Creation of class 230 DEMUs from ex-LU D78s by Vivarail

[sprinterguy]

Those little wheels will have their work cut out hauling a steam engine.

Worked fine for the pre-nationalisation and grouping steam railcars, an example of which was what was being referenced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_steam_rail_motors

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Worked fine for the pre-nationalisation and grouping steam railcars, an example of which was what was being referenced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_steam_rail_motors

If they can go 60mph then they should forget the transit engines and make these steam railcars!
How fast can they go?

 

[sprinterguy]

If they can go 60mph then they should forget the transit engines and make these steam railcars!
How fast can they go?

I don’t think that typically they would have operated at more than about 45mph, however there are reports that the GWR Railmotors were capable of 70mph and at least one of the LNER Sentinel steam railcars was tested at up to 63mph.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I will return to this thread, somewhat in a better frame of mind than two weeks ago, just to make the point that having a unit with a top speed of 60mph does not automatically mean that this will be treated as the average speed during a journey.

 

[Emyr]

a unit with a top speed of 60mph does not automatically mean that this will be treated as the average speed during a journey.

Physics says the average speed must be lower than the top speed if the start and end states are stationary, unless the top speed is 0.

 

[northwichcat]

I don’t think that typically they would have operated at more than about 45mph, however there are reports that the GWR Railmotors were capable of 70mph and at least one of the LNER Sentinel steam railcars was tested at up to 63mph.

The permitted maximum speed of a train is not the same as the top speed a train can reach during testing. For instance, the 350s were always capable of running at 110mph (or even faster) but they weren't permitted to run at that speed in passenger service initially.

 

[sprinterguy]

The permitted maximum speed of a train is not the same as the top speed a train can reach during testing.

Yes, but converting old London Underground stock to steam power based on the performance characteristics of rolling stock 80 years ago is hardly a serious suggestion.

 

[northwichcat]

but converting old London Underground stock to steam power based on the performance characteristics of rolling stock 80 years ago is hardly a serious suggestion.

Someone at DfT reading this thread just went "What! It wasn't?"

 

[sprinterguy]

Someone at DfT reading this thread just went "What! It wasn't?"

They’ve probably got a team of “analysts” checking Wikipedia for stats as we speak.

That use of the GWR railmotor on the Looe branch a while back? That wasn’t just a magnanimous gesture to the preservation movement – there’s a master plan.

(Apologies, this is going rapidly off topic. )

 

[Dstock7080]

The permitted maximum speed of a train is not the same as the top speed a train can reach during testing.

D Stock are currently permitted to operate at 45mph across the District Line but have been known to achieve 51-53mph on certain sections.
60mph would only be possible with the planned removal of the PCM camshaft equipment.

 

[67018]

Yes, but converting old London Underground stock to steam power based on the performance characteristics of rolling stock 80 years ago is hardly a serious suggestion.

Why not - isn't that a level of quality deemed acceptable for the North?

 

[Taunton]

... reports that the GWR Railmotors were capable of 70mph ...

Many of the GWR Railmotors were later converted to push-pull auto trailers by removal of the power unit.

An account in a rail magazine in the late 1950s describes a train timer on a Bristol to Gloucester express doing 70 mph past Stonehouse, where they caught up with one of these older auto trailers being propelled by a 14xx 0-4-2T tank loco (running in reverse) where the Stroud to Gloucester line ran parallel. It speeded up, as was common there when two trains ran together, and ran side by side with the express.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Why not - isn't that a level of quality deemed acceptable for the North?

It certainly looks like it is considered so.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

AIUI all trains are tested, when introduced, at maximum permitted speed +10%. Therefore when the D78s are trialled part of the acceptance process will involve running them at 66mph, even though they won't normally run at that speed. Likewise the 442s have run at 110mph (and more!), even though prolonged running at >100mph on 3rd rail causes issues I believe.

Did notice an article in the Independent about the Vivarail project, complete with numerous reference to "Tube trains" and a photo of Piccadilly line stock! :roll:

 

[Nym]

In fairness the 73TS on the picc is basically the same base design as the D78, quite a few differences afterwoulds though

 

[47802]

Should the manufacturers raise objections to these trains, after all they are being asked to build new trains to ever more stringent standards of crashworhiness, yet a train here is being potentially allowed which wasn't even built to BR crashworthiness standards at the time it was built.

And if they are treated as tram train light vehicles doesn't that mean that TPWS will be required at every signal on the routes they will be used, which would mean an extra cost compared to just buying new heavy rail units or refurb existing heavy rail units?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought they were being modified (strengthened) to modern standards of crashworthiness.

Neil

 

[47802]

I thought they were being modified (strengthened) to modern standards of crashworthiness.

Neil

Well I think the jury will be out on that one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well I think the jury will be out on that one.

We only have what Vivarail are saying to go by. If it turns out they are lying, which to me there is no evidence to suggest they are, then they may well fail to sell any of their product.

Certainly this:
http://www.vivarail.co.uk/new-technology-proven-package/

says they will build a new cab structure, which is a big part of the crashworthiness requirement.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Turns out the reason the mock ups have Huddersfield on them and the computer simulated trials were on the Penistone Line was because the idea was first presented at Connected North rail conference held at Huddersfield University.

 

[route:oxford]

Should the manufacturers raise objections to these trains, after all they are being asked to build new trains to ever more stringent standards of crashworhiness, yet a train here is being potentially allowed which wasn't even built to BR crashworthiness standards at the time it was built.

Possibly. But follow that through to the logical conclusion and nothing pre-2000 would be allowed on the national rails.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Looking back at some the postings, I am sure there are those who have made contributions to this thread would be more that happy to see the Northern Rail franchise equipped with a plethora of "dandy" horse drawn rail carriages of the type that once ran on the Port Carlisle Railway..

 

[47802]

Possibly. But follow that through to the logical conclusion and nothing pre-2000 would be allowed on the national rails.

Yes but a least other stock is built to what ever crash regulations were in force at the time for mainline stock, having said that if I were a driver I'm not sure would be particularly impressed swapping 15 year old locomotives for 50 year old locomotives on the Scottish Sleeper for instance.

 

[Mikey C]

Should the manufacturers raise objections to these trains, after all they are being asked to build new trains to ever more stringent standards of crashworhiness, yet a train here is being potentially allowed which wasn't even built to BR crashworthiness standards at the time it was built.

And if they are treated as tram train light vehicles doesn't that mean that TPWS will be required at every signal on the routes they will be used, which would mean an extra cost compared to just buying new heavy rail units or refurb existing heavy rail units?

But then it's not as if manufacturers (for various reasons) have equivalent new products on sale anyway, which is part of the problem.

 

[route:oxford]

Yes but a least other stock is built to what ever crash regulations were in force at the time for mainline stock, having said that if I were a driver I'm not sure would be particularly impressed swapping 15 year old locomotives for 50 year old locomotives on the Scottish Sleeper for instance.

Ah, you must be one of the Aslef members who "fears" the re-engineered 73.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Looking back at some the postings, I am sure there are those who have made contributions to this thread would be more that happy to see the Northern Rail franchise equipped with a plethora of "dandy" horse drawn rail carriages of the type that once ran on the Port Carlisle Railway..

Only if prices become alot cheaper!

 

[Harpers Tate]

Ah, you must be one of the Aslef members who "fears" the re-engineered 73.

Does this group prefer to bounce around at the front of a woefully overloaded Pacer, as long as it's going 15mph faster?

 

[northwichcat]

Does this group prefer to bounce around at the front of a woefully overloaded Pacer, as long as it's going 15mph faster?

If paths are for 75mph trains, in some instances there may be less paths if 60mph trains are used in lieu. Less paths could result in fewer services at peak times (even if the services that run have more carriages) and then that would mean less work for ASLEF members.

 

[Clip]

Looking back at some the postings, I am sure there are those who have made contributions to this thread would be more that happy to see the Northern Rail franchise equipped with a plethora of "dandy" horse drawn rail carriages of the type that once ran on the Port Carlisle Railway..

Why not? Especially if they were all called 'Dandy'. Great idea Paul.

 

[67018]

Why not? Especially if they were all called 'Dandy'. Great idea Paul.

Only, of course, if some horses could be found that are no longer required in the South. Do they still have the donkeys at Greenwich Park? - they could send them North after they retire