| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
EE507 wrote:
On Apr 9, 11:48 am, wrote: http://tinyurl.com/5asy9b http://tinyurl.com/5deoog I love the fact that at the end of a highly detailed, demanding technical specification for a train that is meant to be suitable for metro-style ATO as well as Kings Lynn to Eastbourne runs, there is the following: "Maintenance downtimes must be significantly reduced from the current increasing trend that has arisen due to unnecessary sophistication". So - having read through the spec a few times, which of the sophisticated technologies that the DfT have listed are the unnecessary ones? Paul |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On Apr 10, 12:27*pm, wrote:
As in class 424 / 425 in Germany ? Yep more or less - the S-bahn version 423 is a 4car unit on 5 bogies. Each 423 is the same length as the older 3car 420 they replaced. 423 have 3 door apertures per side, 420 4, so it all balances out. Internal shots showing lack of corridor connections and spaciousness that might help meet the dwell times. Indeed. When I boarded one first immediate reaction was ''WTF is this'' but very soon go used to them. They are what the UK should have been getting when we were at least looking at 376s, if not before then, as 423 etc are something like 10+ years old design now. Not sure if we would get away with the look ahead view like they do though ! Probably not. -- Nick |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On Apr 10, 12:01*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: EE507 wrote: On Apr 10, 11:14 am, D7666 wrote: On Apr 10, 10:34 am, "Paul Scott" Did anyone else spot "Some level of onboard energy storage may provide an optimal solution overall"? If you are only running on core routes, surely there will almost always be other trains in the same section to use the regenerated energy? *North of the Thames, energy could be exported to the grid anyway, and inverting substations could be considered for the SR routes. Energy storage is surely needed only for extremities of the network where traffic is light - Seaford, Arun Valley, etc. *I can't see it being a problem in the metro area or Brighton main line. That is exactly what the spec says immediately before your quote surely? Yes, but people such as yourself are suggesting that the trains will not now be running to the more remote outposts of the network. There will always be enough trains on the Brighton main line and inner suburban routes to use the regenerated energy - at least that's my understanding. Perhaps Mr. Lawford knows otherwise? BTW - The South London RUS now suggests that the Arun Valley or Seaford won't see Thameslink trains, unless they'll run further off-peak of course... Or is it just in case units have to limp out of sections which have suffered a loss of traction supply..? Well that is one of the reliability requirements - as I pointed out a couple of posts ago - so some form of onboard energy storage is essential. My view is that dragging around supercapacitors, batteries or even flywheels to cater for extremely infrequent events is counter to the general objective of keeping weight as low as possible. The marginal benefit does not exceed the cost IMHO. |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
EE507 wrote:
On Apr 10, 12:01 pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: Energy storage is surely needed only for extremities of the network where traffic is light - Seaford, Arun Valley, etc. I can't see it being a problem in the metro area or Brighton main line. That is exactly what the spec says immediately before your quote surely? Yes, but people such as yourself are suggesting that the trains will not now be running to the more remote outposts of the network. There will always be enough trains on the Brighton main line and inner suburban routes to use the regenerated energy - at least that's my understanding. Perhaps Mr. Lawford knows otherwise? I don't have access to any figures about the required amount of traffic that allows for regen - but don't you also need to allow for start and end of service, and I guess reduced frequencies on Sundays etc. My view is that dragging around supercapacitors, batteries or even flywheels to cater for extremely infrequent events is counter to the general objective of keeping weight as low as possible. The marginal benefit does not exceed the cost IMHO. Agree entirely - its just like the stupid point they make about removing 'unneccessary sophistication' most of which is to meet DfT requirements... Paul |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On Apr 10, 2:17*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: suburban routes to use the regenerated energy - at least that's my understanding. *Perhaps Mr. Lawford knows otherwise? I know nothing. Its an interesting point though - there must be a trade off somewhere. I'll wait Mr.Catlow to comment ? :o) -- Nick |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Chris Tolley wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, John B wrote: Other interesting highlights: * the trains must weigh less than 32 tonnes per coach Is there an external driver for that requirement No, the driver can be on board. That rather depends on how much he weighs, i would think. tom -- Freedom, Beauty, Truth, and Love! |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Paul Scott wrote:
~ The capability to move a short distance without the traction supply being present;" Obviously the last requirement is highly compatible with low weight... Hatches in the floor, and let the passengers do a bit of a Flintstones. tom -- Freedom, Beauty, Truth, and Love! |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On 9 Apr, 20:26, Sky Rider wrote:
Mr Thant wrote: Well I was quoting from last month's MR So was I, as it happens. though on another read it's unclear - the DfT state "the Thameslink project will also introduce new vehicles", but in the table beside Roger has them as 25 377s from Southern. But then a couple of pages on in the Thameslink article the latter is sort of framed as his own suggestion. Point accepted, but I did say 'most likely'. Perhaps we agree on the NGEMUs now, but just to further my case, I will quote a paragraph from the RSP: '15. In addition, the [Thameslink] programme requires additional vehicles for KO1 in 2011. It is expected that these vehicles will be either cascaded existing EMU vehicles or new vehicles based on existing designs with some, but maybe not all, of the features of the next generation vehicles. However, it is possible that the next generation vehicles proposed for KO2 in 2015 could be delivered earlier, possibly by 2010 - 2011, if manufacturers are capable of delivering the required outputs.' As we already know, the first NGEMU should be in passenger service by 1 February 2012, but certainly not another 24. For some reason (once again I have the Captain to thank for this) the DfT expect the first NGEMU to be delivered more than a year before the first IEP train despite the fact that NGEMU procurement has only just started, whereas IEP procurement has been active for months. If only he were around to clarify. Agreed. And he was around less than 2 hours ago. g Right, All these figures for Thameslink are inferred, as explained in the write up on the Laughing Stock Plan. FCC inferred from their net gain that they got 192 vehicles for KO. I made it 100. I think I am right.. Either way, these are South Central 377s converted to dual voltage. Hence South Central get 100 new vehicles to back fill. The suggestion by DafT that the NGEMU could be delivered for KO1, when tendering had not started and no detailed spec existed is par for the course. Meanwhile I have sussed out how the 1300 vehicles for Thameslink have turned into 1100. Apparently further work since the LSP was published shows that 1300 was over the top and 1100 will now do the job. Hope this helps. |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
|
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
Capt. Deltic wrote:
FCC inferred from their net gain that they got 192 vehicles for KO. I made it 100. I think I am right.. Which KO? Is it still 92 for KO0 and 100 for KO1 as before? Either way, these are South Central 377s converted to dual voltage. Hence South Central get 100 new vehicles to back fill. That point I remember from MR March 2008. The suggestion by DafT that the NGEMU could be delivered for KO1, when tendering had not started and no detailed spec existed is par for the course. Interesting... Meanwhile I have sussed out how the 1300 vehicles for Thameslink have turned into 1100. Apparently further work since the LSP was published shows that 1300 was over the top and 1100 will now do the job. I see...the bidders could still propose anything between 900 and 1300 vehicles though, right? |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
In article ,
D7666 wrote: On Apr 10, 10:34*am, "Paul Scott" wrote: ~ The capability to move a short distance without the traction supply being present;" Where is Sir Isaac Newton ? Perhaps the DfT are envisaging some sort of Newton's Cradle scheme for getting trains out during power failures ? Put a train in at high speed at the south end and a corresponding one pops out of the north ... Nick -- Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 2nd April 2008) "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life" -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996 |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
Nick Leverton wrote:
In article , D7666 wrote: On Apr 10, 10:34 am, "Paul Scott" wrote: ~ The capability to move a short distance without the traction supply being present;" Where is Sir Isaac Newton ? Perhaps the DfT are envisaging some sort of Newton's Cradle scheme for getting trains out during power failures ? Put a train in at high speed at the south end and a corresponding one pops out of the north ... No - just alter the gradients so that it's low at Blackfriars and St Pancras, but much higher in the middle.. :-) Paul |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
In article ,
Paul Scott wrote: Nick Leverton wrote: In article , D7666 wrote: On Apr 10, 10:34 am, "Paul Scott" wrote: ~ The capability to move a short distance without the traction supply being present;" Where is Sir Isaac Newton ? Perhaps the DfT are envisaging some sort of Newton's Cradle scheme for getting trains out during power failures ? Put a train in at high speed at the south end and a corresponding one pops out of the north ... No - just alter the gradients so that it's low at Blackfriars and St Pancras, but much higher in the middle.. :-) Ah of course, their famous Brontosaurus In The Room scheme :-) Nick -- Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 2nd April 2008) "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life" -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996 |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Capt. Deltic) wrote: Meanwhile I have sussed out how the 1300 vehicles for Thameslink have turned into 1100. Apparently further work since the LSP was published shows that 1300 was over the top and 1100 will now do the job. Doesn't that make some heroic assumptions that "they" know what the job is? Lynn to Eastbourne requires more stock than Lynn to East Croydon or Gatwick, surely? I believe there is enough evidence in the public domain to strike both Kings Lynn and Eastbourne from the route, namely the recent discovery of Kings Lynn in the IEP programme, and the dissapearance of places like Eastbourne and Littlehampton from the Thameslink final route maps in the more recent South London RUS... Paul S |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On 10 Apr, 22:33, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
I believe there is enough evidence in the public domain to strike both Kings Lynn and Eastbourne from the route, namely the recent discovery of Kings Lynn in the IEP programme, and the dissapearance of places like Eastbourne and Littlehampton from the Thameslink final route maps in the more recent South London RUS... IEPs on the Cambridge fasts then? It's looking likely. The South London RUS saw a major contraction in the route map at the south end to inner-ish suburban, and there's also been a recent disappearance of 2 ECML trains per hour from the final MML/ECML split (was 14/10, now 16/8). The old plan would have made poor use of King's Cross, leaving it half- empty just as its redevelopment was complete. Although I don't know what use the suburban shed will be post 2015. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
|
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On 10 Apr, 21:15, Nick Leverton wrote:
In article , D7666 wrote: On Apr 10, 10:34*am, "Paul Scott" wrote: ~ The capability to move a short distance without the traction supply being present;" Where is Sir Isaac Newton ? Perhaps the DfT are envisaging some sort of Newton's Cradle scheme for getting trains out during power failures ? *Put a train in at high speed at the south end and a corresponding one pops out of the north ... Nick -- Serendipity:http://www.leverton.org/blosxom(last update 2nd April 2008) * * * * "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life" * * * * * * * * -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996 I suspect that they are thinking of a hybrid arrangement with batteries or super capacitors, as have been proposed for light rail schemes to avoid wiring up historic city squares. There are a number of alternatives. 1) A development contract to the man who created the clockwork wind up radio. 2 Or my favourite, RATOG (Rocket Assisted Take Off Gear) used on carriers in the 1950s when the steam catapult was u/s. 3) Or the hydrogen peroxide powered steam turbine from the Spearfish torpedo which gave over a megawatt Over to Prof Breen. |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
I suspect that they are thinking of a hybrid arrangement with batteries or super capacitors, as have been proposed for light rail schemes to avoid wiring up historic city squares. the original artists' impressions of Manchester Metrolink, and I think from ageing memory Leeds supertram, showed no wires, which is a far cheaper way of avoiding complaints! SB |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
In message
, at 15:02:00 on Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Mr Thant remarked: IEPs on the Cambridge fasts then? It's looking likely. Terminating at KX, presumably. That's a shame, I was looking forward to being able to get a through train. -- Roland Perry |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
|
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Mr Thant) wrote: The old plan would have made poor use of King's Cross, leaving it half- empty just as its redevelopment was complete. Although I don't know what use the suburban shed will be post 2015. Yes, I'd wondered about that too. One of the options might be to dedicate it to sundry open access operators running short formations, or Adelantes, Pioneers or whatever, leaving more platforms free in the main shed for longer EMUs? For cheap travel go next door! My thoughts about the outer reaches of Thameslink have been coloured by the trains needing high standing capacity, large doors and short dwell times. The theory of having two types of unit, touched on in the recent Thameslink rolling stock details appears flawed, because if all trains are stopping in the core section, clearly short distance pax aren't going to differentiate between trains with the high capacity or long distance interiors... Paul S |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Capt. Deltic wrote:
On 10 Apr, 21:15, Nick Leverton wrote: In article , D7666 wrote: On Apr 10, 10:34*am, "Paul Scott" wrote: ~ The capability to move a short distance without the traction supply being present;" Where is Sir Isaac Newton ? There are a number of alternatives. 2 Or my favourite, RATOG (Rocket Assisted Take Off Gear) used on carriers in the 1950s when the steam catapult was u/s. Still around, i believe. It's used in special cases - getting transport planes to take off from short fields and the like - rather than being routine, though. Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JATO Actually, not sure how widely used it is other than by the US navy stunt flying team's Hercules: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xu6-s6Ulak 3) Or the hydrogen peroxide powered steam turbine from the Spearfish torpedo which gave over a megawatt 'Gave'? Does it now use something else? tom -- Ed editor textorum probatissimus est -- Cicero, De officiis IV.7 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:40 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk