Discussion:
Last days of the 172s on the electrified GOBLIN
Add Reply
Recliner
2018-01-24 15:54:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.

It is therefore still being operated by its fleet of eight very well
presented 2-car Class 172 DMUs, but these will soon be replaced by the
brand-new fleet of Class 710 4-car Aventras which are currently under
construction. The new trains will have much more capacity, but the
popular transverse seats of the 172s will be replaced by metro-style
longitudinal seats in the 710s.

The new OHLE for the slow speed metro line used by 4-car trains is
similar to that on the GWR, with mighty girders that dwarf the
slender, elegant equivalents on the faster LTS route that the GOBLIN
joins.

Apart from the OHLE, most of the platforms have needed lengthening for
the new 4-car trains. In some cases, this has required platform
extensions to be constructed, but in many other cases, disused
sections of the old platforms have been refurbished and brought back
into use.

I went along on Monday to take some pictures of the line in its
transitional state, with the electrification work seemingly complete,
but many of the platform extensions not yet open, though they look
finished.

<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157665010879878>
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-24 16:27:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:54:57 +0000
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
It is therefore still being operated by its fleet of eight very well
presented 2-car Class 172 DMUs, but these will soon be replaced by the
brand-new fleet of Class 710 4-car Aventras which are currently under
construction. The new trains will have much more capacity, but the
Why didn't they just buy some more 378s?

I wonder if the 710s will be able to operate on the rest of the Overground
if required - especially in the ELL tunnels - or whether they're restricted
to the goblin. Any idea if they're 3rd rail equipped?
Recliner
2018-01-24 17:39:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:54:57 +0000
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
It is therefore still being operated by its fleet of eight very well
presented 2-car Class 172 DMUs, but these will soon be replaced by the
brand-new fleet of Class 710 4-car Aventras which are currently under
construction. The new trains will have much more capacity, but the
Why didn't they just buy some more 378s?
I wonder if the 710s will be able to operate on the rest of the Overground
if required - especially in the ELL tunnels - or whether they're restricted
to the goblin. Any idea if they're 3rd rail equipped?
As has been repeatedly mentioned here before, the Electrostar is now out of
production as it's been superseded by the lighter, more advanced Aventra.
The 710s will be supplied in both overhead-only and dual voltage forms,
with the DC lines and GOBLIN sharing the dual voltage fleet (though the
GOBLIN only needs OHL).

The Aventra is selling very well: it's only recently gone into service, and
yet total orders have almost caught up with the long-running Electrostars.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2018-01-24 17:42:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:54:57 +0000
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
It is therefore still being operated by its fleet of eight very well
presented 2-car Class 172 DMUs, but these will soon be replaced by the
brand-new fleet of Class 710 4-car Aventras which are currently under
construction. The new trains will have much more capacity, but the
Why didn't they just buy some more 378s?
Electrostar production has ended. The world moves on.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I wonder if the 710s will be able to operate on the rest of the
Overground if required - especially in the ELL tunnels - or whether
they're restricted to the goblin. Any idea if they're 3rd rail equipped?
Yes, IIRC.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Basil Jet
2018-01-24 17:45:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:54:57 +0000
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
It is therefore still being operated by its fleet of eight very well
presented 2-car Class 172 DMUs, but these will soon be replaced by the
brand-new fleet of Class 710 4-car Aventras which are currently under
construction. The new trains will have much more capacity, but the
Why didn't they just buy some more 378s?
Electrostar production has ended. The world moves on.
Sometimes it moves on... and sometimes Boltar makes the same debunked
criticism again and again and again.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-25 10:59:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:45:47 +0000
Post by Basil Jet
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:54:57 +0000
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
It is therefore still being operated by its fleet of eight very well
presented 2-car Class 172 DMUs, but these will soon be replaced by the
brand-new fleet of Class 710 4-car Aventras which are currently under
construction. The new trains will have much more capacity, but the
Why didn't they just buy some more 378s?
Electrostar production has ended. The world moves on.
Sometimes it moves on... and sometimes Boltar makes the same debunked
criticism again and again and again.
It amuses me the way you lot talk about production having ceased, as if
trains are built in the same way as cars on a 24/7 production line churning
out a given model. They're built to order - if a customer wanted a particular
train I'm pretty sure it would be supplied. Money talks.
Recliner
2018-01-25 11:15:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:45:47 +0000
Post by Basil Jet
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:54:57 +0000
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
It is therefore still being operated by its fleet of eight very well
presented 2-car Class 172 DMUs, but these will soon be replaced by the
brand-new fleet of Class 710 4-car Aventras which are currently under
construction. The new trains will have much more capacity, but the
Why didn't they just buy some more 378s?
Electrostar production has ended. The world moves on.
Sometimes it moves on... and sometimes Boltar makes the same debunked
criticism again and again and again.
It amuses me the way you lot talk about production having ceased, as if
trains are built in the same way as cars on a 24/7 production line churning
out a given model. They're built to order - if a customer wanted a particular
train I'm pretty sure it would be supplied. Money talks.
Bombardier offered Aventras when bidding for the order. The obsolete
Electrostars weren't on offer.

And why do you think TfL would be so stupid as to offer extra money for a
special build of an obsolete design, when a more efficient, standard new
model was on offer? Money does indeed talk, and fortunately TfL spends it
more wisely than you would.

By your logic, TfL should have ordered more of the proven, in-service 313s,
not the dangerously new-fangled 378s, when increasing the LO fleet.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-25 11:22:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:15:26 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:45:47 +0000
Post by Basil Jet
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:54:57 +0000
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
It is therefore still being operated by its fleet of eight very well
presented 2-car Class 172 DMUs, but these will soon be replaced by the
brand-new fleet of Class 710 4-car Aventras which are currently under
construction. The new trains will have much more capacity, but the
Why didn't they just buy some more 378s?
Electrostar production has ended. The world moves on.
Sometimes it moves on... and sometimes Boltar makes the same debunked
criticism again and again and again.
It amuses me the way you lot talk about production having ceased, as if
trains are built in the same way as cars on a 24/7 production line churning
out a given model. They're built to order - if a customer wanted a particular
train I'm pretty sure it would be supplied. Money talks.
Bombardier offered Aventras when bidding for the order. The obsolete
Electrostars weren't on offer.
What exactly is obsolete about them anyway? All the traction equipment and
probably bogies are upgradable, the looks is just design and probably
irrelevant in the scheme of things so whats left - the frame and car body? How
can that be out of date or have Bombardier built the Aventras out of unobtanium?
Post by Recliner
And why do you think TfL would be so stupid as to offer extra money for a
special build of an obsolete design, when a more efficient, standard new
Interoperability. The same reason the Class 66 locomotive was still being
bought even thought the Class 70 was superior in every way (bar looks).
Post by Recliner
By your logic, TfL should have ordered more of the proven, in-service 313s,
not the dangerously new-fangled 378s, when increasing the LO fleet.
If the 313s had the latest traction equipment and running gear what difference
would it make?
Recliner
2018-01-25 11:39:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:15:26 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:45:47 +0000
Post by Basil Jet
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:54:57 +0000
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
It is therefore still being operated by its fleet of eight very well
presented 2-car Class 172 DMUs, but these will soon be replaced by the
brand-new fleet of Class 710 4-car Aventras which are currently under
construction. The new trains will have much more capacity, but the
Why didn't they just buy some more 378s?
Electrostar production has ended. The world moves on.
Sometimes it moves on... and sometimes Boltar makes the same debunked
criticism again and again and again.
It amuses me the way you lot talk about production having ceased, as if
trains are built in the same way as cars on a 24/7 production line churning
out a given model. They're built to order - if a customer wanted a particular
train I'm pretty sure it would be supplied. Money talks.
Bombardier offered Aventras when bidding for the order. The obsolete
Electrostars weren't on offer.
What exactly is obsolete about them anyway? All the traction equipment and
probably bogies are upgradable, the looks is just design and probably
irrelevant in the scheme of things so whats left - the frame and car body? How
can that be out of date or have Bombardier built the Aventras out of unobtanium?
Post by Recliner
And why do you think TfL would be so stupid as to offer extra money for a
special build of an obsolete design, when a more efficient, standard new
Interoperability. The same reason the Class 66 locomotive was still being
bought even thought the Class 70 was superior in every way (bar looks).
It was much more expensive, and was certainly a hot product:
<https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/another-class-70007-on-fire-another-70-failure.64125/page-4>
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
By your logic, TfL should have ordered more of the proven, in-service 313s,
not the dangerously new-fangled 378s, when increasing the LO fleet.
If the 313s had the latest traction equipment and running gear what difference
would it make?
I suggest you read up on the Aventra design.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-25 15:16:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:39:57 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Interoperability. The same reason the Class 66 locomotive was still being
bought even thought the Class 70 was superior in every way (bar looks).
<https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/another-class-70007-on-fire-another-70-fa
lure.64125/page-4>
That was 6 years ago. And IIRC the 66s weren't exactly popular with drivers
and the cabs had to be modified to stop them going on strike.
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
By your logic, TfL should have ordered more of the proven, in-service 313s,
not the dangerously new-fangled 378s, when increasing the LO fleet.
If the 313s had the latest traction equipment and running gear what
difference
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
would it make?
I suggest you read up on the Aventra design.
Some of us have to work. If there is something magical about the design that
the electrostars don't have feel free to share it. I suspect they simply cost
bombardier less to build for whatever reason rather them being fundamentally
superior to the electrostar.
Recliner
2018-01-25 16:08:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:39:57 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Interoperability. The same reason the Class 66 locomotive was still being
bought even thought the Class 70 was superior in every way (bar looks).
<https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/another-class-70007-on-fire-another-70-fa
lure.64125/page-4>
That was 6 years ago. And IIRC the 66s weren't exactly popular with drivers
and the cabs had to be modified to stop them going on strike.
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
By your logic, TfL should have ordered more of the proven, in-service 313s,
not the dangerously new-fangled 378s, when increasing the LO fleet.
If the 313s had the latest traction equipment and running gear what
difference
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
would it make?
I suggest you read up on the Aventra design.
Some of us have to work. If there is something magical about the design that
the electrostars don't have feel free to share it. I suspect they simply cost
bombardier less to build for whatever reason rather them being fundamentally
superior to the electrostar.
Keeping suspecting and imagining what you like. But stop wasting everyone
else's time.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-26 09:41:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:08:49 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:39:57 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Interoperability. The same reason the Class 66 locomotive was still being
bought even thought the Class 70 was superior in every way (bar looks).
<https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/another-class-70007-on-fire-another-70-fa
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
lure.64125/page-4>
That was 6 years ago. And IIRC the 66s weren't exactly popular with drivers
and the cabs had to be modified to stop them going on strike.
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
By your logic, TfL should have ordered more of the proven, in-service
313s,
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
not the dangerously new-fangled 378s, when increasing the LO fleet.
If the 313s had the latest traction equipment and running gear what
difference
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
would it make?
I suggest you read up on the Aventra design.
Some of us have to work. If there is something magical about the design that
the electrostars don't have feel free to share it. I suspect they simply cost
bombardier less to build for whatever reason rather them being fundamentally
superior to the electrostar.
Keeping suspecting and imagining what you like. But stop wasting everyone
else's time.
So you have nothing then.

Btw, did someone force you to read it or reply?
Recliner
2018-01-26 13:18:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:08:49 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:39:57 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Interoperability. The same reason the Class 66 locomotive was still being
bought even thought the Class 70 was superior in every way (bar looks).
<https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/another-class-70007-on-fire-another-70-fa
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
lure.64125/page-4>
That was 6 years ago. And IIRC the 66s weren't exactly popular with drivers
and the cabs had to be modified to stop them going on strike.
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
By your logic, TfL should have ordered more of the proven, in-service
313s,
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
not the dangerously new-fangled 378s, when increasing the LO fleet.
If the 313s had the latest traction equipment and running gear what
difference
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
would it make?
I suggest you read up on the Aventra design.
Some of us have to work. If there is something magical about the design that
the electrostars don't have feel free to share it. I suspect they simply cost
bombardier less to build for whatever reason rather them being fundamentally
superior to the electrostar.
Keeping suspecting and imagining what you like. But stop wasting everyone
else's time.
So you have nothing then.
Btw, did someone force you to read it or reply?
Thanks for the hint.

I'll go back to ignoring the trolls again. Obviously I won't attempt
to killfile you, because your ignorant, illiterate posts are so
amusing to read.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2018-01-24 17:36:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
It is therefore still being operated by its fleet of eight very well
presented 2-car Class 172 DMUs, but these will soon be replaced by the
brand-new fleet of Class 710 4-car Aventras which are currently under
construction. The new trains will have much more capacity, but the
popular transverse seats of the 172s will be replaced by metro-style
longitudinal seats in the 710s.
The new OHLE for the slow speed metro line used by 4-car trains is
similar to that on the GWR, with mighty girders that dwarf the
slender, elegant equivalents on the faster LTS route that the GOBLIN
joins.
Apart from the OHLE, most of the platforms have needed lengthening for
the new 4-car trains. In some cases, this has required platform
extensions to be constructed, but in many other cases, disused
sections of the old platforms have been refurbished and brought back
into use.
Bearing in mind what happened to the Overground lines, wouldn't it make
sense to make the platforms 5-car now, just in case?
Post by Recliner
I went along on Monday to take some pictures of the line in its
transitional state, with the electrification work seemingly complete,
but many of the platform extensions not yet open, though they look
finished.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157665010879878>
It's interesting to note that other than the spring tensioners, and the
large gantries to support them, there appear to be no components in common
with the GW scheme.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Recliner
2018-01-24 17:46:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
It is therefore still being operated by its fleet of eight very well
presented 2-car Class 172 DMUs, but these will soon be replaced by the
brand-new fleet of Class 710 4-car Aventras which are currently under
construction. The new trains will have much more capacity, but the
popular transverse seats of the 172s will be replaced by metro-style
longitudinal seats in the 710s.
The new OHLE for the slow speed metro line used by 4-car trains is
similar to that on the GWR, with mighty girders that dwarf the
slender, elegant equivalents on the faster LTS route that the GOBLIN
joins.
Apart from the OHLE, most of the platforms have needed lengthening for
the new 4-car trains. In some cases, this has required platform
extensions to be constructed, but in many other cases, disused
sections of the old platforms have been refurbished and brought back
into use.
Bearing in mind what happened to the Overground lines, wouldn't it make
sense to make the platforms 5-car now, just in case?
It's hard to be sure, but many of the extended platforms do look long
enough for more than 4-car train. I'm not sure if they'd handle five cars,
though. But I assume the new trains will have SDO.
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Recliner
I went along on Monday to take some pictures of the line in its
transitional state, with the electrification work seemingly complete,
but many of the platform extensions not yet open, though they look
finished.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157665010879878>
It's interesting to note that other than the spring tensioners, and the
large gantries to support them, there appear to be no components in common
with the GW scheme.
Ah, that's interesting — I wasn't sure. But makes the oversized masts even
more inexplicable: this is a low speed railway with short, single
pantograph trains. The massive GWR OHLE was explained by the need to handle
140 mph dual pan trains.
Basil Jet
2018-01-24 17:48:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Ah, that's interesting — I wasn't sure. But makes the oversized masts even
more inexplicable: this is a low speed railway with short, single
pantograph trains.
... and freight trains.
Recliner
2018-01-24 17:56:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Ah, that's interesting — I wasn't sure. But makes the oversized masts even
more inexplicable: this is a low speed railway with short, single
pantograph trains.
... and freight trains.
Don't they fall into the category of low speed single pantograph trains?
Of course, the freight currently using the line are diesels, but some
electric freights may start using it.

The massive girder OHLE on the GWR is supposed to be to cope with the
forces from dual pan 140 mph trains (though HS1 seems to get by with
slimmer masts for its 186 mph dual pan trains).
Basil Jet
2018-01-24 17:58:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Ah, that's interesting — I wasn't sure. But makes the oversized masts even
more inexplicable: this is a low speed railway with short, single
pantograph trains.
... and freight trains.
Don't they fall into the category of low speed single pantograph trains?
Of course, the freight currently using the line are diesels, but some
electric freights may start using it.
"May"? Wasn't electric freight a significant part of the business case?
Recliner
2018-01-24 18:04:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Ah, that's interesting — I wasn't sure. But makes the oversized masts even
more inexplicable: this is a low speed railway with short, single
pantograph trains.
... and freight trains.
Don't they fall into the category of low speed single pantograph trains?
Of course, the freight currently using the line are diesels, but some
electric freights may start using it.
"May"? Wasn't electric freight a significant part of the business case?
I think so, but judging by the 66s that seem to haul most NLL freight
trains, I wonder how many GOBLIN freights will be electric?
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2018-01-24 17:56:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Recliner
I went along on Monday to take some pictures of the line in its
transitional state, with the electrification work seemingly complete,
but many of the platform extensions not yet open, though they look
finished.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157665010879878>
It's interesting to note that other than the spring tensioners, and the
large gantries to support them, there appear to be no components in common
with the GW scheme.
Ah, that's interesting — I wasn't sure. But makes the oversized masts even
more inexplicable: this is a low speed railway with short, single
pantograph trains. The massive GWR OHLE was explained by the need to handle
140 mph dual pan trains.
The only particularly oversized ones seem to be the end-of-run
anchor/tensioner ones; presumably they still seek to keep each line, and
where possible each length of wire, physically separate if they can.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
ColinR
2018-01-24 20:51:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Recliner
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Recliner
I went along on Monday to take some pictures of the line in its
transitional state, with the electrification work seemingly complete,
but many of the platform extensions not yet open, though they look
finished.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157665010879878>
It's interesting to note that other than the spring tensioners, and the
large gantries to support them, there appear to be no components in common
with the GW scheme.
Ah, that's interesting — I wasn't sure. But makes the oversized masts even
more inexplicable: this is a low speed railway with short, single
pantograph trains. The massive GWR OHLE was explained by the need to handle
140 mph dual pan trains.
The only particularly oversized ones seem to be the end-of-run
anchor/tensioner ones; presumably they still seek to keep each line, and
where possible each length of wire, physically separate if they can.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
They certainly do look oversized (unless the perspective of the pictures
exaggerate this) compared to the OHL that I am used to in the Glasgow
area, suburban trains normally but with the capability for weekend
diversions of London trains.
--
Colin
Recliner
2018-01-24 21:27:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ColinR
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Recliner
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Recliner
I went along on Monday to take some pictures of the line in its
transitional state, with the electrification work seemingly complete,
but many of the platform extensions not yet open, though they look
finished.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157665010879878>
It's interesting to note that other than the spring tensioners, and the
large gantries to support them, there appear to be no components in common
with the GW scheme.
Ah, that's interesting — I wasn't sure. But makes the oversized masts even
more inexplicable: this is a low speed railway with short, single
pantograph trains. The massive GWR OHLE was explained by the need to handle
140 mph dual pan trains.
The only particularly oversized ones seem to be the end-of-run
anchor/tensioner ones; presumably they still seek to keep each line, and
where possible each length of wire, physically separate if they can.
They certainly do look oversized (unless the perspective of the pictures
exaggerate this) compared to the OHL that I am used to in the Glasgow
area, suburban trains normally but with the capability for weekend
diversions of London trains.
Oh, they look oversized from every perspective. They look like a giant's
Meccano set, with all components beefy enough to be used all sorts of
different projects (such as knocking up a new Forth bridge). The contrast
is clear where the new OHLE has been erected next to older OHLE, for
example at Barking. There, the contrast is with the comparitively delicate,
elegant LTS main line multi-track OHLE, which powers its faster, longer
trains.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
2018-01-24 23:21:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ColinR
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Recliner
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Recliner
I went along on Monday to take some pictures of the line in its
transitional state, with the electrification work seemingly complete,
but many of the platform extensions not yet open, though they look
finished.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157665010879878>
It's interesting to note that other than the spring tensioners, and the
large gantries to support them, there appear to be no components in common
with the GW scheme.
Ah, that's interesting — I wasn't sure. But makes the oversized masts even
more inexplicable: this is a low speed railway with short, single
pantograph trains. The massive GWR OHLE was explained by the need to handle
140 mph dual pan trains.
The only particularly oversized ones seem to be the end-of-run
anchor/tensioner ones; presumably they still seek to keep each line, and
where possible each length of wire, physically separate if they can.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
They certainly do look oversized (unless the perspective of the pictures
exaggerate this) compared to the OHL that I am used to in the Glasgow
area, suburban trains normally but with the capability for weekend
diversions of London trains.
It's the ones like this
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/26002121418/in/album-72157665010879878/>
that I mean - they're only provided at the ends of wire runs (around
junctions, or two every ~1300m on plain track). The same set of components
are used to span four (or maybe more? Not sure OTTOMH) tracks on the GWML.
The rest of the supports in the photographs seem to be less
over-engineered.


Anna Noyd-Dryver
Recliner
2018-01-25 00:02:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by ColinR
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Recliner
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Post by Recliner
I went along on Monday to take some pictures of the line in its
transitional state, with the electrification work seemingly complete,
but many of the platform extensions not yet open, though they look
finished.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157665010879878>
It's interesting to note that other than the spring tensioners, and the
large gantries to support them, there appear to be no components in common
with the GW scheme.
Ah, that's interesting — I wasn't sure. But makes the oversized masts even
more inexplicable: this is a low speed railway with short, single
pantograph trains. The massive GWR OHLE was explained by the need to handle
140 mph dual pan trains.
The only particularly oversized ones seem to be the end-of-run
anchor/tensioner ones; presumably they still seek to keep each line, and
where possible each length of wire, physically separate if they can.
Anna Noyd-Dryver
They certainly do look oversized (unless the perspective of the pictures
exaggerate this) compared to the OHL that I am used to in the Glasgow
area, suburban trains normally but with the capability for weekend
diversions of London trains.
It's the ones like this
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/26002121418/in/album-72157665010879878/>
that I mean - they're only provided at the ends of wire runs (around
junctions, or two every ~1300m on plain track). The same set of components
are used to span four (or maybe more? Not sure OTTOMH) tracks on the GWML.
The rest of the supports in the photographs seem to be less
over-engineered.
Yes, the portals look massive compared to, say, this on the four-track LTS
at Barking:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/39875971961/in/album-72157665010879878/lightbox/>

In contrast, look how massive the ordinary two-track portals on the GOBLIN
are:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/28095354239/in/album-72157665010879878/lightbox/>

Also at Barking is this massive cantilever mast on the GOBLIN bay platform:
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/39164862964/in/album-72157665010879878/>
Paul Corfield
2018-01-26 11:11:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Bearing in mind what happened to the Overground lines, wouldn't it make
sense to make the platforms 5-car now, just in case?
It's hard to be sure, but many of the extended platforms do look long
enough for more than 4-car train. I'm not sure if they'd handle five cars,
though. But I assume the new trains will have SDO.
Those stations which retained the old platforms have been easy to extend. Most have space for further extension. However there are four locations which are more difficult. These are Gospel Oak bay, South Tottenham, Blackhorse Road and WW Queens Road. AIUI the bay platform can't take 5 car trains which means the road bridge at the end would have to be widened which is big money. South Tottenham has the issue with the junction to the east. The only option there is if the road bridge can take platform structures. There's no space to the east for more extensions. Blackhorse Rd's platforms are only long for 4 car units presently but there is space to extend them. To be honest the platforms need urgent attention as they are too narrow and I expect they will struggle to cope with the crowds that a 4 car train will deposit. Queens Road was rebuilt with lowered platforms but only to 4 car length. It's not impossible to extend the platforms but it is more involved and costly that doing so at Leyton Midland Rd or Crouch Hill.

TfL's preferred upgrade path is actually to increase frequency to 5 tph rather than longer trains. There was much comment a few months ago about the signalling apparently being able to cope with 5 tph alongside the expected freight paths. Bizarrely a 5 tph service will not be able to run to Barking Riverside because of conflicts with the C2C service. If, in future, the frequency is increased it would be 5 tph GO-Barking but only 4 tph Barking to Barking Riverside. 1 tph would have to use platform 1 at Barking.
--
Paul C
via Google
Basil Jet
2018-01-26 12:08:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Corfield
Post by Recliner
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Bearing in mind what happened to the Overground lines, wouldn't it make
sense to make the platforms 5-car now, just in case?
It's hard to be sure, but many of the extended platforms do look long
enough for more than 4-car train. I'm not sure if they'd handle five cars,
though. But I assume the new trains will have SDO.
Those stations which retained the old platforms have been easy to extend. Most have space for further extension. However there are four locations which are more difficult. These are Gospel Oak bay, South Tottenham, Blackhorse Road and WW Queens Road. AIUI the bay platform can't take 5 car trains which means the road bridge at the end would have to be widened which is big money. South Tottenham has the issue with the junction to the east. The only option there is if the road bridge can take platform structures. There's no space to the east for more extensions. Blackhorse Rd's platforms are only long for 4 car units presently but there is space to extend them. To be honest the platforms need urgent attention as they are too narrow and I expect they will struggle to cope with the crowds that a 4 car train will deposit. Queens Road was rebuilt with lowered platforms but only to 4 car length. It's not impossible to extend the platforms but it is more involved and costly that doing so at Leyton Midland Rd or Crouch Hill.
TfL's preferred upgrade path is actually to increase frequency to 5 tph rather than longer trains. There was much comment a few months ago about the signalling apparently being able to cope with 5 tph alongside the expected freight paths. Bizarrely a 5 tph service will not be able to run to Barking Riverside because of conflicts with the C2C service. If, in future, the frequency is increased it would be 5 tph GO-Barking but only 4 tph Barking to Barking Riverside. 1 tph would have to use platform 1 at Barking.
Are there paths to extend the Goblin to Willesden and Clapham Junction,
bypa
Paul Corfield
2018-01-26 13:39:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Paul Corfield
Post by Recliner
Post by Anna Noyd-Dryver
Bearing in mind what happened to the Overground lines, wouldn't it make
sense to make the platforms 5-car now, just in case?
It's hard to be sure, but many of the extended platforms do look long
enough for more than 4-car train. I'm not sure if they'd handle five cars,
though. But I assume the new trains will have SDO.
Those stations which retained the old platforms have been easy to extend. Most have space for further extension. However there are four locations which are more difficult. These are Gospel Oak bay, South Tottenham, Blackhorse Road and WW Queens Road. AIUI the bay platform can't take 5 car trains which means the road bridge at the end would have to be widened which is big money. South Tottenham has the issue with the junction to the east. The only option there is if the road bridge can take platform structures. There's no space to the east for more extensions. Blackhorse Rd's platforms are only long for 4 car units presently but there is space to extend them. To be honest the platforms need urgent attention as they are too narrow and I expect they will struggle to cope with the crowds that a 4 car train will deposit. Queens Road was rebuilt with lowered platforms but only to 4 car length. It's not impossible to extend the platforms but it is more involved and costly that doing so at Leyton Midland Rd or Crouch Hill.
TfL's preferred upgrade path is actually to increase frequency to 5 tph rather than longer trains. There was much comment a few months ago about the signalling apparently being able to cope with 5 tph alongside the expected freight paths. Bizarrely a 5 tph service will not be able to run to Barking Riverside because of conflicts with the C2C service. If, in future, the frequency is increased it would be 5 tph GO-Barking but only 4 tph Barking to Barking Riverside. 1 tph would have to use platform 1 at Barking.
Are there paths to extend the Goblin to Willesden and Clapham Junction,
bypassing Gospel Oak completely?
No - I think the plan is to bolster off peak frequencies on the core NLL using some extra Class 710s that have been ordered. TfL have been trying to get historic freight paths released to allow for a better frequency. Some of the 378s will be cascaded to the ELL to allow for better frequencies there but there is a dependency on signalling enhancements. The idea of working through from the GOBLIN to the NLL was discounted several years ago and has never been actively reconsidered. It certainly didn't feature in the TfL Board paper that authorised the ordering of extra class 710 trains.

The AM peak GOBLIN working from Woodgrange Park to Willesden Junc Low Level ends in May so if people haven't had a ride on it they have a few more months to do so. I haven't done so but I am told that it has its own clientel who wait specifically for it.
--
Paul C
via Google
David Walters
2018-01-24 17:32:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
Are the wires ready all the way? The bridge at Crouch Hill is being
rebuilt "creating more space for the overhead lines" which suggests it
isn't all ready yet.
Recliner
2018-01-24 17:51:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Walters
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
Are the wires ready all the way? The bridge at Crouch Hill is being
rebuilt "creating more space for the overhead lines" which suggests it
isn't all ready yet.
I thought they were, but I can't be sure. I know a little more work is
needed, but it'll be done in weekend possessions. I didn't see any sign of
work sites or high viz vests near the tracks, which suggests that the OHLE
is complete.

I thought the wires were live all the way, but perhaps more work is needed
on the bridge?
Paul Corfield
2018-01-26 10:57:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Walters
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
Are the wires ready all the way? The bridge at Crouch Hill is being
rebuilt "creating more space for the overhead lines" which suggests it
isn't all ready yet.
The bridge will be raised in a few months. NR are now moving all the utilities. However the line is fully wired and energised. A test train using a 5 car class 378 ran throughout the line gathering data not long before the line reopened. A video clip of the train running under the Crouch Hill bridge was posted on Twitter as proof it worked.

https://twitter.com/DpeRail/status/951528140165337089

There are other video clips of the 378 on that Twitter account.
--
Paul C
via Google
David Walters
2018-01-26 12:24:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Corfield
Post by David Walters
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
Are the wires ready all the way? The bridge at Crouch Hill is being
rebuilt "creating more space for the overhead lines" which suggests it
isn't all ready yet.
The bridge will be raised in a few months. NR are now moving all the utilities. However the line is fully wired and energised. A test train using a 5 car class 378 ran throughout the line gathering data not long before the line reopened. A video clip of the train running under the Crouch Hill bridge was posted on Twitter as proof it worked.
https://twitter.com/DpeRail/status/951528140165337089
As the reply to that tweet says, why is the bridge being raised then?
Robin
2018-01-26 13:04:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Walters
As the reply to that tweet says, why is the bridge being raised then?
It was reported last year that NR had a _temporary_ dispensation to run
[some?] trains until the bridge was raised to give the required clearance.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Paul Corfield
2018-01-26 13:53:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Walters
Post by Paul Corfield
Post by David Walters
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
Are the wires ready all the way? The bridge at Crouch Hill is being
rebuilt "creating more space for the overhead lines" which suggests it
isn't all ready yet.
The bridge will be raised in a few months. NR are now moving all the utilities. However the line is fully wired and energised. A test train using a 5 car class 378 ran throughout the line gathering data not long before the line reopened. A video clip of the train running under the Crouch Hill bridge was posted on Twitter as proof it worked.
https://twitter.com/DpeRail/status/951528140165337089
As the reply to that tweet says, why is the bridge being raised then?
Because the bridge is not compliant with applicable clearance standards. As Robin says there is a short term waiver in place. However given the delays to the class 710s I suspect the bridge will have been raised before we see the new trains in regular service.

There are significant software problems with the Aventras for Crossrail and their reliability has not yet stabilised. Only 12 of 31 trains built so far have been accepted for service and there are regular breakdowns. On the assumption that there will be a lot of commonality between the 345s and 710s then problems with the former will almost certainly be posing issues with the latter's testing, acceptance and testing. I can't see TfL being overly keen on having two unreliable train fleets. It has no option put to try to get the 345s working because of immovable timescales on Crossrail but I can't see it being keen to take on 710s if they are not reliable. However the last two days have seen disruption of the GOBLIN because the 172s have conked out!
--
Paul C
via Google
Someone Somewhere
2018-01-26 14:06:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Corfield
Post by David Walters
Post by Paul Corfield
Post by David Walters
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
Are the wires ready all the way? The bridge at Crouch Hill is being
rebuilt "creating more space for the overhead lines" which suggests it
isn't all ready yet.
The bridge will be raised in a few months. NR are now moving all the utilities. However the line is fully wired and energised. A test train using a 5 car class 378 ran throughout the line gathering data not long before the line reopened. A video clip of the train running under the Crouch Hill bridge was posted on Twitter as proof it worked.
https://twitter.com/DpeRail/status/951528140165337089
As the reply to that tweet says, why is the bridge being raised then?
Because the bridge is not compliant with applicable clearance standards. As Robin says there is a short term waiver in place.
Can you explain the short term waiver? Either the train fits or it
doesn't surely?
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-26 14:27:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 14:06:02 +0000
Post by Paul Corfield
Post by Paul Corfield
Post by David Walters
Post by Paul Corfield
Post by David Walters
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
Are the wires ready all the way? The bridge at Crouch Hill is being
rebuilt "creating more space for the overhead lines" which suggests it
isn't all ready yet.
The bridge will be raised in a few months. NR are now moving all the
utilities. However the line is fully wired and energised. A test train using a
5 car class 378 ran throughout the line gathering data not long before the
line reopened. A video clip of the train running under the Crouch Hill bridge
was posted on Twitter as proof it worked.
Post by Paul Corfield
Post by David Walters
Post by Paul Corfield
https://twitter.com/DpeRail/status/951528140165337089
As the reply to that tweet says, why is the bridge being raised then?
Because the bridge is not compliant with applicable clearance standards. As
Robin says there is a short term waiver in place.
Can you explain the short term waiver? Either the train fits or it
doesn't surely?
At a guess I'd say it was to do with flashover issues from the catenary.
Possibly someone thinks its too close to the underside of the bridge.
Roland Perry
2018-01-26 14:43:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Paul Corfield
Post by Paul Corfield
Post by David Walters
As the reply to that tweet says, why is the bridge being raised then?
Because the bridge is not compliant with applicable clearance standards. As
Robin says there is a short term waiver in place.
Can you explain the short term waiver? Either the train fits or it
doesn't surely?
At a guess I'd say it was to do with flashover issues from the catenary.
Possibly someone thinks its too close to the underside of the bridge.
To cut a long story short, I expect there are some Elfins who have a
mission to reduce the flashover risk to once every 10,000yrs from the
existing once every 100yrs. [Numbers picked somewhat at random]
--
Roland Perry
Robin
2018-01-26 14:31:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Corfield
Because the bridge is not compliant with applicable clearance
standards. As Robin says there is a short term waiver in place.
Can you explain the short term waiver?  Either the train fits or it
doesn't surely?
Pending Paul's more knowledgeable response I'll chip in my 'appenyworth.
AIUI it's not the clearance of the train but the clearance between the
bridge (or other structures) and the overhead line equipment. The
Standard now requires (I think) 270mm - unless a risk assessment allows
something less. So it may be the risk with the current gap has been
judged acceptable for short-term operation but not for permanent operation.
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Someone Somewhere
2018-01-26 14:37:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin
Post by Paul Corfield
Because the bridge is not compliant with applicable clearance
standards. As Robin says there is a short term waiver in place.
Can you explain the short term waiver?  Either the train fits or it
doesn't surely?
Pending Paul's more knowledgeable response I'll chip in my 'appenyworth.
 AIUI it's not the clearance of the train but the clearance between the
bridge (or other structures) and the overhead line equipment.  The
Standard now requires (I think) 270mm - unless a risk assessment allows
something less.   So it may be the risk with the current gap has been
judged acceptable for short-term operation but not for permanent operation.
Interesting, but I can't see what would change between short and long
term - if weather affected then that couldn't be predicted to happen in
the short term, ditto with idiots leaning over and trying to grab it or
whatever, and the trains and pantographs don't magically change size either.

Now, if it causes a very slow speed limit then that would make sense -
and raising the bridge would mean a removal of that speed limit - maybe
it's that? Or perhaps as the cable slackens with use it flexes more
making it more prone to collide with things in the long term?
Robin
2018-01-26 14:46:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Someone Somewhere
Interesting, but I can't see what would change between short and long
term - if weather affected then that couldn't be predicted to happen in
the short term,  ditto with idiots leaning over and trying to grab it or
whatever, and the trains and pantographs don't magically change size either.
Now, if it causes a very slow speed limit then that would make sense -
and raising the bridge would mean a removal of that speed limit - maybe
it's that?  Or perhaps as the cable slackens with use it flexes more
making it more prone to collide with things in the long term?
Speculation: if the risk is not a matter of safety but of inconvenience
(eg trains delayed/cancelled) then it might be judged reasonable to
allow short term operation but not long term. After all, most users
will be aware it is not unknown for new services to suffer "teething
problems" ;)
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
Basil Jet
2018-01-26 15:44:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Robin
Post by Paul Corfield
Because the bridge is not compliant with applicable clearance
standards. As Robin says there is a short term waiver in place.
Can you explain the short term waiver?  Either the train fits or it
doesn't surely?
Pending Paul's more knowledgeable response I'll chip in my
'appenyworth.   AIUI it's not the clearance of the train but the
clearance between the bridge (or other structures) and the overhead
line equipment.  The Standard now requires (I think) 270mm - unless a
risk assessment allows something less.   So it may be the risk with
the current gap has been judged acceptable for short-term operation
but not for permanent operation.
Interesting, but I can't see what would change between short and long
term - if weather affected then that couldn't be predicted to happen in
the short term,  ditto with idiots leaning over and trying to grab it or
whatever, and the trains and pantographs don't magically change size either.
Now, if it causes a very slow speed limit then that would make sense -
and raising the bridge would mean a removal of that speed limit - maybe
it's that?  Or perhaps as the cable slackens with use it flexes more
making it more prone to collide with things in the long term?
Can't they just insulate the underside of the bridge? And so what if it
sparked anyway... it won't kill anyone on the bridge, any more than HV
lines kill the birds that sit on them.
Recliner
2018-01-26 15:53:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Robin
Post by Paul Corfield
Because the bridge is not compliant with applicable clearance
standards. As Robin says there is a short term waiver in place.
Can you explain the short term waiver?  Either the train fits or it
doesn't surely?
Pending Paul's more knowledgeable response I'll chip in my
'appenyworth.   AIUI it's not the clearance of the train but the
clearance between the bridge (or other structures) and the overhead
line equipment.  The Standard now requires (I think) 270mm - unless a
risk assessment allows something less.   So it may be the risk with
the current gap has been judged acceptable for short-term operation
but not for permanent operation.
Interesting, but I can't see what would change between short and long
term - if weather affected then that couldn't be predicted to happen in
the short term,  ditto with idiots leaning over and trying to grab it or
whatever, and the trains and pantographs don't magically change size either.
Now, if it causes a very slow speed limit then that would make sense -
and raising the bridge would mean a removal of that speed limit - maybe
it's that?  Or perhaps as the cable slackens with use it flexes more
making it more prone to collide with things in the long term?
Can't they just insulate the underside of the bridge? And so what if it
sparked anyway... it won't kill anyone on the bridge, any more than HV
lines kill the birds that sit on them.
It's these new rules that have contributed to the delays and increased
costs of the GWR electrification. More bridges needed attention than
expected.
d***@yahoo.co.uk
2018-01-26 16:04:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Can't they just insulate the underside of the bridge? And so what if it
sparked anyway... it won't kill anyone on the bridge, any more than HV
lines kill the birds that sit on them.
Have you ever noticed that they don't sit on grid conductors?
There must be a voltage higher than the 33kV used on the regional
distribution network where the voltage gradient as they land on a
conductor and they "fill up " gets uncomfortable or even lethal.
I don't think I have seen any on the 132kV lines of the original grid
now transferred to the distribution companies so reckon it must be
somewhere between 33kv and 132kV.


G.Harman
h***@yahoo.co.uk
2018-01-24 18:13:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
It is therefore still being operated by its fleet of eight very well
presented 2-car Class 172 DMUs, but these will soon be replaced by the
brand-new fleet of Class 710 4-car Aventras which are currently under
construction. The new trains will have much more capacity, but the
popular transverse seats of the 172s will be replaced by metro-style
longitudinal seats in the 710s.
The new OHLE for the slow speed metro line used by 4-car trains is
similar to that on the GWR, with mighty girders that dwarf the
slender, elegant equivalents on the faster LTS route that the GOBLIN
joins.
Apart from the OHLE, most of the platforms have needed lengthening for
the new 4-car trains. In some cases, this has required platform
extensions to be constructed, but in many other cases, disused
sections of the old platforms have been refurbished and brought back
into use.
I went along on Monday to take some pictures of the line in its
transitional state, with the electrification work seemingly complete,
but many of the platform extensions not yet open, though they look
finished.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157665010879878>
I saw testing of passenger trains on OTT, before the line reopened.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2018-01-24 21:45:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Ah, that's interesting _ I wasn't sure. But makes the oversized
masts even more inexplicable: this is a low speed railway with
short, single pantograph trains.
... and freight trains.
Don't they fall into the category of low speed single pantograph
trains? Of course, the freight currently using the line are diesels,
but some electric freights may start using it.
"May"? Wasn't electric freight a significant part of the business
case?
I think so, but judging by the 66s that seem to haul most NLL freight
trains, I wonder how many GOBLIN freights will be electric?
Felixstowe-WCML container trains, the main current electrically hauled
freight?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Basil Jet
2018-01-25 04:22:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Ah, that's interesting _ I wasn't sure. But makes the oversized
masts even more inexplicable: this is a low speed railway with
short, single pantograph trains.
... and freight trains.
Don't they fall into the category of low speed single pantograph
trains? Of course, the freight currently using the line are diesels,
but some electric freights may start using it.
"May"? Wasn't electric freight a significant part of the business
case?
I think so, but judging by the 66s that seem to haul most NLL freight
trains, I wonder how many GOBLIN freights will be electric?
Felixstowe-WCML container trains, the main current electrically hauled
freight?
You need two reversals to get from GEML to Goblin.
David C
2018-01-25 21:32:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Ah, that's interesting _ I wasn't sure. But makes the oversized
masts even more inexplicable: this is a low speed railway with
short, single pantograph trains.
... and freight trains.
Don't they fall into the category of low speed single pantograph
trains? Of course, the freight currently using the line are diesels,
but some electric freights may start using it.
"May"? Wasn't electric freight a significant part of the business
case?
I think so, but judging by the 66s that seem to haul most NLL freight
trains, I wonder how many GOBLIN freights will be electric?
Felixstowe-WCML container trains, the main current electrically hauled
freight?
ISTR seeing 86's at Grays using the electrified single line leading to
Tilbury to access the Freightliner Terminal.

AFAIK it's possible for electric traction to access Ripple Lane & HS1
at Dagenham Dock, , but I don't know of any other possible electric
freight operations on the LT&S.

The connection to London Gateway isn't wired.

The Goblin at South Tottenham can be accessed from the Cambridge main
line, but that's not a regular freight route, AFAIK.

DC
Recliner
2018-01-25 21:41:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David C
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Ah, that's interesting _ I wasn't sure. But makes the oversized
masts even more inexplicable: this is a low speed railway with
short, single pantograph trains.
... and freight trains.
Don't they fall into the category of low speed single pantograph
trains? Of course, the freight currently using the line are diesels,
but some electric freights may start using it.
"May"? Wasn't electric freight a significant part of the business
case?
I think so, but judging by the 66s that seem to haul most NLL freight
trains, I wonder how many GOBLIN freights will be electric?
Felixstowe-WCML container trains, the main current electrically hauled
freight?
ISTR seeing 86's at Grays using the electrified single line leading to
Tilbury to access the Freightliner Terminal.
AFAIK it's possible for electric traction to access Ripple Lane & HS1
at Dagenham Dock, , but I don't know of any other possible electric
freight operations on the LT&S.
The connection to London Gateway isn't wired.
The Goblin at South Tottenham can be accessed from the Cambridge main
line, but that's not a regular freight route, AFAIK.
Yes, that route through South Tottenham was already electrified.
David C
2018-01-26 13:17:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 21:41:26 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by David C
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
Post by Basil Jet
Ah, that's interesting _ I wasn't sure. But makes the oversized
masts even more inexplicable: this is a low speed railway with
short, single pantograph trains.
... and freight trains.
Don't they fall into the category of low speed single pantograph
trains? Of course, the freight currently using the line are diesels,
but some electric freights may start using it.
"May"? Wasn't electric freight a significant part of the business
case?
I think so, but judging by the 66s that seem to haul most NLL freight
trains, I wonder how many GOBLIN freights will be electric?
Felixstowe-WCML container trains, the main current electrically hauled
freight?
ISTR seeing 86's at Grays using the electrified single line leading to
Tilbury to access the Freightliner Terminal.
AFAIK it's possible for electric traction to access Ripple Lane & HS1
at Dagenham Dock, , but I don't know of any other possible electric
freight operations on the LT&S.
The connection to London Gateway isn't wired.
The Goblin at South Tottenham can be accessed from the Cambridge main
line, but that's not a regular freight route, AFAIK.
Yes, that route through South Tottenham was already electrified
Not too sure, but I think said route was wired when
Stratford-Coppermill North Jct was done.

There was an eletric Mon-Fri. Enfield Town - Stratford return service
at one time, using all the then new links, but it seems to have been
dis-continued. There might still a Parly service/

I do remember using whole line back when it was steam worked, from
North Woolwich to Palace Gates, + a Sunday DMU ride from Severn
Sisters to PG, but that was a long time ago.............

DC
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2018-01-25 20:36:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:45:47 +0000
Post by Basil Jet
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:54:57 +0000
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
It is therefore still being operated by its fleet of eight very well
presented 2-car Class 172 DMUs, but these will soon be replaced by
the brand-new fleet of Class 710 4-car Aventras which are currently
under construction. The new trains will have much more capacity, but
Why didn't they just buy some more 378s?
Electrostar production has ended. The world moves on.
Sometimes it moves on... and sometimes Boltar makes the same debunked
criticism again and again and again.
It amuses me the way you lot talk about production having ceased, as if
trains are built in the same way as cars on a 24/7 production line
churning out a given model. They're built to order - if a customer
wanted a particular train I'm pretty sure it would be supplied. Money
talks.
Bombardier offered Aventras when bidding for the order. The obsolete
Electrostars weren't on offer.
And why do you think TfL would be so stupid as to offer extra money for a
special build of an obsolete design, when a more efficient, standard new
model was on offer? Money does indeed talk, and fortunately TfL spends it
more wisely than you would.
By your logic, TfL should have ordered more of the proven, in-service
313s, not the dangerously new-fangled 378s, when increasing the LO fleet.
In fact, with modern manufacturing, especially where electronics are
involved, technology can move on to the point where obsolete design
manufacture is no longer affordable because the machinery is no longer
available.

This happened in the late 1990s with the radios used for RETB signalling.
Railtrack wanted more of an obsolete design of the radios which used a form
of electronics which was no longer makeable, more or less at any price. This
was a problem because the replacement kit hadn't been through the railway's
approval procedures. It had to.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Recliner
2018-01-25 21:21:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:45:47 +0000
Post by Basil Jet
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:54:57 +0000
Post by Recliner
As most people here will know, the newly-electrified GOBLIN reopened
last week, after its latest period of closure. This was another
electrification project that went wrong, but at least in this case,
the wires are ready just before the new EMUs will be delivered.
It is therefore still being operated by its fleet of eight very well
presented 2-car Class 172 DMUs, but these will soon be replaced by
the brand-new fleet of Class 710 4-car Aventras which are currently
under construction. The new trains will have much more capacity, but
Why didn't they just buy some more 378s?
Electrostar production has ended. The world moves on.
Sometimes it moves on... and sometimes Boltar makes the same debunked
criticism again and again and again.
It amuses me the way you lot talk about production having ceased, as if
trains are built in the same way as cars on a 24/7 production line
churning out a given model. They're built to order - if a customer
wanted a particular train I'm pretty sure it would be supplied. Money
talks.
Bombardier offered Aventras when bidding for the order. The obsolete
Electrostars weren't on offer.
And why do you think TfL would be so stupid as to offer extra money for a
special build of an obsolete design, when a more efficient, standard new
model was on offer? Money does indeed talk, and fortunately TfL spends it
more wisely than you would.
By your logic, TfL should have ordered more of the proven, in-service
313s, not the dangerously new-fangled 378s, when increasing the LO fleet.
In fact, with modern manufacturing, especially where electronics are
involved, technology can move on to the point where obsolete design
manufacture is no longer affordable because the machinery is no longer
available.
This happened in the late 1990s with the radios used for RETB signalling.
Railtrack wanted more of an obsolete design of the radios which used a form
of electronics which was no longer makeable, more or less at any price. This
was a problem because the replacement kit hadn't been through the railway's
approval procedures. It had to.
Yes, that's a good point. With the Electrostar having gone out of
production, the supply chain may no longer be willing to provide the
components, particularly for small batches. For example, are the identical
bogies, motors, power electronics, doors, toilets, aircon units, etc all
still in production? The Aventra probably uses newer versions of many of
these, possibly from different suppliers.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-26 09:47:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:36:54 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
By your logic, TfL should have ordered more of the proven, in-service
313s, not the dangerously new-fangled 378s, when increasing the LO fleet.
In fact, with modern manufacturing, especially where electronics are
involved, technology can move on to the point where obsolete design
manufacture is no longer affordable because the machinery is no longer
available.
This happened in the late 1990s with the radios used for RETB signalling.
Railtrack wanted more of an obsolete design of the radios which used a form
of electronics which was no longer makeable, more or less at any price. This
That sounds highly unlikely. You can still buy chips designed in the 70s
if you so desire:

https://www.digikey.co.uk/catalog/en/partgroup/z80/15507

so the chances of whatever microcontroller the radios used being unavailable
is pretty slim. Plus the analogue radio components and op-amps will always be
available until someone invents usable optotronics. More than likely the cost
of redesigning the board for SMDs was more than railtrack was prepared to pay.
Roland Perry
2018-01-26 12:02:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
You can still buy
a subset of
Hence stories about NASA having to scour eBay for some parts need for
maintaining legacy equipment.
--
Roland Perry
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-26 14:22:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 12:02:51 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
You can still buy
a subset of
Hence stories about NASA having to scour eBay for some parts need for
maintaining legacy equipment.
NASA tends not to use off the shelf parts.
Roland Perry
2018-01-26 14:46:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
You can still buy
a subset of
Hence stories about NASA having to scour eBay for some parts need for
maintaining legacy equipment.
NASA tends not to use off the shelf parts.
The ones in question are, otherwise they'd not be on eBay [as a result
of someone breaking up some old equipment and selling whatever they can
dis-assemble as spares].

Often they are things as boring as specific versions of a generic
processor or memory chip, which come in thousands of different variants.
--
Roland Perry
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-26 15:34:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 14:46:42 +0000
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
You can still buy
a subset of
Hence stories about NASA having to scour eBay for some parts need for
maintaining legacy equipment.
NASA tends not to use off the shelf parts.
The ones in question are, otherwise they'd not be on eBay [as a result
of someone breaking up some old equipment and selling whatever they can
dis-assemble as spares].
Often they are things as boring as specific versions of a generic
processor or memory chip, which come in thousands of different variants.
Be that as it may, I doubt a GPRS radio used such obscure parts that they
were unavailable a decade later.
Roland Perry
2018-01-26 15:52:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
You can still buy
a subset of
Hence stories about NASA having to scour eBay for some parts need for
maintaining legacy equipment.
NASA tends not to use off the shelf parts.
The ones in question are, otherwise they'd not be on eBay [as a result
of someone breaking up some old equipment and selling whatever they can
dis-assemble as spares].
Often they are things as boring as specific versions of a generic
processor or memory chip, which come in thousands of different variants.
Be that as it may, I doubt a GPRS radio used such obscure parts that they
were unavailable a decade later.
Everyone familiar with the specific project has told you otherwise.
--
Roland Perry
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2018-01-26 23:32:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Roland Perry
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
You can still buy
a subset of
Hence stories about NASA having to scour eBay for some parts need for
maintaining legacy equipment.
NASA tends not to use off the shelf parts.
The ones in question are, otherwise they'd not be on eBay [as a result
of someone breaking up some old equipment and selling whatever they can
dis-assemble as spares].
Often they are things as boring as specific versions of a generic
processor or memory chip, which come in thousands of different variants.
Be that as it may, I doubt a GPRS radio used such obscure parts that they
were unavailable a decade later.
Everyone familiar with the specific project has told you otherwise.
The RETB radios weren't GPRS for a start.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2018-01-26 12:32:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:36:54 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
By your logic, TfL should have ordered more of the proven, in-service
313s, not the dangerously new-fangled 378s, when increasing the LO fleet.
In fact, with modern manufacturing, especially where electronics are
involved, technology can move on to the point where obsolete design
manufacture is no longer affordable because the machinery is no longer
available.
This happened in the late 1990s with the radios used for RETB signalling.
Railtrack wanted more of an obsolete design of the radios which used a
form of electronics which was no longer makeable, more or less at any
price.
That sounds highly unlikely. You can still buy chips designed in the
https://www.digikey.co.uk/catalog/en/partgroup/z80/15507
But you can't create the circuit boards and assemble them at affordable
costs. Repairing existing boards is another matter. There is an established
cottage industry that kept similar radios in use on the NRN until it was
switched off.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
so the chances of whatever microcontroller the radios used being
unavailable is pretty slim. Plus the analogue radio components and op-amps
will always be available until someone invents usable optotronics. More
than likely the cost of redesigning the board for SMDs was more than
railtrack was prepared to pay.
So you know more than a multi-national radio manufacturing company? It's a
true story, as told to me by our salesman to Railtrack at the time.

The problem was the cost and time taken to get new technology-based radios
type approved for use in the small quantities needed for the areas of RETB
signalling.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-26 14:24:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 06:32:11 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
That sounds highly unlikely. You can still buy chips designed in the
https://www.digikey.co.uk/catalog/en/partgroup/z80/15507
But you can't create the circuit boards and assemble them at affordable
costs.
Which is what I said.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
so the chances of whatever microcontroller the radios used being
unavailable is pretty slim. Plus the analogue radio components and op-amps
will always be available until someone invents usable optotronics. More
than likely the cost of redesigning the board for SMDs was more than
railtrack was prepared to pay.
So you know more than a multi-national radio manufacturing company? It's a
true story, as told to me by our salesman to Railtrack at the time.
Told to you by a salesman? Oh well, it MUST be true then.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2018-01-26 23:32:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 06:32:11 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
That sounds highly unlikely. You can still buy chips designed in the
https://www.digikey.co.uk/catalog/en/partgroup/z80/15507
But you can't create the circuit boards and assemble them at affordable
costs.
Which is what I said.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
so the chances of whatever microcontroller the radios used being
unavailable is pretty slim. Plus the analogue radio components and
op-amps will always be available until someone invents usable
optotronics. More than likely the cost of redesigning the board for
SMDs was more than railtrack was prepared to pay.
So you know more than a multi-national radio manufacturing company? It's
a true story, as told to me by our salesman to Railtrack at the time.
Told to you by a salesman? Oh well, it MUST be true then.
He was an engineer who maintained the company's relationship with the
railway. We made all the NRN radios in the 1980s and 1990s (at least all
those I've seen in cabs on depot visits in recent years). I worked there for
over 25 years so knew a lot about how the kit was manufactured.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-29 09:50:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:32:28 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 06:32:11 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
That sounds highly unlikely. You can still buy chips designed in the
https://www.digikey.co.uk/catalog/en/partgroup/z80/15507
But you can't create the circuit boards and assemble them at affordable
costs.
Which is what I said.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
so the chances of whatever microcontroller the radios used being
unavailable is pretty slim. Plus the analogue radio components and
op-amps will always be available until someone invents usable
optotronics. More than likely the cost of redesigning the board for
SMDs was more than railtrack was prepared to pay.
So you know more than a multi-national radio manufacturing company? It's
a true story, as told to me by our salesman to Railtrack at the time.
Told to you by a salesman? Oh well, it MUST be true then.
He was an engineer who maintained the company's relationship with the
railway. We made all the NRN radios in the 1980s and 1990s (at least all
those I've seen in cabs on depot visits in recent years). I worked there for
over 25 years so knew a lot about how the kit was manufactured.
You'll know then which components were impossible to source. Feel free to fill
us in on which ones they were.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2018-01-29 11:58:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:32:28 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 06:32:11 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
That sounds highly unlikely. You can still buy chips designed in the
https://www.digikey.co.uk/catalog/en/partgroup/z80/15507
But you can't create the circuit boards and assemble them at
affordable costs.
Which is what I said.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
so the chances of whatever microcontroller the radios used being
unavailable is pretty slim. Plus the analogue radio components and
op-amps will always be available until someone invents usable
optotronics. More than likely the cost of redesigning the board for
SMDs was more than railtrack was prepared to pay.
So you know more than a multi-national radio manufacturing company?
It's a true story, as told to me by our salesman to Railtrack at the
time.
Told to you by a salesman? Oh well, it MUST be true then.
He was an engineer who maintained the company's relationship with the
railway. We made all the NRN radios in the 1980s and 1990s (at least all
those I've seen in cabs on depot visits in recent years). I worked there
for over 25 years so knew a lot about how the kit was manufactured.
You'll know then which components were impossible to source. Feel free to
fill us in on which ones they were.
As I've said more than once it wasn't a components problem. It's that the
boards were unmanufacturable at any affordable price. They needed
redesigning for modern components and assembly methods which meant starting
the approval process all over again from scratch.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
2018-01-29 16:43:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
You'll know then which components were impossible to source. Feel free to
fill us in on which ones they were.
As I've said more than once it wasn't a components problem. It's that the
boards were unmanufacturable at any affordable price. They needed
redesigning for modern components
I think Spud wants to know why they couldn't use the old boards with the
*old* components.
--
Roland Perry
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2018-01-29 18:25:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
You'll know then which components were impossible to source. Feel free
to fill us in on which ones they were.
As I've said more than once it wasn't a components problem. It's that the
boards were unmanufacturable at any affordable price. They needed
redesigning for modern components
I think Spud wants to know why they couldn't use the old boards with
the *old* components.
What old boards? They would have to be made and assembled from scratch, an
unaffordable prospect for the additional radios Railtrack wanted.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
2018-01-29 21:25:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
You'll know then which components were impossible to source. Feel free
to fill us in on which ones they were.
As I've said more than once it wasn't a components problem. It's that the
boards were unmanufacturable at any affordable price. They needed
redesigning for modern components
I think Spud wants to know why they couldn't use the old boards with
the *old* components.
What old boards? They would have to be made and assembled from scratch, an
unaffordable prospect for the additional radios Railtrack wanted.
So we may be getting closer - the problem was a lack of boards, not a
lack of components to put on them?
--
Roland Perry
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2018-01-30 00:03:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
You'll know then which components were impossible to source. Feel
free to fill us in on which ones they were.
As I've said more than once it wasn't a components problem. It's that
the boards were unmanufacturable at any affordable price. They needed
redesigning for modern components
I think Spud wants to know why they couldn't use the old boards with
the *old* components.
What old boards? They would have to be made and assembled from scratch,
an unaffordable prospect for the additional radios Railtrack wanted.
So we may be getting closer - the problem was a lack of boards, not a
lack of components to put on them?
Unmanufacturable covers a range of situations.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Someone Somewhere
2018-01-30 09:08:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
You'll know then which components were impossible to source. Feel
free to fill us in on which ones they were.
As I've said more than once it wasn't a components problem. It's that
the boards were unmanufacturable at any affordable price. They needed
redesigning for modern components
I think Spud wants to know why they couldn't use the old boards with
the *old* components.
What old boards? They would have to be made and assembled from scratch,
an unaffordable prospect for the additional radios Railtrack wanted.
So we may be getting closer - the problem was a lack of boards, not a
lack of components to put on them?
Unmanufacturable covers a range of situations.
Nothing that was manufactered is unmanufacturable - it may not be
reasonably economic to do so, or in certain cases legislation may
prevent it (lead etc) but if it was built once, it could be built again.
Roland Perry
2018-01-30 10:06:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
You'll know then which components were impossible to source. Feel
free to fill us in on which ones they were.
As I've said more than once it wasn't a components problem. It's that
the boards were unmanufacturable at any affordable price. They needed
redesigning for modern components
I think Spud wants to know why they couldn't use the old boards with
the *old* components.
What old boards? They would have to be made and assembled from scratch,
an unaffordable prospect for the additional radios Railtrack wanted.
So we may be getting closer - the problem was a lack of boards, not a
lack of components to put on them?
Unmanufacturable covers a range of situations.
Nothing that was manufactered is unmanufacturable - it may not be
reasonably economic to do so, or in certain cases legislation may
prevent it (lead etc) but if it was built once, it could be built again.
There are whole generations of custom-chips which aren't manufacturable
any more. Either the company which made them originally has gone out of
business/disappeared within another that's not longer in the foundry
business, or the tools and machinery required to produce a new batch
have long since been consigned to the dustbin of history.

A handful of generic chips may still be available, so you could perhaps
get a brand-new Z80 equivalent/clone processor chip to build a replica
Amstrad CPC464, but good luck getting Ferranti or SGS to make you a
fresh one of the ULAs.
--
Roland Perry
Someone Somewhere
2018-01-30 11:19:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Someone Somewhere
Nothing that was manufactered is unmanufacturable - it may not be
reasonably economic to do so,  or in certain cases legislation may
prevent it (lead etc) but if it was built once, it could be built again.
There are whole generations of custom-chips which aren't manufacturable
any more. Either the company which made them originally has gone out of
business/disappeared within another that's not longer in the foundry
business, or the tools and machinery required to produce a new batch
have long since been consigned to the dustbin of history.
A handful of generic chips may still be available, so you could perhaps
get a brand-new Z80 equivalent/clone processor chip to build a replica
Amstrad CPC464, but good luck getting Ferranti or SGS to make you a
fresh one of the ULAs.
You could still recreate them with enough time and money - they aren't
made of unobtanium - so it's economics. Now to rebuild the Ferranti fab
may be a ludicrous amount of money, but it's theoretically possible.

Or of course you could use FPGAs to do the same thing these days.
Recliner
2018-01-30 11:39:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Someone Somewhere
Nothing that was manufactered is unmanufacturable - it may not be
reasonably economic to do so,  or in certain cases legislation may
prevent it (lead etc) but if it was built once, it could be built again.
There are whole generations of custom-chips which aren't manufacturable
any more. Either the company which made them originally has gone out of
business/disappeared within another that's not longer in the foundry
business, or the tools and machinery required to produce a new batch
have long since been consigned to the dustbin of history.
A handful of generic chips may still be available, so you could perhaps
get a brand-new Z80 equivalent/clone processor chip to build a replica
Amstrad CPC464, but good luck getting Ferranti or SGS to make you a
fresh one of the ULAs.
You could still recreate them with enough time and money - they aren't
made of unobtanium - so it's economics. Now to rebuild the Ferranti fab
may be a ludicrous amount of money, but it's theoretically possible.
Or of course you could use FPGAs to do the same thing these days.
Would it be feasible to simply emulate all the old electronics and computer
components in software, running on a standard modern commodity CPU? The
modern CPU would be so much faster that it might deliver enough performance
to be able to precisely emulate the timing as well as the behaviour of the
old stuff.
Someone Somewhere
2018-01-30 11:44:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Someone Somewhere
Nothing that was manufactered is unmanufacturable - it may not be
reasonably economic to do so,  or in certain cases legislation may
prevent it (lead etc) but if it was built once, it could be built again.
There are whole generations of custom-chips which aren't manufacturable
any more. Either the company which made them originally has gone out of
business/disappeared within another that's not longer in the foundry
business, or the tools and machinery required to produce a new batch
have long since been consigned to the dustbin of history.
A handful of generic chips may still be available, so you could perhaps
get a brand-new Z80 equivalent/clone processor chip to build a replica
Amstrad CPC464, but good luck getting Ferranti or SGS to make you a
fresh one of the ULAs.
You could still recreate them with enough time and money - they aren't
made of unobtanium - so it's economics. Now to rebuild the Ferranti fab
may be a ludicrous amount of money, but it's theoretically possible.
Or of course you could use FPGAs to do the same thing these days.
Would it be feasible to simply emulate all the old electronics and computer
components in software, running on a standard modern commodity CPU? The
modern CPU would be so much faster that it might deliver enough performance
to be able to precisely emulate the timing as well as the behaviour of the
old stuff.
Presumably there are issues getting it to talk to all the other bits and
the outside world (ie enought I/O pins and level converters etc) but I'm
sure that could be resolved.

What might be harder is proving it is equivalent - particularly for
organisations with a high and detailed safety requirement. You keep
your certification if the thing is exactly the same, but if it changes
you need it to be re-certified which may actually be impossible if the
relevant certification organisation no longer exists or offers that
certification.
Roland Perry
2018-01-30 12:42:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<1731326622.539004958.551020.recliner.ng-***@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>, at 11:39:49 on Tue, 30 Jan 2018, Recliner
Post by Recliner
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Someone Somewhere
Nothing that was manufactered is unmanufacturable - it may not be
reasonably economic to do so,  or in certain cases legislation may
prevent it (lead etc) but if it was built once, it could be built again.
There are whole generations of custom-chips which aren't manufacturable
any more. Either the company which made them originally has gone out of
business/disappeared within another that's not longer in the foundry
business, or the tools and machinery required to produce a new batch
have long since been consigned to the dustbin of history.
A handful of generic chips may still be available, so you could perhaps
get a brand-new Z80 equivalent/clone processor chip to build a replica
Amstrad CPC464, but good luck getting Ferranti or SGS to make you a
fresh one of the ULAs.
You could still recreate them with enough time and money - they aren't
made of unobtanium - so it's economics. Now to rebuild the Ferranti fab
may be a ludicrous amount of money, but it's theoretically possible.
Or of course you could use FPGAs to do the same thing these days.
Would it be feasible to simply emulate all the old electronics and computer
components in software, running on a standard modern commodity CPU? The
modern CPU would be so much faster that it might deliver enough performance
to be able to precisely emulate the timing as well as the behaviour of the
old stuff.
How plausible is a software emulation of an NRN radio, and how would one
get it approved for use?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2018-01-30 12:41:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Someone Somewhere
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Someone Somewhere
Nothing that was manufactered is unmanufacturable - it may not be
reasonably economic to do so,  or in certain cases legislation may
prevent it (lead etc) but if it was built once, it could be built again.
There are whole generations of custom-chips which aren't
manufacturable any more. Either the company which made them
originally has gone out of business/disappeared within another that's
not longer in the foundry business, or the tools and machinery
required to produce a new batch have long since been consigned to the
dustbin of history.
A handful of generic chips may still be available, so you could
perhaps get a brand-new Z80 equivalent/clone processor chip to build
a replica Amstrad CPC464, but good luck getting Ferranti or SGS to
make you a fresh one of the ULAs.
You could still recreate them with enough time and money - they aren't
made of unobtanium - so it's economics. Now to rebuild the Ferranti
fab may be a ludicrous amount of money, but it's theoretically possible.
I thought we were discussing things which *were* [claimed to be]
economically feasible. Like restarting Electrostar production.
Post by Someone Somewhere
Or of course you could use FPGAs to do the same thing these days.
If you can reverse engineer the circuitry inside the ULA.

Can you make a radio transceiver out of FPGA's?
--
Roland Perry
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2018-01-25 22:38:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Recliner
Yes, that's a good point. With the Electrostar having gone out of
production, the supply chain may no longer be willing to provide the
components, particularly for small batches. For example, are the identical
bogies, motors, power electronics, doors, toilets, aircon units, etc all
still in production? The Aventra probably uses newer versions of many of
these, possibly from different suppliers.
The Aventra bogies are a totally different inside frame design from those in
the Electrostars, as those in the 700 etc class Desiros are totally
different from those in earlier Desiros.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Recliner
2018-01-25 22:56:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Yes, that's a good point. With the Electrostar having gone out of
production, the supply chain may no longer be willing to provide the
components, particularly for small batches. For example, are the identical
bogies, motors, power electronics, doors, toilets, aircon units, etc all
still in production? The Aventra probably uses newer versions of many of
these, possibly from different suppliers.
The Aventra bogies are a totally different inside frame design from those in
the Electrostars, as those in the 700 etc class Desiros are totally
different from those in earlier Desiros.
Yes, that's partly how the weight was reduced. I wonder if the old
Electrostar bogies are still in production? For example, are they used in
other Bombardier trains?

Are the new bogies similar to the class 221 bogies?
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2018-01-26 00:05:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Yes, that's a good point. With the Electrostar having gone out of
production, the supply chain may no longer be willing to provide the
components, particularly for small batches. For example, are the
identical bogies, motors, power electronics, doors, toilets, aircon
units, etc all still in production? The Aventra probably uses newer
versions of many of these, possibly from different suppliers.
The Aventra bogies are a totally different inside frame design from
those in the Electrostars, as those in the 700 etc class Desiros
are totally different from those in earlier Desiros.
Yes, that's partly how the weight was reduced. I wonder if the old
Electrostar bogies are still in production? For example, are they used in
other Bombardier trains?
What other Bombardier trains? I don't think any type other than Aventras is
on the current order book. There will be nearly as many Aventras in service
once current orders are fulfilled as the total Electrostar fleet built over
16 years.
Post by Recliner
Are the new bogies similar to the class 221 bogies?
They are the same in the sense that they have inside frames to make them
lighter but I know not how similar they are otherwise.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Recliner
2018-01-26 01:07:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Yes, that's a good point. With the Electrostar having gone out of
production, the supply chain may no longer be willing to provide the
components, particularly for small batches. For example, are the
identical bogies, motors, power electronics, doors, toilets, aircon
units, etc all still in production? The Aventra probably uses newer
versions of many of these, possibly from different suppliers.
The Aventra bogies are a totally different inside frame design from
those in the Electrostars, as those in the 700 etc class Desiros
are totally different from those in earlier Desiros.
Yes, that's partly how the weight was reduced. I wonder if the old
Electrostar bogies are still in production? For example, are they used in
other Bombardier trains?
What other Bombardier trains? I don't think any type other than Aventras is
on the current order book.
Really? Do all Bombardier factories around the world only build Aventras?
The Bombardier FLEXX Eco inside-frame bogies are based on an original BR
design, but are now made in Germany(?).
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
There will be nearly as many Aventras in service
once current orders are fulfilled as the total Electrostar fleet built over
16 years.
Yes, the Aventra is already a roaring success. The significant weight
reduction compared to the already light Electrostar should reduce running
costs. I don't think there have been any more Siemens orders in the UK
since the Aventra became available, apart from the add-on class 717 order.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Are the new bogies similar to the class 221 bogies?
They are the same in the sense that they have inside frames to make them
lighter but I know not how similar they are otherwise.
After doing a bit more research, it seems the FLEXX Eco inside-frame bogie
is indeed the same as used in Voyagers, Meridians and class 172 Turbostars,
as seen on the GOBLIN. They're also used in Norwegian and German trains.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2018-01-26 09:40:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Yes, that's a good point. With the Electrostar having gone out of
production, the supply chain may no longer be willing to provide the
components, particularly for small batches. For example, are the
identical bogies, motors, power electronics, doors, toilets, aircon
units, etc all still in production? The Aventra probably uses newer
versions of many of these, possibly from different suppliers.
The Aventra bogies are a totally different inside frame design from
those in the Electrostars, as those in the 700 etc class Desiros
are totally different from those in earlier Desiros.
Yes, that's partly how the weight was reduced. I wonder if the old
Electrostar bogies are still in production? For example, are they
used in other Bombardier trains?
What other Bombardier trains? I don't think any type other than
Aventras is on the current order book.
Really? Do all Bombardier factories around the world only build
Aventras? The Bombardier FLEXX Eco inside-frame bogies are based on
an original BR
design, but are now made in Germany(?).
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
There will be nearly as many Aventras in service
once current orders are fulfilled as the total Electrostar fleet
built over 16 years.
Yes, the Aventra is already a roaring success. The significant weight
reduction compared to the already light Electrostar should reduce running
costs. I don't think there have been any more Siemens orders in the UK
since the Aventra became available, apart from the add-on class 717 order.
Yet Bombardier haven't won any orders for a diesel version of the Aventra,
if one exists.
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Are the new bogies similar to the class 221 bogies?
They are the same in the sense that they have inside frames to make
them lighter but I know not how similar they are otherwise.
After doing a bit more research, it seems the FLEXX Eco inside-frame bogie
is indeed the same as used in Voyagers, Meridians and class 172
Turbostars, as seen on the GOBLIN. They're also used in Norwegian and
German trains.
Thanks for clearing that up. The 172s show that even Turbostar stock was
latterly being turned out with the new bogies. It does now seem surprising
that such an obsolete design as the Electrostar with original bogies
continued in production until so recently. I wonder how the Siemens Desiro
City bogies which are also inside frame compare?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-26 10:02:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 03:40:01 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Yes, the Aventra is already a roaring success. The significant weight
reduction compared to the already light Electrostar should reduce running
costs. I don't think there have been any more Siemens orders in the UK
since the Aventra became available, apart from the add-on class 717 order.
Yet Bombardier haven't won any orders for a diesel version of the Aventra,
if one exists.
Also weight reduction has a sweet point in rail vehicles. Below a certain
point you start to lose traction.
Recliner
2018-01-26 11:37:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 03:40:01 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Yes, the Aventra is already a roaring success. The significant weight
reduction compared to the already light Electrostar should reduce running
costs. I don't think there have been any more Siemens orders in the UK
since the Aventra became available, apart from the add-on class 717 order.
Yet Bombardier haven't won any orders for a diesel version of the Aventra,
if one exists.
Also weight reduction has a sweet point in rail vehicles. Below a certain
point you start to lose traction.
Ah, that must be why the DLR can't have steep gradients…

And why high performance sports cars have to be heavy…
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-26 14:22:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:37:43 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 03:40:01 -0600
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Yes, the Aventra is already a roaring success. The significant weight
reduction compared to the already light Electrostar should reduce running
costs. I don't think there have been any more Siemens orders in the UK
since the Aventra became available, apart from the add-on class 717 order.
Yet Bombardier haven't won any orders for a diesel version of the Aventra,
if one exists.
Also weight reduction has a sweet point in rail vehicles. Below a certain
point you start to lose traction.
Ah, that must be why the DLR can't have steep gradients

Put some leaves on those gradiants and then see how well it does. And why do
you think a lot of locomotives have ballast weights?
And why high performance sports cars have to be heavy

Ever heard of rubber tyres?

You really are a bell-end sometimes.
d***@yahoo.co.uk
2018-01-26 15:09:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Also weight reduction has a sweet point in rail vehicles. Below a certain
point you start to lose traction.
Ah, that must be why the DLR can't have steep gradients…
Put some leaves on those gradiants and then see how well it does. And why do
you think a lot of locomotives have ballast weights?
Because they have to haul heavy loads up gradients where the weight
is an asset and required to do the job,
Suburban passenger stock will be stopping and starting more
frequently so needs be as light as practical to save energy and brake
wear, and while it needs some adhesion to do its job even a crush load
of passengers won't weigh a couple of thousand tons like a load of
stone or coal and the mutiple units will have more driven wheels in
contact with the track, a locomotive in the UK will have a maximam of
12 with many only having 8 and shunters like the 08 having 6.

G.Harman
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-26 15:35:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:09:15 +0000
Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Also weight reduction has a sweet point in rail vehicles. Below a certain
point you start to lose traction.
Ah, that must be why the DLR can't have steep gradients

Put some leaves on those gradiants and then see how well it does. And why do
you think a lot of locomotives have ballast weights?
Because they have to haul heavy loads up gradients where the weight
is an asset and required to do the job,
Suburban passenger stock will be stopping and starting more
frequently so needs be as light as practical to save energy and brake
wear, and while it needs some adhesion to do its job even a crush load
Sure. But once it gets too light you're going to start getting wheelspin at
startoff especially in wet conditions or with leaves on the line. In fact
you see that already even with current stock and with lighter stock its only
going to get worse. There's only so much traction control can do.
Recliner
2018-01-26 15:50:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:09:15 +0000
Post by d***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Also weight reduction has a sweet point in rail vehicles. Below a certain
point you start to lose traction.
Ah, that must be why the DLR can't have steep gradients…
Put some leaves on those gradiants and then see how well it does. And why do
you think a lot of locomotives have ballast weights?
Because they have to haul heavy loads up gradients where the weight
is an asset and required to do the job,
Suburban passenger stock will be stopping and starting more
frequently so needs be as light as practical to save energy and brake
wear, and while it needs some adhesion to do its job even a crush load
Sure. But once it gets too light you're going to start getting wheelspin at
startoff especially in wet conditions or with leaves on the line. In fact
you see that already even with current stock and with lighter stock its only
going to get worse. There's only so much traction control can do.
It's nothing to do with weight (can I introduce you to the concept of
the coefficient of friction?). What you need for better traction is
more driven wheels, not heavier trains. Lightweight multiple units
with lots of driven wheels will always have better traction than long
loco-hauled trains, however heavy the loco. A heavy steam loco can
spin its wheels even when running light.

That's why modern multiple units have a higher proportion of driven
wheels, not heavy ballast weights bolted to the frame. For example,
the light DLR trains have excellent traction because two thirds of the
wheels are driven. They will easily outperform a train hauled by a
heavy loco on a wet or dry day. Some LU fleets are even better, with
75% or even 100% driven wheels.

Of course, WSP helps in all cases.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-26 16:06:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:50:37 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Sure. But once it gets too light you're going to start getting wheelspin at
startoff especially in wet conditions or with leaves on the line. In fact
you see that already even with current stock and with lighter stock its only
going to get worse. There's only so much traction control can do.
It's nothing to do with weight (can I introduce you to the concept of
Yeah, ok, whatever.

Some people are just too ignorant to bother arguing with sometimes. You're one
of them.
Recliner
2018-01-26 16:19:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:50:37 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Sure. But once it gets too light you're going to start getting wheelspin at
startoff especially in wet conditions or with leaves on the line. In fact
you see that already even with current stock and with lighter stock its only
going to get worse. There's only so much traction control can do.
It's nothing to do with weight (can I introduce you to the concept of
Yeah, ok, whatever.
Some people are just too ignorant to bother arguing with sometimes. You're one
of them.
Ah, Boltar at his finest: rude, ignorant and stupid all at once --
wonderful! Keep it up, Spud.

But I do have one complaint: none of the words in your latest post are
misspelt. What went wrong?
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-29 09:49:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 16:19:56 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:50:37 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Sure. But once it gets too light you're going to start getting wheelspin at
startoff especially in wet conditions or with leaves on the line. In fact
you see that already even with current stock and with lighter stock its only
going to get worse. There's only so much traction control can do.
It's nothing to do with weight (can I introduce you to the concept of
Yeah, ok, whatever.
Some people are just too ignorant to bother arguing with sometimes. You're
one
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
of them.
Ah, Boltar at his finest: rude, ignorant and stupid all at once --
wonderful! Keep it up, Spud.
Just for the record and so we can all have a good laugh in the future, please
confirm your apparent belief that the weight on a wheel makes no difference
whatsoever to the amount of grip it has.
Recliner
2018-01-29 10:22:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 16:19:56 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:50:37 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Sure. But once it gets too light you're going to start getting wheelspin at
startoff especially in wet conditions or with leaves on the line. In fact
you see that already even with current stock and with lighter stock its only
going to get worse. There's only so much traction control can do.
It's nothing to do with weight (can I introduce you to the concept of
Yeah, ok, whatever.
Some people are just too ignorant to bother arguing with sometimes. You're
one
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
of them.
Ah, Boltar at his finest: rude, ignorant and stupid all at once --
wonderful! Keep it up, Spud.
Just for the record and so we can all have a good laugh in the future, please
confirm your apparent belief that the weight on a wheel makes no difference
whatsoever to the amount of grip it has.
Read my post.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-29 10:28:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:22:48 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 16:19:56 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:50:37 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Sure. But once it gets too light you're going to start getting wheelspin
at
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
startoff especially in wet conditions or with leaves on the line. In
fact
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
you see that already even with current stock and with lighter stock its
only
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
going to get worse. There's only so much traction control can do.
It's nothing to do with weight (can I introduce you to the concept of
Yeah, ok, whatever.
Some people are just too ignorant to bother arguing with sometimes. You're
one
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
of them.
Ah, Boltar at his finest: rude, ignorant and stupid all at once --
wonderful! Keep it up, Spud.
Just for the record and so we can all have a good laugh in the future, please
confirm your apparent belief that the weight on a wheel makes no difference
whatsoever to the amount of grip it has.
Read my post.
I did. So "It's nothing to do with weight" was wrong then? Feel free to correct
yourself, or alternatively you could try some furious backpeddalling which no
doubt you're gearing up for already.
Recliner
2018-01-29 10:44:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:22:48 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 16:19:56 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:50:37 +0000
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Sure. But once it gets too light you're going to start getting wheelspin
at
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
startoff especially in wet conditions or with leaves on the line. In
fact
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
you see that already even with current stock and with lighter stock its
only
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
going to get worse. There's only so much traction control can do.
It's nothing to do with weight (can I introduce you to the concept of
Yeah, ok, whatever.
Some people are just too ignorant to bother arguing with sometimes. You're
one
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
of them.
Ah, Boltar at his finest: rude, ignorant and stupid all at once --
wonderful! Keep it up, Spud.
Just for the record and so we can all have a good laugh in the future, please
confirm your apparent belief that the weight on a wheel makes no difference
whatsoever to the amount of grip it has.
Read my post.
I did. So "It's nothing to do with weight" was wrong then? Feel free to correct
yourself, or alternatively you could try some furious backpeddalling which no
doubt you're gearing up for already.
Stop being an idiot (oh, wait, you can't). Of course I was right. Ask your
ESL teacher to explain my post to you, and then you might understand.

In the meantime, please amuse us by explaining why you think the DLR trains
would get up the Bank gradient better on a damp morning if they had heavy
ballast weights bolted on. And why you think heavy loco-hauled trains have
better traction than multiple units with distributed traction.

But, in the meantime, congratulations: we have finally found someone who
knows even less about physics (look it up: it's a branch of science) than
the DfT's civil servants!
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-29 12:23:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:44:40 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I did. So "It's nothing to do with weight" was wrong then? Feel free to
correct
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
yourself, or alternatively you could try some furious backpeddalling which no
doubt you're gearing up for already.
Stop being an idiot (oh, wait, you can't). Of course I was right. Ask your
ESL teacher to explain my post to you, and then you might understand.
Ah, backpedal commences...
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
In the meantime, please amuse us by explaining why you think the DLR trains
would get up the Bank gradient better on a damp morning if they had heavy
ballast weights bolted on. And why you think heavy loco-hauled trains have
There will be a critical angle at which extra weight will be a hindrance, not
a help. I have no idea what it is and neither do you, but go ahead and
demostrate your maths knowledge by working it out for us.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
better traction than multiple units with distributed traction.
Straw man. Point out where I said that.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
But, in the meantime, congratulations: we have finally found someone who
knows even less about physics (look it up: it's a branch of science) than
the DfT's civil servants!
Just looked in the mirror have we?

In the meantime why not educate yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhesion_railway

"Adhesion is caused by friction, with maximum tangential force produced by a
driving wheel before slipping given by:

Fmax= coefficient of friction × Weight on wheel
:
:
To start the heaviest trains the locomotive has to be as heavy as can be stood
by the bridges along the route and the track itself"

Apparently you're too thick to use google so consider this a personal social
service just for you.

Now, you have 2 options:
A) Continue to argue the toss against basic physics and make yourself look ever
more foolish, or
B) Accept you're wrong, save what dignity you have left and call it a day.

Somehow I suspect option A will be your choice.
Recliner
2018-01-29 12:44:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:44:40 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I did. So "It's nothing to do with weight" was wrong then? Feel free to
correct
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
yourself, or alternatively you could try some furious backpeddalling which no
doubt you're gearing up for already.
Stop being an idiot (oh, wait, you can't). Of course I was right. Ask your
ESL teacher to explain my post to you, and then you might understand.
Ah, backpedal commences...
You need to get your ESL teacher to explain to you what that means, again.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
In the meantime, please amuse us by explaining why you think the DLR trains
would get up the Bank gradient better on a damp morning if they had heavy
ballast weights bolted on. And why you think heavy loco-hauled trains have
There will be a critical angle at which extra weight will be a hindrance, not
a help.
Yes, there is. It's exactly 0.0 kg.

Making the train heavier does not improve the traction to weight ratio. But
it does reduce the power to weight ratio. So the extra weight will always
be a hindrance if it is distributed along the train.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I have no idea what it is and neither do you, but go ahead and
demostrate your maths knowledge by working it out for us.
It's zero. Any extra train weight is a hindrance. What you need is more
traction per unit of weight of the whole train, which is best achieved by
increasing the proportion of driven axles. That's what I explained in the
section you ignorantly snipped.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
better traction than multiple units with distributed traction.
Straw man. Point out where I said that.
You seemed to think that a heavy loco-hauled train was better than a light
multiple unit with distributed traction. It's not.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
But, in the meantime, congratulations: we have finally found someone who
knows even less about physics (look it up: it's a branch of science) than
the DfT's civil servants!
Just looked in the mirror have we?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhesion_railway
"Adhesion is caused by friction, with maximum tangential force produced by a
Fmax= coefficient of friction × Weight on wheel
To start the heaviest trains the locomotive has to be as heavy as can be stood
by the bridges along the route and the track itself"
Hint: the traction is based on the weight on the driving wheels, but it has
to pull the weight on all the wheels. Just increasing the overall weight
has no effect on the traction to weight ratio. But it does degrade the
power to weight ratio. So simply making the train heavier doesn't improve
the traction at all. But it does make for slower acceleration.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Apparently you're too thick to use google so consider this a personal social
service just for you.
A) Continue to argue the toss against basic physics and make yourself look ever
more foolish, or
B) Accept you're wrong, save what dignity you have left and call it a day.
Somehow I suspect option A will be your choice.
I prefer option C: being amused by the idiot troll (again).
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-29 14:46:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:44:50 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:44:40 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I did. So "It's nothing to do with weight" was wrong then? Feel free to
correct
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
yourself, or alternatively you could try some furious backpeddalling which
no
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
doubt you're gearing up for already.
Stop being an idiot (oh, wait, you can't). Of course I was right. Ask your
ESL teacher to explain my post to you, and then you might understand.
Ah, backpedal commences...
You need to get your ESL teacher to explain to you what that means, again.
Ad hominem. Going through the list arn't we.
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
There will be a critical angle at which extra weight will be a hindrance,
not
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
a help.
Yes, there is. It's exactly 0.0 kg.
If you say so einstein. Shame you're wrong.
Post by Recliner
It's zero. Any extra train weight is a hindrance. What you need is more
traction per unit of weight of the whole train, which is best achieved by
increasing the proportion of driven axles. That's what I explained in the
section you ignorantly snipped.
Ah, now moving goalposts. First it was weight doesn't help at all, now its
weight doesn't help on non driven axles. Well duh! Sorry, my fault, I assumed
that was a given and you weren't so fucking stupid that it had to be
explicitly stated.
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
better traction than multiple units with distributed traction.
Straw man. Point out where I said that.
You seemed to think that a heavy loco-hauled train was better than a light
multiple unit with distributed traction. It's not.
Point out where I said that.
Post by Recliner
to pull the weight on all the wheels. Just increasing the overall weight
has no effect on the traction to weight ratio. But it does degrade the
Oh very clever, pick a unit thats irrelevant and hope I don't notice. Traction
to weight is irrelevant. Traction full stop is whats matters and more weight
on a driven wheel = more grip. And while you're at it look up tractive effort.
Is that measured per unit weight? Oddly enough no.
Post by Recliner
power to weight ratio. So simply making the train heavier doesn't improve
the traction at all. But it does make for slower acceleration.
So what? If you knew anything about driving - which you don't because you
can't drive - you'd know putting weight in the boot of a RWD car or the load
bed of a pickup increases traction. Similarly an HGV has better traction
with a loaded trailer than an empty one even though the acceleration is worse.

Understand yet? No? Never mind, you might one day when you get your head out
of your arse.
Post by Recliner
I prefer option C: being amused by the idiot troll (again).
Call me a troll all you like, doesn't change the fact that you're the one who's
painted himself into a corner and is desperately trying to get out. Keep trying
old chap :o)
Recliner
2018-01-29 15:08:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:44:50 -0000 (UTC)
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:44:40 -0000 (UTC)
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I did. So "It's nothing to do with weight" was wrong then? Feel free to
correct
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
yourself, or alternatively you could try some furious backpeddalling which
no
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
doubt you're gearing up for already.
Stop being an idiot (oh, wait, you can't). Of course I was right. Ask your
ESL teacher to explain my post to you, and then you might understand.
Ah, backpedal commences...
You need to get your ESL teacher to explain to you what that means, again.
Ad hominem. Going through the list arn't we.
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
There will be a critical angle at which extra weight will be a hindrance,
not
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
a help.
Yes, there is. It's exactly 0.0 kg.
If you say so einstein. Shame you're wrong.
Post by Recliner
It's zero. Any extra train weight is a hindrance. What you need is more
traction per unit of weight of the whole train, which is best achieved by
increasing the proportion of driven axles. That's what I explained in the
section you ignorantly snipped.
Ah, now moving goalposts. First it was weight doesn't help at all, now its
weight doesn't help on non driven axles. Well duh! Sorry, my fault, I assumed
that was a given and you weren't so fucking stupid that it had to be
explicitly stated.
Post by Recliner
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
better traction than multiple units with distributed traction.
Straw man. Point out where I said that.
You seemed to think that a heavy loco-hauled train was better than a light
multiple unit with distributed traction. It's not.
Point out where I said that.
Post by Recliner
to pull the weight on all the wheels. Just increasing the overall weight
has no effect on the traction to weight ratio. But it does degrade the
Oh very clever, pick a unit thats irrelevant and hope I don't notice. Traction
to weight is irrelevant. Traction full stop is whats matters and more weight
on a driven wheel = more grip. And while you're at it look up tractive effort.
Is that measured per unit weight? Oddly enough no.
If the traction increases at exactly the same rate as the train's
weight, you've gained nothing. But you've made the power to weight
ratio worse, so overall, you're worse off. That's why engineers seek
to reduce the weight of vehicles. It's why my car has a high tech,
lightweight aluminium alloy monocoque body, and not sheet steel like
yours.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by Recliner
power to weight ratio. So simply making the train heavier doesn't improve
the traction at all. But it does make for slower acceleration.
So what? If you knew anything about driving - which you don't because you
can't drive - you'd know putting weight in the boot of a RWD car or the load
bed of a pickup increases traction. Similarly an HGV has better traction
with a loaded trailer than an empty one even though the acceleration is worse.
Understand yet? No? Never mind, you might one day when you get your head out
of your arse.
Post by Recliner
I prefer option C: being amused by the idiot troll (again).
Call me a troll all you like, doesn't change the fact that you're the one who's
painted himself into a corner and is desperately trying to get out. Keep trying
old chap :o)
I'll take your previous advice, and give up on answering the idiot
troll who refuses to learn.
b***@cylonHQ.com
2018-01-29 16:30:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:08:50 +0000
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Oh very clever, pick a unit thats irrelevant and hope I don't notice.
Traction
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
to weight is irrelevant. Traction full stop is whats matters and more weight
on a driven wheel = more grip. And while you're at it look up tractive effort.
Is that measured per unit weight? Oddly enough no.
If the traction increases at exactly the same rate as the train's
weight, you've gained nothing. But you've made the power to weight
You don't really understand the difference between traction and torque do you.
Thats not a question btw.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
ratio worse, so overall, you're worse off. That's why engineers seek
to reduce the weight of vehicles. It's why my car has a high tech,
lightweight aluminium alloy monocoque body, and not sheet steel like
yours.
No, thats for fuel economy and acceleration. It has nothing to do with
traction.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'll take your previous advice, and give up on answering the idiot
troll who refuses to learn.
Says the plank who ignores every example I gave and everything in the wikipedia
page that doesn't suit his ignorant argument.

You've lost this argument. Just get over it.
Recliner
2018-01-29 16:57:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:08:50 +0000
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Oh very clever, pick a unit thats irrelevant and hope I don't notice.
Traction
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
to weight is irrelevant. Traction full stop is whats matters and more weight
on a driven wheel = more grip. And while you're at it look up tractive effort.
Is that measured per unit weight? Oddly enough no.
If the traction increases at exactly the same rate as the train's
weight, you've gained nothing. But you've made the power to weight
You don't really understand the difference between traction and torque do you.
Huh? What has torque got to do with this?
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Thats not a question btw.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
ratio worse, so overall, you're worse off. That's why engineers seek
to reduce the weight of vehicles. It's why my car has a high tech,
lightweight aluminium alloy monocoque body, and not sheet steel like
yours.
No, thats for fuel economy and acceleration. It has nothing to do with
traction.
Exactly. I'm glad you agree that weight has nothing to do with traction.
Reducing the weight improves the power to weight ratio without affecting
traction ratio. Similarly, increasing the weight hurts the power to weight
ratio without improving traction ratio.

EMUs are just the same. That's why, like cars, they work better when
they're lighter.
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
Post by b***@cylonHQ.com
I'll take your previous advice, and give up on answering the idiot
troll who refuses to learn.
Says the plank who ignores every example I gave and everything in the wikipedia
page that doesn't suit his ignorant argument.
You've lost this argument. Just get over it.
You've just conceded you were wrong (see above). That's a first!
Recliner
2018-01-26 10:08:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Yes, that's a good point. With the Electrostar having gone out of
production, the supply chain may no longer be willing to provide the
components, particularly for small batches. For example, are the
identical bogies, motors, power electronics, doors, toilets, aircon
units, etc all still in production? The Aventra probably uses newer
versions of many of these, possibly from different suppliers.
The Aventra bogies are a totally different inside frame design from
those in the Electrostars, as those in the 700 etc class Desiros
are totally different from those in earlier Desiros.
Yes, that's partly how the weight was reduced. I wonder if the old
Electrostar bogies are still in production? For example, are they
used in other Bombardier trains?
What other Bombardier trains? I don't think any type other than
Aventras is on the current order book.
Really? Do all Bombardier factories around the world only build
Aventras? The Bombardier FLEXX Eco inside-frame bogies are based on
an original BR
design, but are now made in Germany(?).
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
There will be nearly as many Aventras in service
once current orders are fulfilled as the total Electrostar fleet
built over 16 years.
Yes, the Aventra is already a roaring success. The significant weight
reduction compared to the already light Electrostar should reduce running
costs. I don't think there have been any more Siemens orders in the UK
since the Aventra became available, apart from the add-on class 717 order.
Yet Bombardier haven't won any orders for a diesel version of the Aventra,
if one exists.
No there isn't a diesel version ofthe Aventra, and apparently none is
planned. I guess that they thought that the DMU market was finished when
the train was designed. It does, apparently, have the capacity for hybrid
battery operation, so it could be used for short non-electrified branches
off an electrified main line.

That's why CAF and Stadler have been getting the new diesel orders that
Bombardier thought wouldn't exust.\
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Are the new bogies similar to the class 221 bogies?
They are the same in the sense that they have inside frames to make
them lighter but I know not how similar they are otherwise.
After doing a bit more research, it seems the FLEXX Eco inside-frame bogie
is indeed the same as used in Voyagers, Meridians and class 172
Turbostars, as seen on the GOBLIN. They're also used in Norwegian and
German trains.
Thanks for clearing that up. The 172s show that even Turbostar stock was
latterly being turned out with the new bogies. It does now seem surprising
that such an obsolete design as the Electrostar with original bogies
continued in production until so recently.
I'd read that they knew the design needed a lot of updating, but rather
than dribble out the enhancements piecemeal, it was better to save them up
for an all-new design. They needed a big order to launch it, and had hoped
it would be Thameslink. They lost that, but were able to use Crossrail as a
big enough, all-new project to justify the new design. It's harder to
launch an all-new design when most of the orders are for fleet top-ups.

Now, of course, Aventras are winning top-up orders as well, such as c2c and
LO.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I wonder how the Siemens Desiro
City bogies which are also inside frame compare?
More on the SF7000 Siemens bogies, as used on the Desiro City trains:

<https://www.railengineer.uk/2012/03/28/bogies-for-thameslink/>
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2018-01-26 12:32:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Yes, that's a good point. With the Electrostar having gone out of
production, the supply chain may no longer be willing to provide
the components, particularly for small batches. For example, are
the identical bogies, motors, power electronics, doors, toilets,
aircon units, etc all still in production? The Aventra probably
uses newer versions of many of these, possibly from different
suppliers.
The Aventra bogies are a totally different inside frame design from
those in the Electrostars, as those in the 700 etc class Desiros
are totally different from those in earlier Desiros.
Yes, that's partly how the weight was reduced. I wonder if the old
Electrostar bogies are still in production? For example, are they
used in other Bombardier trains?
What other Bombardier trains? I don't think any type other than
Aventras is on the current order book.
Really? Do all Bombardier factories around the world only build
Aventras? The Bombardier FLEXX Eco inside-frame bogies are based on
an original BR design, but are now made in Germany(?).
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
There will be nearly as many Aventras in service
once current orders are fulfilled as the total Electrostar fleet
built over 16 years.
Yes, the Aventra is already a roaring success. The significant weight
reduction compared to the already light Electrostar should reduce
running costs. I don't think there have been any more Siemens orders in
the UK since the Aventra became available, apart from the add-on class
717 order.
Yet Bombardier haven't won any orders for a diesel version of the
Aventra, if one exists.
No there isn't a diesel version ofthe Aventra, and apparently none is
planned. I guess that they thought that the DMU market was finished when
the train was designed. It does, apparently, have the capacity for hybrid
battery operation, so it could be used for short non-electrified branches
off an electrified main line.
That's why CAF and Stadler have been getting the new diesel orders that
Bombardier thought wouldn't exust.\
Not that those orders are for anything like the Aventra order quantities.
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Are the new bogies similar to the class 221 bogies?
They are the same in the sense that they have inside frames to make
them lighter but I know not how similar they are otherwise.
After doing a bit more research, it seems the FLEXX Eco inside-frame
bogie is indeed the same as used in Voyagers, Meridians and class 172
Turbostars, as seen on the GOBLIN. They're also used in Norwegian and
German trains.
Thanks for clearing that up. The 172s show that even Turbostar
stock was latterly being turned out with the new bogies. It does
now seem surprising that such an obsolete design as the Electrostar
with original bogies continued in production until so recently.
I'd read that they knew the design needed a lot of updating, but rather
than dribble out the enhancements piecemeal, it was better to save them up
for an all-new design. They needed a big order to launch it, and had hoped
it would be Thameslink. They lost that, but were able to use Crossrail as
a big enough, all-new project to justify the new design. It's harder to
launch an all-new design when most of the orders are for fleet top-ups.
Now, of course, Aventras are winning top-up orders as well, such as c2c
and LO.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I wonder how the Siemens Desiro
City bogies which are also inside frame compare?
<https://www.railengineer.uk/2012/03/28/bogies-for-thameslink/>
Interesting though hardly recent article. I was looking more for a
comparison with the Bombardier product, though.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Recliner
2018-01-26 13:20:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Yes, that's a good point. With the Electrostar having gone out of
production, the supply chain may no longer be willing to provide
the components, particularly for small batches. For example, are
the identical bogies, motors, power electronics, doors, toilets,
aircon units, etc all still in production? The Aventra probably
uses newer versions of many of these, possibly from different
suppliers.
The Aventra bogies are a totally different inside frame design from
those in the Electrostars, as those in the 700 etc class Desiros
are totally different from those in earlier Desiros.
Yes, that's partly how the weight was reduced. I wonder if the old
Electrostar bogies are still in production? For example, are they
used in other Bombardier trains?
What other Bombardier trains? I don't think any type other than
Aventras is on the current order book.
Really? Do all Bombardier factories around the world only build
Aventras? The Bombardier FLEXX Eco inside-frame bogies are based on
an original BR design, but are now made in Germany(?).
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
There will be nearly as many Aventras in service
once current orders are fulfilled as the total Electrostar fleet
built over 16 years.
Yes, the Aventra is already a roaring success. The significant weight
reduction compared to the already light Electrostar should reduce
running costs. I don't think there have been any more Siemens orders in
the UK since the Aventra became available, apart from the add-on class
717 order.
Yet Bombardier haven't won any orders for a diesel version of the
Aventra, if one exists.
No there isn't a diesel version ofthe Aventra, and apparently none is
planned. I guess that they thought that the DMU market was finished when
the train was designed. It does, apparently, have the capacity for hybrid
battery operation, so it could be used for short non-electrified branches
off an electrified main line.
That's why CAF and Stadler have been getting the new diesel orders that
Bombardier thought wouldn't exust.\
Not that those orders are for anything like the Aventra order quantities.
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Recliner
Are the new bogies similar to the class 221 bogies?
They are the same in the sense that they have inside frames to make
them lighter but I know not how similar they are otherwise.
After doing a bit more research, it seems the FLEXX Eco inside-frame
bogie is indeed the same as used in Voyagers, Meridians and class 172
Turbostars, as seen on the GOBLIN. They're also used in Norwegian and
German trains.
Thanks for clearing that up. The 172s show that even Turbostar
stock was latterly being turned out with the new bogies. It does
now seem surprising that such an obsolete design as the Electrostar
with original bogies continued in production until so recently.
I'd read that they knew the design needed a lot of updating, but rather
than dribble out the enhancements piecemeal, it was better to save them up
for an all-new design. They needed a big order to launch it, and had hoped
it would be Thameslink. They lost that, but were able to use Crossrail as
a big enough, all-new project to justify the new design. It's harder to
launch an all-new design when most of the orders are for fleet top-ups.
Now, of course, Aventras are winning top-up orders as well, such as c2c
and LO.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I wonder how the Siemens Desiro
City bogies which are also inside frame compare?
<https://www.railengineer.uk/2012/03/28/bogies-for-thameslink/>
Interesting though hardly recent article. I was looking more for a
comparison with the Bombardier product, though.
The Bombardier bogies are lighter.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2018-01-26 23:32:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Recliner
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I wonder how the Siemens Desiro
City bogies which are also inside frame compare?
<https://www.railengineer.uk/2012/03/28/bogies-for-thameslink/>
Interesting though hardly recent article. I was looking more for a
comparison with the Bombardier product, though.
The Bombardier bogies are lighter.
That slightly surprises me having had a chance to look close up at some
class 707 bogies on a visit to Wimbledon Traincare Depot last week. Siemens
have a reputation for lard-butt trains to keep up, I suppose.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Loading...