In article ,
_dot_uk (Recliner) wrote:

But the aluminium trains are heavier and use more power
than their steel predecessors.

The PEP-derivatives (Classes 313-315, 507 and 508) are aluminium bodied
and as light as anything around, though they are quite old now.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:57:08 +0100, Paul Scott wrote:


Providing enough battery to allow a set to limp to the next platform
might be some what useful and not that expensive in the grand scheme of
things.

But as we have already discussed, it flys completely in the face of the
DfT's light weight requirements...

But how much would it really add to the total weight ?. The trains will
be carrying batteries anyway - and those batteries will be expected to
not only run emergency lights and some basic 'control' circuits, but also
emergency ventilation fans and an air-compressor so that the pantograph/
shoe gear can be operated, (and possibly also to release spring activated
parking brakes). The trains will like wise also have all the battery
charging and monitoring gear anyway. Changing the traction system to
accept input from the battery bank wouldn't add much - another set of
contactors.

So really how much EXTRA battery capacity would be needed to 'limp' the
set to the next platform in the tunnel sections ?. And also remember the
traction converters are distributed - so say an extra 2 batteries and a
DC contactor in each motor car ?, and we don't want line speed here, only
enough power to overcome friction and the weight of the train on a grade
so that it will actually move.

Yes it adds weight, but not much, and it sounds to me a great idea for
being able to assist with moving trains to places were evacuation is much
easier.

Could also be handy in depots to get trains into inspection roads with
out having to go through the whole procedure of clearing the area and
energising the conductor rail/overhead and then locking it all out again
before work can start.

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message

IIRC wasn't the Cortina where they got they weight down by doing away with
metal and just sprayed rust on the inside of the paintwork?

You're thinking of the Vauxhall Victor.


I'm trying desperately not to :-)

Don't worry. It won't last very long.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:

In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message

IIRC wasn't the Cortina where they got they weight down by doing away with
metal and just sprayed rust on the inside of the paintwork?

You're thinking of the Vauxhall Victor.


I'm trying desperately not to :-)

My grandfather had two Victors, an F in fawn and red (rather like one of
those toffees with the raspberry centres) and an FA in two-tone blue. I
was too young to worry about rust but I was very impressed with the
lever that raised the FA's air intake - you could make believe it was a
gun turret and shoot other cars with it.

Well, I did, anyway...

Sam

In article ,
Sam Wilson wrote:

My grandfather had two Victors, an F ... and an FA ...

Lest I seem to be parading geekiness, I didn't know they were and F and
an FA until I saw the Wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauxhall_Victor.

Sam

In article ,
Sam Wilson wrote:

In article ,
Sam Wilson wrote:

My grandfather had two Victors, an F ... and an FA ...

Lest I seem to be parading geekiness, I didn't know they were and F and
an FA until I saw the Wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauxhall_Victor.

And looking over that page again I see I meant an F and an FB. That's
my credibility completely shot.

Sam

Has anyone got any weights for Bombardier Movia 'S' stock for LU ?

A search of obvious places does not find any.

I know a Movia is designed for a different duty and to different
dimensions, but I just want to make a comparison.

--
Nick

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
l.co.uk
In article ,
_dot_uk (Recliner) wrote:

But the aluminium trains are heavier and use more power
than their steel predecessors.

The PEP-derivatives (Classes 313-315, 507 and 508) are aluminium
bodied and as light as anything around, though they are quite old now.

But aren't the latest Electrostars much heavier? Of course, they're
air-conditioned, faster, safer and quieter, but exactly the same could
be said of modern vs old cars. And at least some modern cars haven't put
on weight (eg, the Jaguar XJ which I cited).

In article ,
_dot_uk (Recliner) wrote:

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
l.co.uk
In article ,
_dot_uk (Recliner) wrote:

But the aluminium trains are heavier and use more power
than their steel predecessors.

The PEP-derivatives (Classes 313-315, 507 and 508) are aluminium
bodied and as light as anything around, though they are quite old
now.

But aren't the latest Electrostars much heavier? Of course,
they're air-conditioned, faster, safer and quieter, but exactly the
same could be said of modern vs old cars. And at least some modern
cars haven't put on weight (eg, the Jaguar XJ which I cited).

Indeed so.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 18 Jul, 16:14, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article ,





(Recliner) wrote:
"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
el.co.uk
In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

But the aluminium trains are heavier and use more power
than their steel predecessors.

The PEP-derivatives (Classes 313-315, 507 and 508) are aluminium
bodied and as light as anything around, though they are quite old
now.

But aren't the latest Electrostars much heavier? *Of course,
they're air-conditioned, faster, safer and quieter, but exactly the
same could be said of modern vs old cars. And at least some modern
cars haven't put on weight (eg, the Jaguar XJ which I cited).

Indeed so.


They've also got considerably more glass to look out of, which is a
Good Thing, but heavy.