely unlikely schemes on an Internet forum, or even submit a speculative article to a railway magazine.......well it doesn't really matter does it? Not when you consider the serious harm being caused elsewhere in the world today........
I once deleted my account from this forum, mainly due to a previously professional railwayman's condescending and pompous attitude towards almost anybody not from his technical background. I came back, long before he finally made a fool of himself and self-destructed, when I realised I was being a stupid git to take such umbrage over something so trivial.
Onwards and upwards. Life's too short!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2014 15:45:20 GMT
From an engineering point of view, I would love to see it done  |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Aug 19, 2014 17:26:19 GMT
It would be easier all round to install lead-acid accumulators.
|
|
|
|
Post by bassmike on Aug 20, 2014 9:37:44 GMT
Why not Leyden jars?
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Aug 20, 2014 11:29:49 GMT
Don't laugh! Giant Jars are the new technology!
|
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Sept 29, 2014 8:40:03 GMT
There is an item in the current edition of 'Modern Railways' about converting some of them to DEMU's for use in Yorkshire. I was always skeptical about the viability of this scheme but the article seems to have covered most of the bases.
<<rincew1nd: This and all subsequent posts merged into this existing thread on the same subject>>
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Sept 29, 2014 8:42:49 GMT
I don't know how that April Fool gag came to attract so much credibility. It doesn't reflect well on the integrity of the Railway press.
|
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Sept 29, 2014 9:02:27 GMT
I don't think its an April fool joke as much as the editors pet project. However the illustrations look quite good, the external changes are a 'bumper' at solebar level under each cab and louvres in place of the windows behind the cab where the engine compartment would be placed taking up the space up to and including the first passenger doors which are to be replaced by access doors. They are intended to run as four car units with a power car at each end and two intermediate cars (I don't recall if they are powered or not.) The interiors will be completely changed and one of the intermediate cars will incorporate a toilet compartment. Most of the changes, certainly the major ones will be above solebar level.
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on Sept 30, 2014 7:42:33 GMT
This particular aspect has been done to death on here and on RMweb, please let's not go over old ground on speculating about D stock conversions again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 15:56:19 GMT
Whatever happens, let's hope for a better send off than what the C stock got! Tell me about it. I heard somewhere (It was this site, District Dave or Youtube) that only ONE c stock car got preserved. To confirm the first reply; its far too early for that question. As stated, the first one to go isn't even known yet! That's a good sign, because that means we have the D stock for a while yet :-). There is an item in the current edition of 'Modern Railways' about converting some of them to DEMU's for use in Yorkshire. I was always skeptical about the viability of this scheme but the article seems to have covered most of the bases. I hope so, I think the D stock will last for a long time and that would be a good way to reuse them. I think that the D stocks will live well after their District line life; I mean, look at the 1938 stock - they have lived well passed their London Underground life (On the Northern, Piccadilly and Bakerloo lines), and the 1938 stock is still used in the Isle of White! This particular aspect has been done to death on here and on RMweb, please let's not go over old ground on speculating about D stock conversions again. I'm really sorry, did I cause a problem? Moderator Comment
Multiple posts merged into one, coherent, reply.
Whilst it is difficult to quote multiple posts in one of your own posts it is possible and makes the forum easier to read. There is a thread about this somewhere, I'll have a dig and see if I can find it.
rincew1nd |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Sept 30, 2014 16:30:29 GMT
There is an item in the current edition of 'Modern Railways' about converting some of them to DEMU's for use in Yorkshire. I was always skeptical about the viability of this scheme but the article seems to have covered most of the bases. I hope so, I think the D stock will last for a long time and that would be a good way to reuse them. I think that the D stocks will live well after their District line life; I mean, look at the 1938 stock - they have lived well passed their London Underground life (On the Northern, Piccadilly and Bakerloo lines), and the 1938 stock is still used in the Isle of White! Could the D stock be used in the IOW? More capacity than the existing.... |
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Sept 30, 2014 16:41:10 GMT
I hope so, I think the D stock will last for a long time and that would be a good way to reuse them. I think that the D stocks will live well after their District line life; I mean, look at the 1938 stock - they have lived well passed their London Underground life (On the Northern, Piccadilly and Bakerloo lines), and the 1938 stock is still used in the Isle of White! Could the D stock be used in the IOW? More capacity than the existing.... Fraid not, the tube profile stock is used on the Isle of Wight because of limited clearance. The D stock is to normal main line dimensions and will not fit. |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Sept 30, 2014 16:56:15 GMT
There is an item in the current edition of 'Modern Railways' about converting some of them to DEMU's for use in Yorkshire. I was always skeptical about the viability of this scheme but the article seems to have covered most of the bases. I hope so, I think the D stock will last for a long time and that would be a good way to reuse them. I think that the D stocks will live well after their District line life; I mean, look at the 1938 stock - they have lived well passed their London Underground life (On the Northern, Piccadilly and Bakerloo lines), and the 1938 stock is still used in the Isle of White! Or even the Isle of Wight  |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Sept 30, 2014 17:00:09 GMT
Could the D stock be used in the IOW? More capacity than the existing.... Fraid not, the tube profile stock is used on the Isle of Wight because of limited clearance. The D stock is to normal main line dimensions and will not fit. Thanks. They must have lowered some bridges, then, as O2s and rakes of ex LSW and LBSC carriages were rattling around in the late 50s-early 60s there. In fact, I used to hate the D stock when it came in - garish upholstery much less comfortable than the trains it replaced, stifling in summer from fixed windows, button operated doors; unpainted exterior all ready to graffitise..... The "breath of fresh air" campaign improved them a bit, with the opening quarter lights (not that they let much air in!) That said, the half-life transformation was extremely good, I thought and a job very well done; superb palette of colours. Do others agree? |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 30, 2014 17:14:06 GMT
Fraid not, the tube profile stock is used on the Isle of Wight because of limited clearance. Thanks. They must have lowered some bridges, then, ? No, they raised the floor of Ryde Tunnel to keep the 3rd rail electric infrastructure above the level to which it was prone to flood - an O2 could take such flooding in its stride (or wade?) . |
|
|
|
Post by Indefatigable on Oct 1, 2014 12:58:30 GMT
There might be something to this story as I was taking a train from Hull - York two days ago and struck up a chat with a driver on the cushions. Without prompting, he commented about getting "Those things from London" soonish. When I asked if this meant cascaded stock such as 319s, he replied "No, those tube things".
Perhaps one is coming up here for trials after modification work? I just thought it was worth mentioning in this thread
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2014 13:31:58 GMT
There might be something to this story as I was taking a train from Hull - York two days ago and struck up a chat with a driver on the cushions. Without prompting, he commented about getting "Those things from London" soonish. When I asked if this meant cascaded stock such as 319s, he replied "No, those tube things". Perhaps one is coming up here for trials after modification work? I just thought it was worth mentioning in this thread I wonder just what the railway users of Poppleton would make of the D-stock on the Harrogate services? I can well remember their reaction when the class 141s were put on that line with the 1984 timetable (Popp. was my local station 1979-90). Many railway managers lived/ live in Poppleton, and moves were made to ensure a conventional DMU was diagrammed for the morning commuter train. No idea if there has been any reporting of the plans in the York Press. |
|
|
|
Post by Indefatigable on Oct 2, 2014 0:43:38 GMT
I just thought... What is the height of D Stock compared to standard platform height on NR - would there have to be modification work carried out to the stations along the route?
|
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Oct 2, 2014 8:23:50 GMT
I just thought... What is the height of D Stock compared to standard platform height on NR - would there have to be modification work carried out to the stations along the route? They share platforms with mainline stock (Kew Gardens for example) so it should not be a problem. |
|
PGtrips
Ahh... don't you just love PG?
Posts: 113
|
Post by PGtrips on Oct 2, 2014 15:06:46 GMT
I would think they would consider it to be a distinct upgrade from the overcrowded 142 that currently provides the key morning service into York.
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Oct 2, 2014 15:53:31 GMT
It's difficult to believe that the cost of stripping out the cars, rebuilding to accommodate the engine and toilets, probable re-bogie-ing to carry the extra weight in the motor cars, re-cabling, installing retention tanks and piping for the loos, and refitting new seats, will save much, if anything, over completely new stock. Typically, much more than half of the cost of new stock is generated by just such things; the basic body shell and running gear is relatively cheap.
|
|
