In article
-september.
org, (Recliner) wrote:

150 DMs is all but 20 of the entire stock as built. It seems the
original idea of 3 car units has given way to one of 3 car units.

Am I missing something here??

Sorry. Finger trouble. The original idea was 4 car units.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article
-september.
, (Recliner) wrote:

150 DMs is all but 20 of the entire stock as built. It seems the
original idea of 3 car units has given way to one of 3 car units.

Am I missing something here??

Sorry. Finger trouble. The original idea was 4 car units.

Perhaps they'd be underpowered? They need to make up for their lower top
speed compared to Pacers with a higher acceleration.

The initial reports of 4-car units were probably more speculation than
fact. After all, in LU service they run as pairs of three-car units, with
only one trailer per pair of power cars, and the plan seems to be for the
same in their new lives as DEMUs. To run as four-car units would probably
require the 4th car to be an UNDM.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 00:52:40 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
In article
-september.
, (Recliner) wrote:

150 DMs is all but 20 of the entire stock as built. It seems the
original idea of 3 car units has given way to one of 3 car units.

Am I missing something here??

Sorry. Finger trouble. The original idea was 4 car units.

Perhaps they'd be underpowered? They need to make up for their lower top
speed compared to Pacers with a higher acceleration.

The whole thing seems crazy to me. Why don't they just get some 170s or
something? Why re-engineer metro trains with a top speed of 40 mph that
have little in the way of crash protection?

Also I'm curious to know how they'll deal with the loading gauge issue.
LU surface stock is wider than mainline stock.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 00:52:40 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
In article
-september.
, (Recliner) wrote:

150 DMs is all but 20 of the entire stock as built. It seems the
original idea of 3 car units has given way to one of 3 car units.

Am I missing something here??

Sorry. Finger trouble. The original idea was 4 car units.

Perhaps they'd be underpowered? They need to make up for their lower top
speed compared to Pacers with a higher acceleration.

The whole thing seems crazy to me. Why don't they just get some 170s or
something? Why re-engineer metro trains with a top speed of 40 mph that
have little in the way of crash protection?

The top speed is 60mph. And they can't buy new 170s any more, as they're
not emissions compliant. In any case, the D-Trains will be far cheaper. The
D stock is already mainline certified, though it'll be getting extra
collision protection around the cabs (which also means they'll look
different).

Also I'm curious to know how they'll deal with the loading gauge issue.
LU surface stock is wider than mainline stock.

The D stock was always mainline certified.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:31:19 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
The whole thing seems crazy to me. Why don't they just get some 170s or
something? Why re-engineer metro trains with a top speed of 40 mph that
have little in the way of crash protection?

The top speed is 60mph. And they can't buy new 170s any more, as they're
not emissions compliant. In any case, the D-Trains will be far cheaper. The

Another EU triumph.

Also I'm curious to know how they'll deal with the loading gauge issue.
LU surface stock is wider than mainline stock.

The D stock was always mainline certified.

In that case presumably so is the 9 foot 7 wide S stock which runs on the
same NR lines. Which makes me wonder why they don't build wider mainline stock
then instead of the pokey things they dish up these days where the seats are
never quite wide enough.

--
Spud

In article , d
() wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:31:19 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
The whole thing seems crazy to me. Why don't they just get some 170s or
something? Why re-engineer metro trains with a top speed of 40 mph that
have little in the way of crash protection?

The top speed is 60mph. And they can't buy new 170s any more, as they're
not emissions compliant. In any case, the D-Trains will be far cheaper.

About half the cost in fact.

Another EU triumph.

If you mean to avoid the destruction of the planet, then yes.

Also I'm curious to know how they'll deal with the loading gauge issue.
LU surface stock is wider than mainline stock.

The D stock was always mainline certified.

In that case presumably so is the 9 foot 7 wide S stock which runs on the
same NR lines. Which makes me wonder why they don't build wider
mainline stock then instead of the pokey things they dish up these
days where the seats are never quite wide enough.

I suspect the S stock isn't passed for use outside the Chilterns route which
was originally Metropolitan, not BR predecessor, built.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 05:54:16 -0600,
wrote:

In article , d
() wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:31:19 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
The whole thing seems crazy to me. Why don't they just get some 170s or
something? Why re-engineer metro trains with a top speed of 40 mph that
have little in the way of crash protection?

The top speed is 60mph. And they can't buy new 170s any more, as they're
not emissions compliant. In any case, the D-Trains will be far cheaper.

About half the cost in fact.

Another EU triumph.

If you mean to avoid the destruction of the planet, then yes.

Also I'm curious to know how they'll deal with the loading gauge issue.
LU surface stock is wider than mainline stock.

The D stock was always mainline certified.

In that case presumably so is the 9 foot 7 wide S stock which runs on the
same NR lines. Which makes me wonder why they don't build wider
mainline stock then instead of the pokey things they dish up these
days where the seats are never quite wide enough.

I suspect the S stock isn't passed for use outside the Chilterns route which
was originally Metropolitan, not BR predecessor, built.

It goes to Richmond and Wimbledon, too.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 05:54:16 -0600
wrote:
In article , d
The top speed is 60mph. And they can't buy new 170s any more, as they're
not emissions compliant. In any case, the D-Trains will be far cheaper.

About half the cost in fact.

Another EU triumph.

If you mean to avoid the destruction of the planet, then yes.

A bit of extra soot from a train is neither here nor there. If the alternative
is so rubbish people would sooner drive then its hardly great policy.
Personally I wouldn't want to travel long distance in a D stock train especially
if its got some hammering transit van engine underneath the floor. Also I
can't see a van engine having the durability to last very long in that
application but thats up to them I guess.

--
Spud

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:50:40 +0000 (UTC),
d wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 05:54:16 -0600
wrote:
In article , d
The top speed is 60mph. And they can't buy new 170s any more, as they're
not emissions compliant. In any case, the D-Trains will be far cheaper.

About half the cost in fact.

Another EU triumph.

If you mean to avoid the destruction of the planet, then yes.

A bit of extra soot from a train is neither here nor there. If the alternative
is so rubbish people would sooner drive then its hardly great policy.
Personally I wouldn't want to travel long distance in a D stock train especially
if its got some hammering transit van engine underneath the floor. Also I
can't see a van engine having the durability to last very long in that
application but thats up to them I guess.

Two Transit engines per power car, in easily-removable power packs.
Yes, they'll probably be less durable than normal railway engines, but
that's the whole idea of making it easy to swap them in and out.

It will be interesting to see how well the engines are isolated from
the passenger area, compared to the bumpy Pacers or perhaps Class 150s
they'll be replacing. Having two smaller road-vehicle engines in
separate, self-contained power packs could actually make them quieter
than the DMUs.

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:05:57 +0000
Recliner wrote:
It will be interesting to see how well the engines are isolated from
the passenger area, compared to the bumpy Pacers or perhaps Class 150s
they'll be replacing. Having two smaller road-vehicle engines in
separate, self-contained power packs could actually make them quieter
than the DMUs.

Shame they didn't decide to put a couple of chevvy V8s underneath

--
Spud