|
stuving
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: June 03, 2021, 11:23:13 pm » |
|
This does not look like anything other than an early days start up - it shares its office address with Startford upon Avon Citizens Advice Bureau.
Could there be something more useful if they were designed to be two car units, with perhaps a capacity of 120+ (assuming that space released by deleting inner cabs is released for seats)?
We'll know that it's a chimera when the next Go-op proposal is for them to be used on their next wishful route proposal..........
More relevantly, the address is that of loads of companies linked to Rupert Symons, a patent agent, and director of VLR Technologies Ltd. All the real work will be done in the various collaborating companies, which are: TDI EVERSHOLT RAIL WMG CUMMINS RDM GROUP TRANSCAL RSSB▸ PROSE Eversholt talk as if they expect to buy the final product in numbers, but describe the first one as a demonstrator - so we still don't know how close they think that is to a real product. Cummins's presence may explain the use of diesel power, though perhaps not the lack of future decarbonic alternatives. They (Cummins) are thinking quite hard about their strategy in this area, though seem to be uncertain as to what will work in trains in the future. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 08, 2021, 06:00:28 pm by stuving »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
broadgage
|
|
« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2021, 03:31:23 pm » |
|
I can the merit in lightweight bus-like rail vehicles for secondary routes, including commuter services on the Minehead branch and similar places.
Toilets are in my view a requirement even for very short journeys, and that in turn means a disabled toilet, which suggests the need for either two vehicles or a long and articulated vehicle.
I appreciate that most buses do not have toilets, but bus passengers can alight to relieve themselves, whereas the policy on trains is "keep them on the trains no matter what" Remember the Lewisham stranding and the appalling conditions suffered by victims on board trains "that don't need toilets for journeys of less than 30 minutes"
With the concerns about climate change, I agree that we should not be building any more rail vehicles with diesel engines, with the possible exception of nominally electric vehicles with a small diesel engine for use when the wires come down.
Battery power is now a realistic alternative.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 08, 2021, 09:16:28 pm by broadgage »
|
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.
|
|
|
|
jamestheredengine
|
|
« Reply #17 on: June 09, 2021, 08:31:00 pm » |
|
I can the merit in lightweight bus-like rail vehicles for secondary routes The problem is that so many of the obvious routes for this sort of thing were shut down in the 60s. Neath Riverside to Hereford via Brecon is the one that immediately springs to mind for me. I'd quite enjoy a ride up to Brecon or Hay in something like that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bmblbzzz
|
|
« Reply #18 on: June 09, 2021, 08:50:33 pm » |
|
Toilets are in my view a requirement even for very short journeys, and that in turn means a disabled toilet, which suggests the need for either two vehicles or a long and articulated vehicle.
I agree on the need for toilets. However, I question whether that means a need for two vehicles. It's not a case of "toilet" and "disabled toilet"; a toilet accessible to the disabled will also be accessible to the abled. The rail-bus simply needs to be a reasonable size to have one toilet accessible to all, and many or most coaches manage this in a length of 12 metres, so it shouldn't be a problem. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #19 on: June 09, 2021, 09:18:01 pm » |
|
I can the merit in lightweight bus-like rail vehicles for secondary routes The problem is that so many of the obvious routes for this sort of thing were shut down in the 60s. Neath Riverside to Hereford via Brecon is the one that immediately springs to mind for me. I'd quite enjoy a ride up to Brecon or Hay in something like that. I worry about routes that only support single vehicle trains - the Bubble cars used to be known as "Coffin Nails" because the next step was closure. But I am VERY thankful for the 153s that ran on the TransWilts for a handful of years until our traffic outgrew them. Wouldn't it be lovely to see some re-openings in Wales - and some growth on existing lines - but really the aspiration should be a traffic level to require trains of 2 carriages at least. I'm noting that Prof Stuart Cole, who knows a thing or four about trains and buses, advocates a rise to a two hourly service on the Heart of Wales, and with something at least twice as long as a 153. As part routes providing the outer end, or where multiple routes fan out, there might just be a place for these - Swansea to Clarbeston Road where the hourly train divides, portions to Fishguard, Milford Haven and Neyland perhaps? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
|
|
|
|
TonyN
|
|
« Reply #20 on: October 09, 2021, 03:10:48 pm » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ellendune
|
|
« Reply #21 on: October 09, 2021, 07:53:16 pm » |
|
What is its crash resistance like? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Electric train
|
|
« Reply #22 on: October 10, 2021, 07:51:26 am » |
|
What is its crash resistance like? As it has RSSB▸ , DfT» backing I would expect it to be fully compliant. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Starship just experienced what we call a rapid unscheduled disassembly, or a RUD, during ascent,”
|
|
|
|
ellendune
|
|
« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2021, 08:19:37 am » |
|
What is its crash resistance like? As it has RSSB▸ , DfT» backing I would expect it to be fully compliant. Compliant with what standard? What I meant was - does being a very light rail mean there is a reduced requirement for crash resistance or is it expected to acheive the same as heavy rail? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stuving
|
|
« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2021, 11:21:56 am » |
|
Compliant with what standard?
What I meant was - does being a very light rail mean there is a reduced requirement for crash resistance or is it expected to acheive the same as heavy rail?
They seem to have ducked that question. As a demonstrator it can be made without formal requirements in all areas, on a "lets see how far we can go with the innovative bits" basis. The trials are planned to use "a segregated alignment (a route protected from interaction with roads, cars and other traffic)". I note that the design includes actual buffers, no doubt to put some explicit energy absorption mechanism into a composite structure that provides very little implicitly. Going back to the subject of bogies, not resolved earlier on, they are not using any fancy new carbon-fibre ones. That was a parallel project with its own timescale and timescale risks, so I can see they would not want to be coupled to it. If that works it would no doubt give a further weight reduction. They are in fact using the LN25 bogie, which is basically the same old TF25 bogie used on big goods wagons since 2001. It's made by Axiom, originally Powell Duffryn rail and now part of Wabtec Faively. So I don't imagine it's at all light, even before they attached motors and/or couplings to it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
infoman
|
|
« Reply #26 on: September 16, 2022, 07:47:23 am » |
|
What would be the cost of buying these units?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
johnneyw
|
|
« Reply #27 on: September 16, 2022, 11:21:32 pm » |
|
What would be the cost of buying these units?
I don't know if the Weardale railway website has any details on this but it might appear later in their published annual accounts. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
