| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
http://tinyurl.com/5asy9b
http://tinyurl.com/5deoog Now we are looking at 1,100 vehicles (equivalent to 275 EMUs in 4-car formation), which according to the DfT is a net increase of 380 vehicles. |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
In message
, at 03:48:54 on Wed, 9 Apr 2008, remarked: http://tinyurl.com/5asy9b http://tinyurl.com/5deoog Now we are looking at 1,100 vehicles That's 200 more than last time Ruth Kelly announced it in July last year: http://www.gos.gov.uk/gose/news/news...rojectForRail/ (equivalent to 275 EMUs in 4-car formation), which according to the DfT is a net increase of 380 vehicles. An increase of 380 in the size of Thameslink's fleet. [1]. So is that 380 out of the "famous 1000 more", or are they 100 over their budget already? Nice to see this re-announced again, anyway (it confirms our prejudices); I wonder how many more times the same thing will be announced :) [1] Is that 380 more than the original size, or 380 more than the size of the fleet after expansion with the 48 carriages announced almost exactly a year ago? -- Roland Perry |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On 9 Apr, 11:48, wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/5asy9bhttp://tinyurl.com/5deoog Now we are looking at 1,100 vehicles (equivalent to 275 EMUs in 4-car formation), which according to the DfT is a net increase of 380 vehicles. Other interesting highlights: * legal ownership will be structured in the conventional ROSCO way, not as a PFI, but the tender will have to be jointly placed by the manufacturer and the ROSCO working together * the trains must weigh less than 32 tonnes per coach * the bidder is required to consider the option of building a fleet with two internal fit-outs (outer-suburban and metro. Wonder how long that split would last in practice?) * 45 second dwell times required * the trains are required to deliver a 20 minute journey from Kentish Town to London Bridge. Nitro! * wifi and power sockets throughout * a bit of ambiguity on bogs: all train designs must be "capable of carrying" controlled emission toilets... * ETMS2 required from the start -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 03:48:54 on Wed, 9 Apr 2008, remarked: http://tinyurl.com/5asy9b http://tinyurl.com/5deoog Now we are looking at 1,100 vehicles That's 200 more than last time Ruth Kelly announced it in July last year: http://www.gos.gov.uk/gose/news/news...rojectForRail/ (equivalent to 275 EMUs in 4-car formation), which according to the DfT is a net increase of 380 vehicles. An increase of 380 in the size of Thameslink's fleet. [1]. So is that 380 out of the "famous 1000 more", or are they 100 over their budget already? Nice to see this re-announced again, anyway (it confirms our prejudices); I wonder how many more times the same thing will be announced :) [1] Is that 380 more than the original size, or 380 more than the size of the fleet after expansion with the 48 carriages announced almost exactly a year ago? A few more confusing numbers - I'd recommend waiting until Roger Ford gets the real inside info and explains the figures! Remember the latest Rolling Stock Plan (RSP) had a number (256) of EMUs for FCC, rather than just Thameslink, in context this included the GN side as well. However, I reckon these 'Thameslink 1100' are in addition to the 1300 in the RSP. What clouds the issue further is the '48' and more recent '44' 377 vehicles going to Thameslink for KO0, by all accounts they only stay until the new units with their amazing acceleration and short dwell times arrive in time for the 24 tph through the core route. Clearly 377s won't be able to keep up! Also - one other odd aspect - the Ruth Kelly sponsored press release states 1100 - but another document on the DfT site: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/th...ndoverview.pdf says 'between 900 and 1300'. Don't they really know what they want? In the same paragraph they say that configurations other than 20m cars are welcomed - presumably any longer and the tunnels would have to be straightened? Paul |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On Apr 9, 1:10*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: What clouds the issue further So many clouds I have given up trying to track all this. -- Nick |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On Apr 9, 1:10*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: Clearly 377s won't be able to keep up! Dunno about that bit - a 375/377 is the same thing as a 376 except the latter has more motors and - on DC at least - if comparing trains of the same length - a higher current draw. Mix and match 377 could be on the cards ... ... ... I'm saying no more :o) ... its this is one of the reason I have given up counting cars and units. -- Nick |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
"D7666" wrote in message ... On Apr 9, 1:10 pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: What clouds the issue further So many clouds I have given up trying to track all this. Perhaps Roland should too - we can collectively pay the Rail Press to do it for us! But make sure to pick the right magazine - I see Railway Magazine itself had a 'bollock-o-gram' from Tom Harris MP after they ran a highly pessimistic piece, suggesting that the majority of the Rolling Stock plan was simply a reshuffle of existing stock between TOCs... LOL Paul |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
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". |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
In message , at 13:20:24 on
Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Paul Scott remarked: What clouds the issue further So many clouds I have given up trying to track all this. Perhaps Roland should too - we can collectively pay the Rail Press to do it for us! I have given up (apart from to odd heckle from the sidelines like today) tracking the numbers. Especially when people say this 1100 might be on top of an earlier 1300, and I was only trying to track a different 1000. On the other hand I may still try to track the announcements, and in the longer term whether or not anything like the promises were delivered. -- Roland Perry |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On Apr 9, 2:57*pm, EE507 wrote:
"Maintenance downtimes must be significantly reduced from the current increasing trend that has arisen due to unnecessary sophistication". Sounds like Henry Law could have written that !!! -- Nick |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On 9 Apr, 15:01, Roland Perry wrote:
I have given up (apart from to odd heckle from the sidelines like today) tracking the numbers. Especially when people say this 1100 might be on top of an earlier 1300, and I was only trying to track a different 1000. The problem is the Rolling Stock Plan (the 1300) only covers until ca. 2014, which means only the first batch of NGEMU are included in it (the 1100, due in 2015) . Roger Ford says 100 carriages. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On 9 Apr, 14:57, 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". Look, I've been out all day wandering round Longsight (tough job, but someone has to do it, cracking story to come) and I find someone is pinching my jokes. In the Laughing Stock Plan DfT said The completion of the Thameslink Programme KO2 in 2015 requires the introduction of up to 1300 new vehicles. So that's the starting point. I think we will find that the new Director Technical & Professional will kick things like 32 tonne axle loads into the weeds. Analysis starts tomoirrow. |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On 9 Apr, 13:20, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"D7666" wrote in message ... On Apr 9, 1:10 pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: What clouds the issue further So many clouds I have given up trying to track all this. Perhaps Roland should too - we can collectively pay the Rail Press to do it for us! But make sure to pick the right magazine - I see Railway Magazine itself had a 'bollock-o-gram' from Tom Harris MP after they ran a highly pessimistic piece, suggesting that the majority of the Rolling Stock plan was simply a reshuffle of existing stock between TOCs... LOL Paul Don't rub it in Paul. I never get bollock-o-grams from Ministers. Must be getting past it. |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
Mr Thant wrote:
The problem is the Rolling Stock Plan (the 1300) only covers until ca. 2014, which means only the first batch of NGEMU are included in it (the 1100, due in 2015) . Roger Ford says 100 carriages. The NGEMUs are distinct from the RSP 1300 (well the latest figure is more like 1200+ but I can't remember exactly what it is). According to a certain Modern Railways contributor (yes, it's Roger again), the DfT are recommending that 256 of the 'RSP 1300' should be set aside for FCC. 64 of these will be allocated to FCC GN (10 321s + 8 313s), which means FCC TL will be allocated 192 vehicles, of which 92 are the 23 377s coming over for KO0 (March 2009). That leaves 100 vehicles for KO1 (December 2011), which will most likely be 25 377s and certainly not NGEMUs as you suggest - the first NGEMU won't even be in passenger service for another 2 months! |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
EE507 wrote:
Kings Lynn to Eastbourne runs The SL RUS has led to what appears to be a more compact Thameslink network (at least south of the Thames anyway) - I refer you this diagram (http://tinyurl.com/3lj8jq), which U Thant has extracted from the SL RUS pdf and posted on his wonderfully informative blog. |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On 9 Apr, 19:03, Sky Rider wrote:
O0 (March 2009). That leaves 100 vehicles for KO1 (December 2011), which will most likely be 25 377s and certainly not NGEMUs as you suggest - the first NGEMU won't even be in passenger service for another 2 months! Well I was quoting from last month's MR, 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. If only he were around to clarify. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
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 |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
"Sky Rider" wrote in message ... EE507 wrote: Kings Lynn to Eastbourne runs The SL RUS has led to what appears to be a more compact Thameslink network (at least south of the Thames anyway) - I refer you this diagram (http://tinyurl.com/3lj8jq), which U Thant has extracted from the SL RUS pdf and posted on his wonderfully informative blog. I suspect the 'public' shortening of the routes north of the Thames can only be a matter of time - you may recall how the Kings Lynn route suddenly appeared in line for the IEP half sets a few months back, pointing to a change of plans. Paul |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
|
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
In message , at 20:50:40 on Wed, 9 Apr
2008, Paul Scott remarked: I suspect the 'public' shortening of the routes north of the Thames can only be a matter of time - you may recall how the Kings Lynn route suddenly appeared in line for the IEP half sets a few months back, pointing to a change of plans. Do you think that'll involve giving the whole Hitchin-Cambridge route the chop (from Thameslink)? -- Roland Perry |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
Paul Scott wrote:
I suspect the 'public' shortening of the routes north of the Thames can only be a matter of time - you may recall how the Kings Lynn route suddenly appeared in line for the IEP half sets a few months back, pointing to a change of plans. Ah yes - the ECML (Phase 2) option. If it is exercised then the IEP half sets are currently expected to be delivered between March 2015 and October 2015, so they could well be fully operational before Key Output 2. |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
Roland Perry wrote:
Do you think that'll involve giving the whole Hitchin-Cambridge route the chop (from Thameslink)? The ECML (Phase 2) option is currently set at 55 vehicles. While I am not au fait with the frequencies of the various FCC GN routes I think 55 vehicles would only cover the King's Lynn (via Cambridge) fasts and not the Cambridge semi-fasts etc. |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
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, or does it just come from the Good Ideas Club at the ministry? tom -- Yesterday's research projects are today's utilities and tomorrow's historical footnotes. -- Roy Smith |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, 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, or does it just come from the Good Ideas Club at the ministry? Oh, here we go: 4.1 Train mass (weight) is a critical parameter for whole system, whole life cost because it affects both track maintenance and train energy consumption. The Department and Network Rail both understand the virtuous circle that can be created between track quality and train mass and Network Rail is committed to improve track quality through its new standards for maintenance. 4.2 The Department and Network Rail wish to work with Bidders to establish a set of weight targets which can be set in the ITT. The Department is aiming at a target of 256 tonnes (tare) per 162m train or 384 tonnes (tare) per 243m train which is believed to be achievable. A 162 metre train made of 20 metre cars is an 8 car train, and an 8 car train which weights 256 tonnes has 32 tonne cars. If the supplier goes for 26 metre cars, six per train, they could weigh 42 tonnes. I have no idea if there are reasons 26 metre cars can't be used; i believe the Southern network has curves which preclude their use, but don't know if Thameslink will use those. tom -- Yesterday's research projects are today's utilities and tomorrow's historical footnotes. -- Roy Smith |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
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. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13309739.html (43 090 at London Kings Cross, 29 Nov 1980) |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
In message , at 21:59:07
on Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Chris Tolley remarked: * 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. The DfT needs to get everyone on board for this project to be a success. -- Roland Perry |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
In message , at 20:59:17 on
Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Sky Rider remarked: Do you think that'll involve giving the whole Hitchin-Cambridge route the chop (from Thameslink)? The ECML (Phase 2) option is currently set at 55 vehicles. While I am not au fait with the frequencies of the various FCC GN routes I think 55 vehicles would only cover the King's Lynn (via Cambridge) fasts and not the Cambridge semi-fasts etc. There's only one Kings Lynn fast per hour, and currently it splits at Cambridge so that only 4 cars go further north (partly problems with power supply, as well as customer demand). -- Roland Perry |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On Apr 9, 8:50*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: EE507 wrote: Kings Lynn to Eastbourne runs The SL RUS has led to what appears to be a more compact Thameslink network I suspect the 'public' shortening of the routes north of the Thames can only be a matter of time And somehting I think is for the better - the core TL route through central London is too valuable a part of underground / overground / tube / metro / whatever-you-wish-to-call-it to be anything else than a high capacity all trains stopp all stations section. I'm not against RER type systems but London needs a new north-south route with unrestricted double deck loading gauge not a twiddling of an existing route that is gauge limited in the middle and access constrained [even after the works] at both throats of the core section. -- Nick |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On Apr 9, 10:46 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
4.2 The Department and Network Rail wish to work with Bidders to establish a set of weight targets which can be set in the ITT. The Department is aiming at a target of 256 tonnes (tare) per 162m train or 384 tonnes (tare) per 243m train which is believed to be achievable. A 162 metre train made of 20 metre cars is an 8 car train, and an 8 car train which weights 256 tonnes has 32 tonne cars. If the supplier goes for 26 metre cars, six per train, they could weigh 42 tonnes. I have no idea if there are reasons 26 metre cars can't be used; i believe the Southern network has curves which preclude their use, but don't know if Thameslink will use those. The central Thameslink route has trouble with stock longer than 20m, I think. There's another bit in the document where DfT suggests that it'd be happy to think about longer trains as long as the manufacturer thinks about ways of making them fit [presumably along the lines of 'we'll add GBP15m of extra value if you do GBP10m of widening']. To achieve the two required total lengths, 20m trains would need to be 4-car units and 26m trains 3-car units. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On Apr 10, 7:14 am, Roland Perry wrote:
Is there an external driver for that requirement No, the driver can be on board. The DfT needs to get everyone on board for this project to be a success. ....and in less than 45 seconds, too! -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On Apr 10, 8:44*am, John B wrote:
if there are reasons 26 metre cars can't be used; I would suggest there would be door access issues with stock longer than 20 m. On 20 m cars like 317/319/321 and 450/377/375 and 376 et al door spacing is approx 1/3 and 2/3 car. A 26 m car would be more like 1/4 and 3/4 door spacing - which would lead to longer dwell times - any more to place doors further towards the middle of a 26 m car would have to larger a throwover at curved platforms - of which there are too many stations to resolve. If you take a look a 444s at Waterloo where the country end of a 10car is on the curve its easy to see how much a 23 m car throws over. 444s have end-ish doors so its no big deal - but imagine even 1/3 + 2/3 spacing on one of those cars leads to a big gap. I'd have thought going the other way - to *shorter* but articlulated cars might be better. -- Nick |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
D7666 wrote:
On Apr 9, 8:50 pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: I suspect the 'public' shortening of the routes north of the Thames can only be a matter of time And somehting I think is for the better - the core TL route through central London is too valuable a part of underground / overground / tube / metro / whatever-you-wish-to-call-it to be anything else than a high capacity all trains stopp all stations section. I think they are still mistaken in having two versions of interior layout - but at least they aren't likely to go ridiculous distances now... Did you notice the bit in the 'Rolling Stock high level spec' that calls for full ATO for the core route? Is that a first for main line commuter stock - I guess they will do something similar with Crossrail... They also seem seriously into reversionary modes to prevent obstruction of the line: ~ The ability to move in a degraded mode despite a major onboard failure for a set distance corresponding to the maximum between defined refuge points on the route where the train can be taken out of service; ~ The capability to push a failed train out of the core section; ~ The capability to move a short distance without the traction supply being present;" Obviously the last requirement is highly compatible with low weight... Paul |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On Apr 10, 8:53*am, D7666 wrote:
On Apr 10, 8:44*am, John B wrote: if there are reasons 26 metre cars can't be used; I would suggest there would be door access issues with stock longer than 20 m. On 20 m cars like 317/319/321 and 450/377/375 and 376 et al door spacing is approx 1/3 and 2/3 car. A 26 m car would be more like 1/4 and 3/4 door spacing - which would lead to longer dwell times - any more to place doors further towards the middle of a 26 m car would have to larger a throwover at curved platforms - of which there are too many stations to resolve. If you take a look a 444s at Waterloo where the country end of a 10car is on the curve its easy to see how much a 23 m car throws over. *444s have end-ish doors so its no big deal - but imagine even 1/3 + 2/3 spacing on one of those cars leads to a big gap. The end doors only solve the problem when the doors are on the outside of the curve (if you see what I mean). If the platform is on the inside of the curve, then the end doors are further away from the platform than at the 1/3, 2/3 positions. You can see this more clearly on some of the tightly curved platforms on the underground. At some platforms the middle doors have the smallest gap and at other platforms the end doors are 'best'. Best example I can think of, off the top of my head, is Bank Central line. I'd have thought going the other way - to *shorter* but articlulated cars might be better. I certain agree with this. |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On Apr 10, 10:34*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote: Did you notice the bit in the 'Rolling Stock high level spec' that calls for full ATO for the core route? As ATO, signals and signals control systems, headways and capacity are something I am now involved with professionally, I can't see any alternative to meet the long term tph targets they are aiming at. Is that a first for main line commuter stock - In UK yes - but isn't part of RER through central Paris on some kind of ATO ? degraded mode Degraded modes are part of the specifications of all ATO systems. ~ The capability to move a short distance without the traction supply being present;" Where is Sir Isaac Newton ? -- Nick |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On Apr 10, 11:14*am, D7666 wrote:
On Apr 10, 10:34*am, "Paul Scott" wrote: Did you notice the bit in the 'Rolling Stock high level spec' that calls for full ATO for the core route? As ATO, signals and signals control systems, headways and capacity are something I am now involved with professionally, I can't see any alternative to meet the long term tph targets they are aiming at. Is that a first for main line commuter stock - In UK yes - but isn't part of RER through central Paris on some kind of ATO ? degraded mode Degraded modes are part of the specifications of all ATO systems. ~ The capability to move a short distance without the traction supply being present;" Where is Sir Isaac Newton ? -- Nick 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. Or is it just in case units have to limp out of sections which have suffered a loss of traction supply..? |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On 10 Apr, 11:35, EE507 wrote:
(snip) 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. Or is it just in case units have to limp out of sections which have suffered a loss of traction supply..? Almost certainly the latter, by the sounds of it. |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
EE507 wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:14 am, D7666 wrote: On Apr 10, 10:34 am, "Paul Scott" wrote: Did you notice the bit in the 'Rolling Stock high level spec' that calls for full ATO for the core route? As ATO, signals and signals control systems, headways and capacity are something I am now involved with professionally, I can't see any alternative to meet the long term tph targets they are aiming at. ~ The capability to move a short distance without the traction supply being present;" 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? 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. Paul |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On Apr 9, 12:44 pm, John B wrote:
* the trains must weigh less than 32 tonnes per coach Yeah, like that's going to happen. I've just flicked through TheRailwayCentre.com and it looks like only 315s, 508s and some ex-LUL trains (all inner-sub units) currently meet that criterion. As for outer-sub units, 317s and 321s would be approximately 10 tonnes too heavy in 4-car formation (and the 319s up to another 5 on top) while the 4-car SR Electrostars are almost 50 tonnes above the limit! And don't even get me started on the Desiros and Javelins (well OK I don't have the figures to hand but they are very heavy indeed). |
Thameslink NGEMU procurement - now in motion
On 10 Apr, 08:53, D7666 wrote:
I'd have thought going the other way - to *shorter* but articlulated cars might be better. -- Nick As in class 424 / 425 in Germany ? Internal shots showing lack of corridor connections and spaciousness that might help meet the dwell times. http://richard-howe.fotopic.net/p15309894.html and http://richard-howe.fotopic.net/p15309867.html 2 and 4 car variants together shows the length of vehicle and door spacing. http://richard-howe.fotopic.net/p15309892.html The seats are a tad "metro" and our loading guage would obviously make then less generous of width. I have travelled on a couple of these on journeys over an hour and they were actually rather comfy and the window views were equivalent to their english desiro cousins. Not sure if we would get away with the look ahead view like they do though ! Richard |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:17 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk