Recent content by Peter66

Euro Cargo Rail was originally EWS International, they transferred fifty Class 66s from the EWS (UK) in 2007, and renumbered them as Euro Class 77.

More photos> Notice the extra door on one side of the engine compartment and the air-con Source: http://www.phantasrail.com/gm_class_66.htm

"Hitachi aims to achieve higher speeds on curves using existing infrastructure" http://www.hitachi-rail.com/products/rolling_stock/tilting/

Perhaps there's some misunderstanding, I'm talking about a redesigned 390 with a diesel powerpack, not strapping a powerpack onto the existing design. Neither was the original IEP frame designed to support an engine underneath it. Surely the design could be modified to tilt less? That's...

The Cl221 Voyager with it's under-slung power packs also tilt :)

The IEP was redesigned with raised floors to accommodate the power packs, so one would assume it would be just as easy to redesign the 390 to accommodate the same?

You're probably right, but the traction motors are only about a 1 metre in length The Cl221 5-car Super Voyager has 10 of the exact same Onix 800 traction motors as the Pendolino. It also is distributed power, and has tilt technology. And they manage to find space to put in 5 750hp diesel...

I wonder how difficult it would have been to modify the design of a 390 so that you could hang a MTU Series 1600 PowerPack underneath ?

Thank you for your reply LNW-GW Joint My line of thinking was that the newly designed IEP will probably cost a huge amount more than the existing and well tested 390s, with very little if any performance or efficiency advantages ? Comparing the max power draw, you'd expect the IEP to be slower...

A spare loco may not be readily available or some distance from the failed train, so it makes sense to have a redundant loco attached to enable self rescue in case of failure.

How does this train compare with the Class 390 Pendolino ?