|
vacman
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: March 18, 2011, 12:04:17 » |
|
there is an Aberdeen to Penzance! thats my idea of hell!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zoe
|
|
« Reply #61 on: March 18, 2011, 12:08:51 » |
|
New 7 car mk5 trains replace Voyagers on XC▸ routes.
Sorry but as discussed elsewhere there most likely won't ever be a new build of loco and stock. Locomotive hauled stock quite simply can't offer all the benefits that multiple units can. So the only options are DMUs▸ , bi-mode or electrificaiton. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ollie
|
|
« Reply #62 on: March 18, 2011, 23:36:53 » |
|
You're on yer own, Ollie. I'd rather go East Coast to London then FGW▸ on proper trains thanks.  Such a let down.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
northwesterntrains
|
|
« Reply #63 on: March 19, 2011, 10:01:30 » |
|
New 7 car mk5 trains replace Voyagers on XC▸ routes.
Sorry but as discussed elsewhere there most likely won't ever be a new build of loco and stock. Locomotive hauled stock quite simply can't offer all the benefits that multiple units can. So the only options are DMUs▸ , bi-mode or electrificaiton. The most likely proposal for XC is of course adding an additional vehicle to each Voyager containing a Pantograph allowing both diesel and electric operation as well as extra capacity. At least with Voyagers you get a decent amount of natural light in the train and can see out of the windows from most seats, which you can't say the same about Pendolinos. The longest I've done on a Voyager is Edinburgh to Leeds which took 2 hours longer than scheduled due to failed overhead electrics and I wouldn't say that was too long to be on a Voyager for. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zoe
|
|
« Reply #64 on: March 19, 2011, 12:34:17 » |
|
At least with Voyagers you get a decent amount of natural light in the train and can see out of the windows from most seats, which you can't say the same about Pendolinos.
Voyagers don't have to be crashworthy at 140 mph. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #66 on: March 19, 2011, 16:22:49 » |
|
The most likely proposal for XC▸ is of course adding an additional vehicle to each Voyager containing a Pantograph allowing both diesel and electric operation as well as extra capacity.
As originally reported, the same plan was going to provide pantographs for the EMT» Meridian fleet. Last month's Modern Railways reported EMT's MD as saying this was now very unlikely... Paul |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #67 on: March 19, 2011, 16:26:47 » |
|
At least with Voyagers you get a decent amount of natural light in the train and can see out of the windows from most seats, which you can't say the same about Pendolinos.
Voyagers don't have to be crashworthy at 140 mph. Interesting point that the Pendolino's small windows and longer than usual 'crumple zones' are usually explained away by their top speed, because the 'Javelin' 395s don't have either of those features. Perhaps technology has moved on, or else someone's interpreted the rules differently... Paul |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rhydgaled
|
|
« Reply #68 on: March 19, 2011, 20:30:45 » |
|
At least with Voyagers you get a decent amount of natural light in the train and can see out of the windows from most seats, which you can't say the same about Pendolinos.
Voyagers don't have to be crashworthy at 140 mph. Interesting point that the Pendolino's small windows and longer than usual 'crumple zones' are usually explained away by their top speed, because the 'Javelin' 395s don't have either of those features. Perhaps technology has moved on, or else someone's interpreted the rules differently... Paul And don't forget INTERCITY 225s, they have bigger windows than Pendos as well don't they, and they should have been built to be crashworthy at 140mph because that's what they were designed to do. |
|
|
|
|
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).
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #69 on: March 19, 2011, 22:06:26 » |
|
but in the one (and hopefully only) crash involving a Pendo the design proved to be VERY crashworthy, wheras similar crashes involving MKIII and IIII have ended somewhat more tragic. (Hatfield, Ufton Nervert)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rhydgaled
|
|
« Reply #70 on: March 20, 2011, 00:12:46 » |
|
but in the one (and hopefully only) crash involving a Pendo the design proved to be VERY crashworthy, wheras similar crashes involving MKIII and IIII have ended somewhat more tragic. (Hatfield, Ufton Nervert)
But was that crashworthyness anything to do with window size? And wasn't the Pendo writen off? At least some vehicles of the crashed 225 are still in service. Also, Hatfield was refered to as a crash but in everything I've heard about the Pendo incident it was refered to as a de-railment, which sounds like it was a less severe accident anyway. |
|
|
|
|
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).
|
|
|
|
JayMac
|
|
« Reply #71 on: March 20, 2011, 00:59:38 » |
|
A train leaving the tracks at 95mph is bloody serious, no matter whether you call it a crash or derailment. Semantics.
But just for the record, Hatfield is referred to as a derailment in the official report. Accident reports rarely use the word 'crash' - it's the media who use that word.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 01:08:02 by bignosemac »
|
Logged
|
"Good news for regular users of Euston Station in London! One day they will die. Then they won't have to go to Euston Station ever again." - David Mitchell
|
|
|
|
The SprinterMeister
|
|
« Reply #72 on: March 20, 2011, 09:16:08 » |
|
But was that crashworthyness anything to do with window size? And wasn't the Pendo writen off? At least some vehicles of the crashed 225 are still in service. Also, Hatfield was refered to as a crash but in everything I've heard about the Pendo incident it was refered to as a de-railment, which sounds like it was a less severe accident anyway.
The construction technique used for Pendolino coaches requires the windows to be the size that they are in order to maintain strength and hoop stiffness in the bodyshell. The coaches are made from a series on large aluminium extrusions which are welded together, windows are then cut into the sides once the welding has been done. Unfortunately a weld line bisects the window line so the the dividing pillars have to be of a certain size in order not to create an excessive load on the weld during accidents or even as a result of normal operation. It will be remembed that failure of the coach structure at the welds was the reason why the Thames Trains 165 unit leading coach disintegrated at Ladbrooke Grove although at that level of impact its distruction was inevitable. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Trundling gently round the SW
|
|
|
|
grahame
|
|
« Reply #73 on: March 20, 2011, 09:20:17 » |
|
<pendant>
I would go with a "derailment" being where a train comes off the track, and a "crash" as being a colloquial term for a collision, whether it's a collision with summat else on the track, or with something that's not on the line where the train should have been going following on from a derailment.
You can have a crash without a derailment to start it off (Moorgate, February 1975) and you can have a derailment that doesn't result in a crash (Par, June 2010)
</pedant>
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Coffee Shop Admin, Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, TravelWatch SouthWest Board Member
|
|
|
|
northwesterntrains
|
|
« Reply #74 on: March 20, 2011, 11:57:28 » |
|
As originally reported, the same plan was going to provide pantographs for the EMT» Meridian fleet. Last month's Modern Railways reported EMT's MD as saying this was now very unlikely...
I think EMT adding in pantograph vehicles to the 222s was dependant on Midland Mainline electrification. With XC▸ there are hundreds of miles of tracks they use already under overhead wires and more capacity problems than with EMT's London services. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Click on the map to explore geographics
