|
|
Post by christopher125 on Apr 2, 2021 2:22:53 GMT
484002/003 have been filmed completing their first mainline test runs between Eastleigh and Fareham: |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Apr 27, 2021 14:50:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Apr 27, 2021 20:44:39 GMT
Software issues and Vivarail are carrying out a full review as they don't want to apply patches.
|
|
|
|
Post by ted672 on Apr 28, 2021 15:27:54 GMT
While the transparcy of the announcement is welcome, the situation does demonstrate the increasing complexity of our railways and one has to wonder what benefits this brings. They're now advertising on TV pressure washers that you control with an app on your phone. I just wonder where the world is going!
|
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 28, 2021 17:32:03 GMT
Interesting to note that South Western Railway link does not actually stipulate how long this is likely to delay the project, however it seems someone at railwaytechnology magazine managed to get an answer to the question.. www.railtechnologymagazine.com/articles/delays-ps26m-isle-wight-railway-overhaulIf you add the "at least 4 month delay to the original April fools day reopening date you get to the start of August. I am tempted to head off to Ladbrokes to bet that the CrossRail core begins carrying fare paying passengers before the Island Line. It is weird to think that D stock units worked perfectly happily for many years on shared District/Network rail routes. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Apr 28, 2021 20:30:42 GMT
It is weird to think that D stock units worked perfectly happily for many years on shared District/Network rail routes. At a time when trains were much more basic. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Apr 29, 2021 7:24:39 GMT
As far as the IOW is concerned, a direct transfer of D stock would have been a better option, had anyone thought about it at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Apr 29, 2021 7:48:25 GMT
As far as the IOW is concerned, a direct transfer of D stock would have been a better option, had anyone thought about it at the time. Resulting in the 3-car formation that SWR didn’t want as they wouldn’t fit the sheds at St. John’s Road depot, and unable to run along the Island doubled to 6-car because of the previous infrastructure reductions to 4-car. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Apr 30, 2021 7:27:37 GMT
Resulting in the cost savings involved in NOT converting already-compatible stock to something else, then ordering a back-compatible version of it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Apr 30, 2021 12:28:17 GMT
Resulting in the cost savings involved in NOT converting already-compatible stock to something else, then ordering a back-compatible version of it! The track and the signalling on the island needed updating. It is unlikely that D stock would be compatible with the new signalling. |
|
|
|
Post by sweetp on Apr 30, 2021 12:41:47 GMT
Resulting in the cost savings involved in NOT converting already-compatible stock to something else, then ordering a back-compatible version of it! There would still be conversion work required for things like moving the compressor from the no-longer-required trailer vehicle to one of the DMs, and converting from 4th rail to 3rd rail, as uncoverted D-stock can't return via the running rails. |
|
|
|
Post by pgb on May 1, 2021 5:38:31 GMT
Out of interest - does anybody know if the Welsh variant will start carrying the public soon? May timetable change maybe?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on May 1, 2021 7:28:12 GMT
Out of interest - does anybody know if the Welsh variant will start carrying the public soon? May timetable change maybe? It seems that 230.007 008 010 have been out on mileage accumulation runs but TfW driver training is unlikely to start until July. |
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on May 1, 2021 13:32:16 GMT
so ... both will enter passenger service at the same time?
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher125 on May 11, 2021 0:13:19 GMT
So 484s aren't liking the 3rd rail but SWR need to do some clearance checks, time for Plan B..? Alas if only, but what a great bit of footage! |
|
|
|
Post by Dstock7080 on May 18, 2021 18:18:02 GMT
484.004 has today arrived on IoW by ferry.
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 10, 2021 15:56:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jun 10, 2021 16:19:20 GMT
At 13.40 today a Class 484 unit was hauled (by a rail/road unit) very slowly through Ryde Esplanade station on what appears to be a gauging run. Obviously this means the Class 484 does indeed fit through the Ryde tunnel and from the Ryde Esplanade Hotel webcam there was no sign of any scrapes or damage. I wonder how long it will be before they turn on the power and the unit can start training runs under its own power. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Jun 11, 2021 1:20:31 GMT
What modifications were necessary o fit the D-trains in the tunnel?
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Jun 11, 2021 7:35:22 GMT
A good place to start might be the removal of the obstructions which rendered this main-line loading-gauge tunnel unable to take main-line trains in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jun 11, 2021 9:33:04 GMT
As I understand it, the floor of the tunnel had to be raised when the line was electrified as it regularly flooded and 3rd rail electric systems take less kindly to such inundataions than a steam locomotive would. Reinforcement of the road above the tunnel (which is actually a "covered way") further reduced the headroom but that has, I read somewhere, now been replaced with beams having a narrower profile allowing the D stock to fit.
|
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Jun 11, 2021 9:38:51 GMT
A good place to start might be the removal of the obstructions which rendered this main-line loading-gauge tunnel unable to take main-line trains in the first place. It’s moot whether the IoW was ever really “main-line loading gauge”; if you look at what worked there from the start, it never used the loading gauge to the full. Smallbrook Lane has a reputation as being the tightest pinch point. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 11, 2021 22:18:28 GMT
A good place to start might be the removal of the obstructions which rendered this main-line loading-gauge tunnel unable to take main-line trains in the first place.
Please remember that the tunnel at Ryde (and various overbridges) were NOT to 'main line loading gauge' as you put it!
There is a reason the Southern railway chopped off the 'birdcages' from ex SECR stock that was transferred, that BR were unable to introduce 57ft suburban Mk1s to replace the wooden coaching stock in the 1950s and a reason the Ivatt 2MTs which were being looked at at one stage would have needed their cab roof and boiler fittings lowering.
As such although tube stock technically wasn't a necessity, something with a lower profile than standard BR designed was needed - and there simply wasn't the cash to go round designing 'bespoke' stock for a line BR wanted to shut down completely anyway!
The Standard tube stock merely represented a cheap and easy source of rolling stock rather than being chose because it needed to be tube gauge stock.
You should also note that at some point consideration was given to using ex Merseyrail EMUs after they were replaced by the 507s and 508s. Although not taken forward by BR it did show that the 'alterations' made to accommodate tube stock were not as restrictive as you assume and is why the D stock has been found to fit with relatively few infrastructure modifications.
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 12, 2021 16:13:13 GMT
You should also note that at some point consideration was given to using ex Merseyrail EMUs after they were replaced by the 507s and 508s. Although not taken forward by BR it did show that the 'alterations' made to accommodate tube stock were not as restrictive as you assume and is why the D stock has been found to fit with relatively few infrastructure modifications. Specifically it was Wirral & Mersey units [503s] not Liverpool Southport units [502s]. Length and bogie spacing also comes into play - curve throwover etc - 503s were shorter - in round numbers 58 ft - shorter than the 64 ft "standard" (and 502s were longer again at 66 ft). 57 ft Mk.1 could not fit IOW***, but 58 ft 503s could, because of subtle differences in bogie spacing. Round figures D78 is 60 ft (well all cars used in 484s anyway) - that is 4 ft shorter than the 64 ft "standard" - might not seem a lot - but when it comes to kinematic envelopes it is significant w.r.t. throwover. 503s were quite wide - 9 ft 11 in according to the ABC spotting books - wider than "standard", likewise, D78 are wider. Digressing, just to illustrate this, one (or both ?) of the Wirral surface lines to New Brighton or West Kirky has [or did have] a restriction on it that main line stock types like the BR Mk.1 are effectively banned from the route - they fit, on their own, but are not allowed to pass any other train on an adjacent track. Which for all practical purposes bans them. I am not sure if this restriction is still in place now, in 2021, but it certainly was in place after 503s had gone, anything "standard" C1 profile could not pass a 507\508 on one or both of those routes. (There are numerous other restrictions banning such stock from the Mersey tunnels sections, but not relevant to the surface lines.) OK, digression over. *** actually I suspect 57 ft Mk1 would have fitted with minor works but there was no will to make it happen; back at that time the high level plan was to close the IOW completely. |
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 14, 2021 12:41:48 GMT
I'll post this here as the way I see it, only a Vivarail battery ex-D78 could fit this bill in the time scale - they want it in 10 months time : GWR seeking 12 mo trial battery unit Greenford W.Ealing (gen found on a.n.other forum but not the source URL) Section II: Object II.1) Scope of the procurement: II.1.1) Title: Fast Charging Battery Train Trial II.1.4) Short Description: Great Western Railway (GWR) is seeking is seeking expressions of interest from suppliers for a trial to prove the capability of a battery powered train, supported by fast charging equipment, to safely and reliably operate passenger services on a non-electrified branch line (West Ealing-Greenford), for a period of at least one year. This trial will support the objectives of the Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy and will be delivered with the support of Network Rail and the Department for Transport. The route from West Ealing to Greenford is 2¾ miles of mostly double track railway and is served by a two car Turbo stopping at all stations. Trains are Driver Only Operated using a combination of CCTV, mirrors and look back during train despatch. The shortest platforms on the route that the train will need to serve, are at Castle Bar Park, and are 47.5m and 47.6m long. GWR does not operate trains without toilets on board. II.2.4) Description of the procurement: We wish to procure the lease of a single train and associated charging equipment, for a trial operating period from April 2022 to March 2023, with the possibility of extension subject to performance. The charging equipment will be required to be installed by the supplier to the bay platform at West Ealing station under Network Rail supervision (noting Greenford station is operated by LUL and space-constrained). We anticipate that servicing and light maintenance of the train will be undertaken by GWR at West Ealing EMU sidings, while heavy maintenance will remain the responsibility of the supplier. Maintenance of the charging equipment will be the responsibility of the supplier under the supervision of Network Rail. source url: Great Western Railway Fast Charging Battery Train Trial |
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Jun 14, 2021 18:59:47 GMT
D7666 - I fully agree with your conclusions and indeed I suspect VivaRail already have such a unit well under construction.
Last year Adrian Shooter gave a long video interview providing an insight into their future plans after the Welsh Government and Isle of Wight units were delivered. Whilst most people focused on their plans to ship their two car battery demonstration unit over to the USA for use in "pop-up Metro" demonstrations, Mr Shooter rather discretely mentioned they were already in the process of building another unit with overhead pantograph - which immediately made me think that a battery unit which could be topped up from conventional OHLE power would be a great choice for the Greenford - West Ealing run.
As there is already extensive OHLE on the mainline platforms it would be relatively easy and cheap for Network Rail(or is it now GBR?) to extend the OHLE just to cover the bay platform at West Ealing.
Certainly the usual platform dwell time between services at West Ealing should be more than adequate to fully top up the batteries for the very short 5 mile round trip to Greenford. Indeed it is well inside the 40 mile demonstration runs which were achieved in Scotland despite using a second hand battery pack, and since then vivarail have sourced higher capacity Hoppecke units with even greater potential range.
If the test at Greenford goes well, I wonder how long it will be before LNWR bite the bullet and consider retrofitting battery rafts to replace the somewhat unreliable diesel gen sets on their Class 230 units on the Marston Vale (Bedford - Bletchley) run where OHLE is also present at both ends of that 16.5 mile route.
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 14, 2021 20:22:00 GMT
For no other reason than the optimistic timescale it more or less has to be something off the shelf; at least off the ready drawing board and or at more than concept stage.
The gen so far is an invitation of interest, not a tender yet. And work backwards from planned introduction date, through crew training, before that testing, before that approval, etc etc.
Actually, my own view is I do wish major projects could move that fast, but precedence, and experience, does suggest otherwise.
But I'd suggest this is one of those invites to industry where the customer and supplier already know what they want and what is wanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Jun 14, 2021 20:29:28 GMT
I've often wondered why this was not being done - for many reasons it makes such sense.
Thoughts turn to using a similar solution to reopen the GWR Brentford branch.
|
|
|
|
Post by d7666 on Jun 15, 2021 16:10:32 GMT
Reported elsewhere [WNXX forum] this is actually a DfT project that GWR are acting as "agents" for.
It has also been commented that a 777 would fit, and battery 777 are in the Merseyrail plan; I suppose it is not unfeasible within the timeline the current 777 build could be increased by one to accomodate. But then that makes it two trains, two tender bids, which needs decision expert deliberation, project procrastination, and DfT indecision, go around loop again.
OK, the latter comment is digression from D Train, so no more from me on it here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Jun 15, 2021 18:01:38 GMT
Reported elsewhere [WNXX forum] this is actually a DfT project that GWR are acting as "agents" for. It has also been commented that a 777 would fit, and battery 777 are in the Merseyrail plan; I suppose it is not unfeasible within the timeline the current 777 build could be increased by one to accomodate. But then that makes it two trains, two tender bids, which needs decision expert deliberation, project procrastination, and DfT indecision, go around loop again. OK, the latter comment is digression from D Train, so no more from me on it here. Big difference is that a 2 car battery train was demonstrated by VivaRail at Rail Live several years ago with rapid charging from a 40ft trailer. I travelled on it with Adrian Shooter and several ex LUL engineers on board. |
|
If I had had £1 for every post that said that, I could probably buy the line now.
