|
Lee Fletcher
|
 |
« on: November 16, 2007, 02:10:19 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Last call for the Walsall-Wolverhampton service? Please sign this petition |
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Fletcher
|
|
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2007, 11:39:27 AM » |
|
"The purpose of the Train Infrastructure Interface Specification (TIIS) provides information concerning the Network Rail infrastructure on which the Intercity Express Programme (IEP) trains will operate from the date of their introduction. The TIIS also supports the development of a train design compatible with this infrastructure and facilitate discussion and optimisation of infrastructure – train system interfaces to achieve the best whole life whole system solutions." (link below.) http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/iep/iepinvitationtotender/infrastructureinterface.pdf |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Last call for the Walsall-Wolverhampton service? Please sign this petition |
|
|
|
Lee Fletcher
|
|
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2008, 10:41:06 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Last call for the Walsall-Wolverhampton service? Please sign this petition |
|
|
|
signalandtelegraph
|
|
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2008, 08:55:20 AM » |
|
I am amused by the fact that they now call diesels 'Self Powered Trains' Obviously not good for the government to promote reliance on fossil fuels, not when you can hide it behind another title. Quite appropriate to be posting this in smoke and mirrors!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Bring Back BR
|
|
|
|
Lee Fletcher
|
|
« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2008, 02:45:40 AM » |
|
Alstom has notified the Department for Transport that it is withdrawing from the Intercity Express Programme bidding process. Experienced rolling stock engineers have criticised the mass and energy consumption targets in DfT's technical specifications for the 200 km/h IEP as impractical (link below.) http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2008/02/alstom_withdraws_from_iep.html#more |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Last call for the Walsall-Wolverhampton service? Please sign this petition |
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2008, 08:39:20 PM » |
|
I think the spec has been unrealistic all along as readers of Roger Ford (Modern Railways) would be familiar with. Typical government optimism (or naivety) which will gradually be pared back to reality.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2008, 10:47:35 PM » |
|
Oh I wish the gov will see sense and put tilting back into the equation!
Now, only Virgin West Coast operate tilting. Although the Cherwell Valley Line (between Banbury and Reading, I think) is cleared for the Super Voyagers to tilt, it is not worth CrossCountry drivers putting the tilting on, as they all go towards York now (not Glasgow).
As well as this, most Voyagers on the Cherwell Valley Line, are not of the tilting type (the Super 5 car ones on the Penzance to York route).
What a waste of technology the British invented! What a waste of the Cherwell Valley Line!
What a waste of a technology that could see 140 mi/hour running on Brunel's Great Western Railway (and other routes) (and other routes at lower speeds, but faster than their current ones)!
For heavens sake, half the non tilting fleet in the UK is "ready" for tilting- a perfect eg being MK 4 carriages!
How difficult can it be to take a Mk 4 carriage, and develop a MK 5 carriage. Change nothing apart from adding tilting! Stick a tilting enabled loco (preferably electric) at the front (and a DVT at the back) and run a high speed service, where the customers are not squashed into a tin can where half the seats have no window, and where the air con spreads vile aromas throughout the passenger saloon!
Come on Ruth Kelly, forget Labour's "vision," get a grip, and deliver something that will go down in UK rail history!
"THE DAY THE UK GOT "BACK ON TRACK!!!!!!!!"
Pant.....
Sorry for the rant- needed one!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
swlines
|
|
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2008, 10:52:53 PM » |
|
Pretty much all of the Bournemouth line services are formed of 221 - certainly the busy ones where potential for delay is high...
The reason for no tilting on the Cherwell Valley, is, well, it's pretty straight and IIRC there isn't much in increased speeds as they're all timed for 220 anyway.
FWIW, tilt is turned on and off automatically using trackside balises which the trains detect.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2008, 10:37:25 AM » |
|
One of the other strange things I believe that is in the IEP spec is that traction power should be distributed along the train. Like the Pendelinos. Hence it took a week each set to introduce the 9th coach.
Hence the dual mode varient. The problem with this is that the dual mode will have to lug a deadweight deisel engine about under the wires.
The only solution to avoid this would be to develop an auto coupler capable of carrying sufficient Amps at a voltage suitable to power the traction motors so you couple the deisel engine at say Crewe to haul the set off the wires to Holyhead. Much as they did but without needing such a powerful loco (57?) because the loco would power the trains distributed motors and would only need a small traction motor itself for shunt moves. Further for the loco hauling a Pendelino set its motors are an additional deadweight for it to haul because it cannot power them.
You know there's lot to be said for simple locos and coaches. Given reliable auto couples and a proper track layout it should be possible to switch locos in 3 minutes. They used to do it at Cambridge in NSE days with the Liverpool Street to Kings Lynn service, 86 off 47 on.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2008, 11:47:38 AM » |
|
One of the other strange things I believe that is in the IEP spec is that traction power should be distributed along the train. Like the Pendelinos. Hence it took a week each set to introduce the 9th coach.
Hence the dual mode varient. The problem with this is that the dual mode will have to lug a deadweight deisel engine about under the wires.
The only solution to avoid this would be to develop an auto coupler capable of carrying sufficient Amps at a voltage suitable to power the traction motors so you couple the deisel engine at say Crewe to haul the set off the wires to Holyhead. Much as they did but without needing such a powerful loco (57?) because the loco would power the trains distributed motors and would only need a small traction motor itself for shunt moves. Further for the loco hauling a Pendelino set its motors are an additional deadweight for it to haul because it cannot power them.
You know there's lot to be said for simple locos and coaches. Given reliable auto couples and a proper track layout it should be possible to switch locos in 3 minutes. They used to do it at Cambridge in NSE days with the Liverpool Street to Kings Lynn service, 86 off 47 on.
I've heard that they want to be able to split trains enroute. This points towards loco hauled stock. I've also heard that they want it to be a proper replacement of the HST/IC225, so I would imagine it would be loco hauled. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Fletcher
|
|
« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2008, 11:54:38 AM » |
|
I've heard that they want to be able to split trains enroute. That is an option being considered. For example, services could split at Swindon, thus allowing an hourly London-Cheltenham (or even, dare I say it, Worcester) service. On the other hand, this would mean that the Stroud Valley DMU's which currently also form Melksham/TransWilts services would no longer be required... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Last call for the Walsall-Wolverhampton service? Please sign this petition |
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2008, 12:02:37 PM » |
|
I've heard that they want to be able to split trains enroute. That is an option being considered. For example, services could split at Swindon, thus allowing an hourly London-Cheltenham (or even, dare I say it, Worcester) service. On the other hand, this would mean that the Stroud Valley DMU's which currently also form Melksham/TransWilts services would no longer be required... But this would mean using loco hauled stock. Otherwise, there will have to be 2 buffets etc. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Fletcher
|
|
« Reply #13 on: February 14, 2008, 12:13:49 PM » |
|
I've heard that they want to be able to split trains enroute. That is an option being considered. For example, services could split at Swindon, thus allowing an hourly London-Cheltenham (or even, dare I say it, Worcester) service. On the other hand, this would mean that the Stroud Valley DMU's which currently also form Melksham/TransWilts services would no longer be required... But this would mean using loco hauled stock. Otherwise, there will have to be 2 buffets etc. Here is a quote from the DfT South West Regional Planning Assessment For The Railway : Options to improve connectivity to London from the far south west, the Torbay area and growing area of Gloucestershire include the introduction of a standard pattern timetable, with regular standard hour connections, and operating more through services with overall reductions in journey time. One option that would have significant benefits for the peripheral areas of the region, where demand is lower, is to split some intercity services, potentially possible as part of the IEP, after they have passed the busiest sections of route. A long train would not necessarily be needed at off-peak times west of Swindon on services to South Wales or west of Exeter on services to the far south west. If the new train were able to divide into two portions, it would enable a direct hourly service throughout the day to be introduced to Gloucester/Cheltenham by splitting trains to South Wales at Swindon and to Torbay by splitting a standard hourly Penzance train at Exeter. Value for money and affordability will be dependent on the infrastructure required to support this type of operation which may include some re-doubling of the Swindon – Kemble section of route to maintain performance. By the way, here is the RPA's one and only mention of Melksham : "the two-track route from Salisbury to Bath via Westbury used mainly by inter-urban services between Cardiff, Bristol and South Hampshire and local services (and the lightly-used single track route via Melksham to Chippenham)" |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Last call for the Walsall-Wolverhampton service? Please sign this petition |
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #14 on: February 14, 2008, 12:17:16 PM » |
|
I've heard that they want to be able to split trains enroute. That is an option being considered. For example, services could split at Swindon, thus allowing an hourly London-Cheltenham (or even, dare I say it, Worcester) service. On the other hand, this would mean that the Stroud Valley DMU's which currently also form Melksham/TransWilts services would no longer be required... But this would mean using loco hauled stock. Otherwise, there will have to be 2 buffets etc. Here is a quote from the DfT South West Regional Planning Assessment For The Railway : Options to improve connectivity to London from the far south west, the Torbay area and growing area of Gloucestershire include the introduction of a standard pattern timetable, with regular standard hour connections, and operating more through services with overall reductions in journey time. One option that would have significant benefits for the peripheral areas of the region, where demand is lower, is to split some intercity services, potentially possible as part of the IEP, after they have passed the busiest sections of route. A long train would not necessarily be needed at off-peak times west of Swindon on services to South Wales or west of Exeter on services to the far south west. If the new train were able to divide into two portions, it would enable a direct hourly service throughout the day to be introduced to Gloucester/Cheltenham by splitting trains to South Wales at Swindon and to Torbay by splitting a standard hourly Penzance train at Exeter. Value for money and affordability will be dependent on the infrastructure required to support this type of operation which may include some re-doubling of the Swindon – Kemble section of route to maintain performance. By the way, here is the RPA's one and only mention of Melksham : "the two-track route from Salisbury to Bath via Westbury used mainly by inter-urban services between Cardiff, Bristol and South Hampshire and local services (and the lightly-used single track route via Melksham to Chippenham)" Looks good. Have 3 problems: *Redouble the Cotswold line before the Stroud line! *Why have hourly services to Penzance. Surely 2 hourly (like at the moment) is enough, with a local DMU filling the gaps, and calling at the other stops? *The off peak trains I've seen at Cardiff have looked busy! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
