|
dog box
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: February 24, 2009, 23:53:48 » |
|
eightf..what on earth are you going on about???........there is more to a class 43 power car than a mtu engine , as far as i am aware the mtu power plant is as reliable as ever,
there are a lot of things that can cause a train to be failed..,,no horn ,broken windscreen, cdl failure, hot box etc etc ,so dont naturally assume the power plant is always to blame
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All postings reflect my own personal views and opinions and are not intended to be, nor should be taken as official statements of first great western or first group policy
|
|
|
|
Timmer
|
|
« Reply #61 on: February 25, 2009, 06:56:51 » |
|
Given all FGW▸ HSTs▸ now have MTU▸ engines are we now hitting one of those periods where a fault is beginning to show up as power cars exceed a certain mileage?
The problem with this type of fault is that you are so busy fixing units with the fault you don't have time to correct the sets coming up to the trigger mileage before they too fail.
If it is the engines MTU must be in panic as their reputation for reliability could be at stake.
Lets hope the Turbos stand up to the extra work otherewise FGW is going to be in a mess.
We now know the timetable for IEP▸ roll out on the Western Region is summer 2016 so the HSTs have another 7 years service  . They've done well up to now so lets hope it stays that way. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #62 on: February 25, 2009, 11:12:57 » |
|
eightf..what on earth are you going on about???........there is more to a class 43 power car than a mtu engine , as far as i am aware the mtu power plant is as reliable as ever,
there are a lot of things that can cause a train to be failed..,,no horn ,broken windscreen, cdl failure, hot box etc etc ,so dont naturally assume the power plant is always to blame
Good to hear it's not the MTU▸ engine but there does seem to come a time with new or refurbished/re-engined stock where faults start to creep in as mileage/time in service increases. I was speculating that the HSTs▸ might be hitting that patch. A classic case were the Hull Trains' Meridians, when they had 4 units for 3 diagrams they achieved one of the highest number of miles per 5 minute failure for DEMUs▸ and DMUs▸ . Once they were down to 3 units after someone carelessly dropped one on the floor without its bogies and wrote it off, the milage per failure dropped dramatically, because they were doing more mileage/time in service per unit. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thetrout
|
|
« Reply #63 on: February 25, 2009, 11:46:09 » |
|
We now know the timetable for IEP▸ roll out on the Western Region is summer 2016 so the HSTs▸ have another 7 years service . They've done well up to now so lets hope it stays that way. This is what I don't understand. We still have MKI stock on the railway in the form of charters services and the Lymington - Brockenhurst EMU▸ . These were made around the 1950's (do correct me if i'm wrong) and are nowhere near as safe as MKIII or even MKII. Soon they are going to be 60 ish years old, which I have to say is remarkable that they can still be used. So why don't they reuse the HST's when the IEP comes into practice. Because if the IEP arrives in 2016 as Timmer suggests. HST's will only be 46 years old. Considering they are of a sturdy design, maybe again with new engines. we can get another decade of life out of them  I read in another post somewhere that HST's can only work to 2019. Which if correct I think is wrong, simply because that would make the HST's 49 years old. Considering that as I've said above, MKI is still used on the railway at approximately 59 years old. Not that I'm saying that is a bad thing at all. I just think that have MKI stock in use for a longer period of time (in total number of years on the railway) is an insult the superb design of the HST! As a small idea mMaybe run a 6 Coach HST on the Portsmouth - Cardiff Line once we have the IEP, with the formation of: 43 - TGS - TS - TS - TS - TSC - TCD - 43 Which offers Disabled Access/Toilet, Catering and First Class. I personally think it would do rather well. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
willc
|
|
« Reply #64 on: February 25, 2009, 12:21:26 » |
|
The date you were looking for is 2016 - which is when Alstom will stop supporting the HSTs▸ ' ATP▸ system, so that would be the end for them on high-speed running without expensive new kit.
Nothing to say they couldn't go elsewhere but if, as posted in the Portsmouth-Cardiff area, most of the new batch of FGW▸ DMUs▸ are definitely going there, then that route's not going to be needing any.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
G.Uard
|
|
« Reply #65 on: February 25, 2009, 12:28:19 » |
|
The Mark 1 derived 4 CIG units were introduced in 2 phases, 1964 and 1970. I'm not sure of the vintage of the 3 CIG Lymington vehicles, but they can't be more than 45 yrs old.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
inspector_blakey
|
|
« Reply #66 on: February 25, 2009, 14:42:34 » |
|
...so actually given that the first production HST▸ power car was delivered in late 1975 (that would be 43 002, still in use with FGW▸ and one of the last power cars to be MTU▸ -ified, fact hounds...) it's entirely possible that the CIG units in use on the Lymington branch are actually not much more than 5 years older than HST stock.
I'd never thought about it like that before.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #67 on: February 25, 2009, 15:15:25 » |
|
I recall reading somewhere that the Lymington branch unit(s?) cannot carry passengers in service on a line where another service (more modern, heavier, stronger) stock is running, and have to run empty to / from depot. Also the same thing is (I think) true of bubble car units, PPMs‡. I think I can also remember seeing comments about final dates for use of certain stock types with an implication that those were final dates on lines shared with freight or newer stock and it may be perfectly acceptable for a 125 to be running from Bishop's Lydeard to Minehead in 2024 ... due to light railway orders, though, it might be called a "25" rather than a "125" by then  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, TravelWatch SouthWest Board Member
|
|
|
|
devon_metro
|
|
« Reply #68 on: February 25, 2009, 16:22:18 » |
|
The Mark 1 derived 4 CIG units were introduced in 2 phases, 1964 and 1970. I'm not sure of the vintage of the 3 CIG Lymington vehicles, but they can't be more than 45 yrs old.
Nor do they have long left, take a trip down to Lymington whilst you can... South West Trains axe is falling... Graham is indeed correct, they may only carry passengers on the isolated Brockenhurst - Lymington branchline, this being due to them not having OTMR▸ (On Train Monitoring Recorder), despite them having CDL▸ fitted. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #69 on: February 25, 2009, 18:20:11 » |
|
The Mark 1 derived 4 CIG units were introduced in 2 phases, 1964 and 1970. I'm not sure of the vintage of the 3 CIG Lymington vehicles, but they can't be more than 45 yrs old.
Nor do they have long left, take a trip down to Lymington whilst you can... South West Trains axe is falling... Graham is indeed correct, they may only carry passengers on the isolated Brockenhurst - Lymington branchline, this being due to them not having OTMR▸ (On Train Monitoring Recorder), despite them having CDL▸ fitted. If I understood correctly. it's the crashworthiness of Mk 1 stock which precludes them running on the main line with pax. Similar situation with the Cardiff Bay Bubble and Aylesbury to Risborough unit. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
G.Uard
|
|
« Reply #70 on: February 25, 2009, 18:33:21 » |
|
As Mk 1s have separate underframes, I believe that there exists concern that body and frame could shear off, as at Clapham. I am also pretty sure that the Mk 1s used by railtour companys have to have a non passenger carrying vehicle at either end of the train, preferably not another Mk1. Lack of central door locking is also an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
devon_metro
|
|
« Reply #71 on: February 25, 2009, 18:40:57 » |
|
What makes a Leyland National bolted to a freight hopper safe then |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
welshman
|
|
« Reply #72 on: February 25, 2009, 19:07:52 » |
|
ATW▸ have thought of that. They only run Pacers on routes with other Pacers so they won't disintegrate even if they collide. Leastways, that's my theory.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #73 on: February 25, 2009, 19:09:58 » |
|
Nor do they have long left, take a trip down to Lymington whilst you can...
South West Trains axe is falling...
What is the likelihood of this.  I mean, it is 2 tph and connects with Wightlink. Surely useage can't be too low?  It's about time SWT▸ handed the keys over..... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #74 on: February 25, 2009, 19:17:06 » |
|
Nor do they have long left, take a trip down to Lymington whilst you can...
South West Trains axe is falling...
What is the likelihood of this. I mean, it is 2 tph and connects with Wightlink. Surely useage can't be too low? There was a pertinent question in the recent webchat, their answer suggested the units themselves might be retired prior to their next planned overhauls, but there is no suggestion that the branch service itself is under threat. IMX it is well used all day. Paul |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Click on the map to explore geographics
