In message
, at
06:30:52 on Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Mr Thant
remarked:
Batteries aren't part of the base spec. It does say "Some level of
onboard energy storage may provide an optimal solution overall"

Vary large elastic band?
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Paul Scott wrote:

Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Roger Ford guesses a 200 hp diesel generator will need to be
included under one of the carriages in each unit. It's not a
terrible idea but

Can't see that happening. They'd have to install diesel fuel supplies
and engine maintenance facilities in the depots. Not cheap or perhaps
even practical. Also Thameslink has some steep sections (eg city
thameslink to blackfriars) and I'm wondering if 200hp would be
enough to propel a 140 ton unit up them.

The diesel engine wouldn't actually be propelling the train, of
course - merely generating enough electrickery to enable the motors
to do so. I'm assuming there'd be batteries involved, too,

Those will be the special DfT designed batteries that still allow the
unit to be lighter than anything previously built of course...

Hydrogen fuel cells, presumably. Hydrogen's light, right? WHAT COULD
POSSIBLY GO WRONG?

tom

--
As Emiliano Zapata supposedly said, "Better to die on your feet than
live on your knees." And years after he died, Marlon Brando played him
in a movie. So just think, if you unionize, Marlon Brando might play
YOU in a movie. Even though he's dead. -- ChrisV82

In article ,
Mr Thant wrote:
On 15 Jul, 13:05, "Paul Scott" wrote:
You've summed up the flawed thinking of the DfT quite well there. *Please
refer to the Thameslink Rolling Stock spec for other conflicting
requirements:

Roger Ford guesses a 200 hp diesel generator will need to be included
under one of the carriages in each unit. It's not a terrible idea but
I can't imagine a cost benefit analysis on it is positive - how often
is the track navigable but the traction supply unavailable?

Plus you['ve got to test the thing to make sure it's functional before the
train goes out each day. Is it a critical failure if it doesn't start
(which will do /wonders/ for train avaiablilty)?

Personally, I rather liked UR's suggestion of a Spearfish power pack
for the emergency self-propelling capability, but each use of a power-pack
wouldn't be cheap

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth

"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
06:30:52 on Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Mr Thant
remarked:
Batteries aren't part of the base spec. It does say "Some level of
onboard energy storage may provide an optimal solution overall"

Vary large elastic band?
It's a long time since I saw you post such a sensible proposal.

You wind it up on braking, and it could occupy all that dead space
between bogies. After all you can make airplane fly by that method...

Jim Chisholm

"Andrew Robert Breen" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Mr Thant wrote:
On 15 Jul, 13:05, "Paul Scott" wrote:
You've summed up the flawed thinking of the DfT quite well there. Please
refer to the Thameslink Rolling Stock spec for other conflicting
requirements:

Roger Ford guesses a 200 hp diesel generator will need to be included
under one of the carriages in each unit. It's not a terrible idea but
I can't imagine a cost benefit analysis on it is positive - how often
is the track navigable but the traction supply unavailable?

Plus you['ve got to test the thing to make sure it's functional before the
train goes out each day. Is it a critical failure if it doesn't start
(which will do /wonders/ for train avaiablilty)?

Personally, I rather liked UR's suggestion of a Spearfish power pack
for the emergency self-propelling capability, but each use of a power-pack
wouldn't be cheap


Especially if they forget to specify they don't need a warhead...

Paul

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, J. Chisholm wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
06:30:52 on Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Mr Thant
remarked:
Batteries aren't part of the base spec. It does say "Some level of
onboard energy storage may provide an optimal solution overall"

Vary large elastic band?

It's a long time since I saw you post such a sensible proposal.

You wind it up on braking, and it could occupy all that dead space
between bogies. After all you can make airplane fly by that method...

And run cottonreel tanks!

tom

--
As Emiliano Zapata supposedly said, "Better to die on your feet than
live on your knees." And years after he died, Marlon Brando played him
in a movie. So just think, if you unionize, Marlon Brando might play
YOU in a movie. Even though he's dead. -- ChrisV82

wrote:
On Jul 14, 5:38 pm, John B wrote:
Yes in the short term. In the long term, it's likely to be more cost
effective to not give a single manufacturer a monopoly in the supply
of UK suburban rolling stock (and Siemens would've been justifiably
****ed off, given that a batch of dual-voltage 350s would be pretty
much equivalent to a batch of 37xes).


Who has copyright of the designs of these trains? Is it retained by
the manufacturer or is it owned by the DfT? If the latter couldn't
they just farm the work out to a number of seperate builders as has
been done in the past on BR and LUL?

Generally the manufacturer, but the customer might own frilly bits like
a fancy nose. Voyager noses have been mentioned in the past - Meridians
are a bit different. AIUI the South Africans own the right to the nose
of their Electrostars.

Presumably farming it out might make maintenance-inclusive packages more
tricky.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Jul 15, 7:29 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Generally the manufacturer, but the customer might own frilly bits like
a fancy nose. Voyager noses have been mentioned in the past - Meridians
are a bit different. AIUI the South Africans own the right to the nose
of their Electrostars.

I guess they nose a good deal when they see one

Ahem.

B2003

On Jul 15, 2:12 pm, MIG wrote:


gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
even practical. Also Thameslink has some steep sections (eg city
thameslink to blackfriars) and I'm wondering if 200hp would be enough to
propel a 140 ton unit up them.

to snow or something. I've already bored everyone with my anecdote of
a 319 failing twice to get up the slope in snowy conditions before
reversing to the north end of City Thameslink and finally making it
with long runup.


Todays Thamelink operations - and all those of the greater operation
post 2015 - seem to work OK without any resort to self propulsion.
There are no significant engineering blocks where diesel working would
be useful - lines tend to be closed outright rather than OLE
isolations, and the SR zone tend not to indulge in traction only
isolations.

It is the central sections BF-City-KX that would be most vulnerable to
a train failure. But the service will be so intense through there that
rather than **** around with alternative power (that will be so
infrequently used it will itself be a liability) you simply bring up
the train behind and push out.

And as others have quite rightly pointed out, the central section has
some fierce grades - that from City to BF is the steepest on the
network for practical purposes (although ?? might change with the
upgrade ??). Bearing in mind that an EMU with more than 50% motors cut
out will struggle up there, I don't see how piddly 200 hp power packs
will help any.

Since the new TL is supposed to be about longer trains, the chances of
a train with more than 50% out reduces - because to get to that state
with modules of 4car EMUs you need multiple motor failures across the
train affecting more than one unit. Thats pretty rare. Even with a
complete disablement of a whole train, you push out with a fully
functioning train, so unless a farce arises where it just happens that
it is a 4car following a failed 12car, probability suggests its a fair
risk to not bother with alternatives.

I have to wonder if the person who wrote this into the spec just
happens to be a TL commuter and got caught one day in one of those
rare events of an AC/DC changeover failure at Farringdon and has gone
for sledge hammers to crack nuts approach. Those failures are very
rare, I've never been involved in one in regular travel on the route
ever since it opened.

On top of all this, won't these days of H&S paranoia demand extraction
and filtration equipment in the tunnels to remove noxious gases from
diesel engines, bionic duckweed trurbines or Swordfish power packs ?

--
Nick

"D7666" wrote

Todays Thamelink operations - and all those of the greater operation
post 2015 - seem to work OK without any resort to self propulsion.
There are no significant engineering blocks where diesel working would
be useful - lines tend to be closed outright rather than OLE
isolations, and the SR zone tend not to indulge in traction only
isolations.

It is the central sections BF-City-KX that would be most vulnerable to
a train failure. But the service will be so intense through there that
rather than **** around with alternative power (that will be so
infrequently used it will itself be a liability) you simply bring up
the train behind and push out.

And as others have quite rightly pointed out, the central section has
some fierce grades - that from City to BF is the steepest on the
network for practical purposes (although ?? might change with the
upgrade ??). Bearing in mind that an EMU with more than 50% motors cut
out will struggle up there, I don't see how piddly 200 hp power packs
will help any.

Since the new TL is supposed to be about longer trains, the chances of
a train with more than 50% out reduces - because to get to that state
with modules of 4car EMUs you need multiple motor failures across the
train affecting more than one unit. Thats pretty rare. Even with a
complete disablement of a whole train, you push out with a fully
functioning train, so unless a farce arises where it just happens that
it is a 4car following a failed 12car, probability suggests its a fair
risk to not bother with alternatives.

I have to wonder if the person who wrote this into the spec just
happens to be a TL commuter and got caught one day in one of those
rare events of an AC/DC changeover failure at Farringdon and has gone
for sledge hammers to crack nuts approach. Those failures are very
rare, I've never been involved in one in regular travel on the route
ever since it opened.

Whilst I agree with much of this, and am not convinced that auxiliary
traction power is justified, there is also the scenario where failure of the
power supply traps trains between stations. While stations are close
together between Farringdon and Blackfriars, so it is difficult to conceive
circumstances where more than one train could be trapped on each road
between each pair of stations, between Farringdon and Kentish Town stations
are more widely spaced. Kings Cross Thameslink has been retained as an
emergency evacuation location, but I can imagine the difficulties if say
three peak trains were trapped between Kentish Town and St Pancras, and 3000
or more passengers had to be evacuated on foot. It would be useful if
feasible to be able to move a train to a platform, or out of a platform to
clear it for a following train.

Peter