Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 05:15 29 Mar 2024
- Bus plunges off South Africa bridge, killing 45
* Easter getaway begins with flood alerts in place
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
29th Mar (1913)
Foundation of National Union or Railwaymen (*)

Train RunningCancelled
07:00 Bedwyn to Newbury
07:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
08:13 Newbury to Bedwyn
08:46 Bedwyn to Newbury
09:54 Bedwyn to Newbury
10:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:29 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:57 Bedwyn to Newbury
12:52 Bedwyn to Newbury
Short Run
04:54 Plymouth to London Paddington
05:12 Reading to Bedwyn
05:33 Plymouth to London Paddington
05:55 Plymouth to London Paddington
06:00 Bedwyn to London Paddington
06:37 Plymouth to London Paddington
07:03 London Paddington to Paignton
08:35 Plymouth to London Paddington
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
Delayed
23:45 London Paddington to Penzance
05:03 Penzance to London Paddington
06:05 Penzance to London Paddington
07:10 Penzance to London Paddington
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
08:15 Penzance to London Paddington
09:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
11:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 29, 2024, 05:34:19 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[92] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[91] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[81] Return of the BRUTE?
[69] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[56] 2024 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury...
[50] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
 
News: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Feasibility study: Bombardier to fit crosscountry class 220/221's with pantograph cars  (Read 19485 times)
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« 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.  Smiley
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 21:38:53 by chris from nailsea » Logged
smokey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1129


View Profile
« 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 (Over-Head Line) 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
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 324


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: September 15, 2011, 14:31:06 »

At a guess over 50% of the routes XC (Cross Country Trains (franchise))'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
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« 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
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2754



View Profile Email
« 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
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 18894



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: September 16, 2011, 15:59:02 »

From the BBC» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Quote
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» (Department for Transport - about)) 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 (United Kingdom).

However, under EU» (European Union - about) 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

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

- Sir Terry Pratchett.
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« 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
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3574



View Profile
« 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 (Electric Multiple Unit) 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
IndustryInsider
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10096


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: September 16, 2011, 18:36:06 »

So if its only a lego-job in Deby, I wonder how many people they need / will still let go?

This might offer further hope for Derby?

http://www.southernrailway.com/southern/news/southern-launches-competition-for-130-new-carriages/
Logged

To view my GWML (Great Western Main Line) Electrification cab video 'before and after' video comparison, as well as other videos of the new layout at Reading and 'before and after' comparisons of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« 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 (United Kingdom) 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 (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) 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
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5398



View Profile
« 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 (Diesel Multiple Unit) is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« 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
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« 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 (Electric Multiple Unit) 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 (London Midland - recent franchise) 350s, they do mention possible running at 110mph in the announcement about the 18 new trains for them (LM) and for TPE (Trans Pennine Express) 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 (Intercity Express Program / Project.) in multiple under the wires, IIRC (if I recall/remember/read correctly) 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
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 18894



View Profile
« 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 (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) fleet of Class 220/221s to 6/7 vehicles. No need to worry about running in multiple then.
Logged

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

- Sir Terry Pratchett.
paul7575
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5316


View Profile
« 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
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page