paul7575
|
|
« Reply #30 on: September 15, 2011, 10:21:32 » |
|
Already running, but possibly not in the appropriate forum... Paul Edit note: Topics now moved and merged here: thanks, Paul.
|
|
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 21:38:53 by chris from nailsea »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
smokey
|
|
« Reply #31 on: September 15, 2011, 13:24:47 » |
|
Run any Stock with 2 pantographs up that have HV jumpers linking the 2 power cars and you have a BIG problem:
What happens when the Train pass through an OHL▸ Isolation point?
You join 2 different supply areas together, If not in Phase BOOM!
If a train has both Pantographs up and runs into a section where the OHL has tripped due to a fault, the trains transformers would be overloaded.
Also I have a sneaking suspicion that running with both Pantographs up would OVERLOAD the transformers during heavy demand on the OHL, Parrellel Circuits come to mind.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
northwesterntrains
|
|
« Reply #32 on: September 15, 2011, 14:31:06 » |
|
At a guess over 50% of the routes XC▸ 's Voyagers and Super-Voyagers regularly travel on are electrified. Probably nearer 75% of Virgin's routes
I'd imagine it's more than 75% on Virgin: * 100% of Scottish Voyagers routes are under the wires (except during engineering works) * 90% of the Chester-London route is under the wires * 2/3rds of the Holyhead-London route is under the wires but not that many services run between Holyhead and London. * Around 1/2 of the Birmingham to North Wales is under the wires but Virgin only run one return working a day on this route.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #33 on: September 15, 2011, 15:36:56 » |
|
Run any Stock with 2 pantographs up that have HV jumpers linking the 2 power cars and you have a BIG problem:
That explains immediately why it doesn't happen then... Paul
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01
|
|
« Reply #34 on: September 15, 2011, 15:52:42 » |
|
anyone else remember the days when cross country services would be a class 86/87 from manchester to birmingham new street and then a class 47 would take over?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JayMac
|
|
« Reply #35 on: September 16, 2011, 15:59:02 » |
|
From the BBC» : Bombardier: Doubts over Derby factory's CrossCountry hopes
Bombardier does not have the facilities at its Derby factory to carry out work it has been invited to bid for by the government, the BBC understands.
The Department for Transport (DfT» ) said the firm could protect jobs by securing a deal to upgrade CrossCountry trains.
The work would involve building new steel carriages but the plant is only equipped to weld aluminium, BBC Derby's political reporter Chris Doidge said.
Bombardier said it had not decided where it might build the carriages.
The CrossCountry project, worth about ^120m, would involve adapting a fleet of 57 trains to allow them to partly run on electric power from overhead lines.
However, industry experts have said upgrading the factory to handle steel might not be commercially viable.
Mr Doidge said one alternative would be for the company to build the shells at its factory in Bruges, in Belgium - where the CrossCountry trains were originally made - and ship them to the East Midlands to be finished.
This would mean about 70% of the project would be completed in Derby.
Alternatively, the entire upgrade could be carried out in Belgium.
The Department for Transport said it anticipated that, if the work went ahead, it could largely be delivered in the UK▸ .
However, under EU» procurement rules, the government cannot insist on where a contract is fulfilled.
A Bombardier spokesman said: "We welcome that they (the DfT) are looking at this opportunity.
"Where we would build the trains is a bit further down the line. We will look at it at the point of bidding."
It is widely expected the design work for the upgrade will be done in Derby.
About 1,400 jobs are under threat at the Derby plant after the company lost out to Siemens as the government's preferred bidder for the ^1.4bn Thameslink contract.
Last week, 200 Bombardier workers, campaigners and politicians travelled to Westminster to put pressure on the government to rethink the decision.
But Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said the train contract would not be reviewed or put out to tender again.
The Canadian-owned firm employs 3,000 people in Derby.
|
|
|
Logged
|
"A clear conscience laughs at a false accusation." "Treat everyone the same until you find out they're an idiot." "Moral indignation is a technique used to endow the idiot with dignity."
|
|
|
ChrisB
|
|
« Reply #36 on: September 16, 2011, 16:04:45 » |
|
So if its only a lego-job in Deby, I wonder how many people they need / will still let go?
Bit of a botch....
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
inspector_blakey
|
|
« Reply #37 on: September 16, 2011, 17:00:38 » |
|
Run any Stock with 2 pantographs up that have HV jumpers linking the 2 power cars and you have a BIG problem:
Well that would explain it then. Doesn't necessarily preclude running two electric 'voyagers' in multiple with pans up becuase I'm guessing there won't be a high-voltage bus between them (after all, happens with plenty of other EMUs▸ all the time, albeit at a maximum of 100 mph). I know it sounds like there are other issues that may stop that working for voyagers, but is the difference in speed between 100/110/125mph really so critical...?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rhydgaled
|
|
« Reply #39 on: September 16, 2011, 20:29:31 » |
|
Is there any reason why extra vehicles for Voyagers have to be made out of the same metal? Could you build the extra coaches using aluminium? Of course there can be problems of rapid corrosion using two different metals next to each other, but would the gap between the coaches be big enough to avoid those sorts of things?
Or perhaps Bombardier could strike some sort of sub-contracting deal with a UK▸ factory that can handle steel for that part of the project. Some of what I've read about Wabtec/Brush sounds as if they might be able to handle train building but choose not to, so perhaps they could help Derby build rolling stock in the UK?
|
|
|
Logged
|
---------------------------- Don't DOO▸ it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
|
|
|
broadgage
|
|
« Reply #40 on: September 17, 2011, 10:03:08 » |
|
I am not aware of any reason that requires different vehicles in a train to built of the same material. Use of steel and aluminium in close proximity does indeed promote corosion, but "close proximity" is generally understood to mean the two materials bolted or riveted together, not adjacent vehicles of a train.
|
|
|
Logged
|
A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard. It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc. A 5 car DMU▸ is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
|
|
|
ellendune
|
|
« Reply #41 on: September 17, 2011, 13:00:45 » |
|
I am not aware of any reason that requires different vehicles in a train to built of the same material.
The only reason as far as I can see is that if you change the material it is a totally new design so there would be the additional design costs and a new safety case would be required.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #42 on: September 17, 2011, 14:57:36 » |
|
Well that would explain it then. Doesn't necessarily preclude running two electric 'voyagers' in multiple with pans up becuase I'm guessing there won't be a high-voltage bus between them (after all, happens with plenty of other EMUs▸ all the time, albeit at a maximum of 100 mph). I know it sounds like there are other issues that may stop that working for voyagers, but is the difference in speed between 100/110/125mph really so critical...?
As I mentioned earlier, there are 110mph trials about to be done with LM▸ 350s, they do mention possible running at 110mph in the announcement about the 18 new trains for them (LM) and for TPE▸ Manchester/Scotland services, and there are trials about to be repeated with a Cl 91 loco with pan up at both ends of a Mk4 set. The latter is apparently to assess running 5 car IEPs▸ in multiple under the wires, IIRC▸ they will also be able to have pans up on coach 1 and 10, because each unit will have two pans fitted. In the case of two Voyagers, the problem is that if they actually fit just one pan on one new carriage, a coach E for example, the distance apart will be pretty random... Paul
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JayMac
|
|
« Reply #43 on: September 17, 2011, 16:08:56 » |
|
Why just pantograph carriages? Why not also build some more standard carriages as well? Lengthen the whole XC▸ fleet of Class 220/221s to 6/7 vehicles. No need to worry about running in multiple then.
|
|
|
Logged
|
"A clear conscience laughs at a false accusation." "Treat everyone the same until you find out they're an idiot." "Moral indignation is a technique used to endow the idiot with dignity."
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #44 on: September 17, 2011, 16:56:58 » |
|
You have to look at whether or not the train can maintain time with its reducing ratio of diesel engine cars to trailers as you add extra coaches, eg: A 221 as 5+1 might be OK but a 220 as 4 + 2 could be marginal. A 221 as 5+2 might be marginal and a 220 as 4 + 3 impossible, IYSWIM...
Paul
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|