daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 9th, 2010, 08:14 PM   #741
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Over speeding in HSTs ended quite early, by the 90s it wasn't happening. The 4hr 03 timetable London to Edinburgh was achieved with the class 91s operating at 125 mph. East Coast plan to introduce sub-4 hours again next year, again with 125mph trains. The reason why speeds are so low at the moment is due to poor timetabling and congestion and the introduction of more stops than there were. Apparently they are trialling a swiss timetable system to develop the new one. But primarily the scots trains will stop less at Grantham, Retford, Newark, Durham etc etc, hence the faster time (each stop costs about 4-5 minutes).
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 9th, 2010, 09:58 PM   #742
Fatfield
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 488
Likes (Received): 93

Its still on according to this report.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-10919287

9 August 2010 Last updated at 17:07

County Durham 'first choice' for super trains

About 1,000 jobs could be created in County Durham if Japanese firm Hitachi decides to build carriages for "super express" trains in the area.

The industrial giant was provisionally awarded the £7.5bn government contract last year and must now choose a suitable location for the plant.

The firm said Newton Aycliffe was the "first choice". Another site in North Wales has also been short-listed.

If government approval is granted, trains could be in operation in 2015.

A spokesperson for Hitachi said up to 200 people would be involved in the construction of the new plant.

A further 800 would be employed in manufacturing the trains - which could begin in 2013.
'Biggest investment'

The trains are designed to be faster, greener and able to carry 21% more passengers.

Phil Wilson, MP for Sedgefield, said: "If we get this it would be the biggest investment in the north-east of England since the Nissan car plant in Washington.

"The North East is the place to have it. Everyone agrees we need to re-balance the economy.

"Public sector employment here is significant but that's not an argument for cutting public sector jobs, it's about growing the private sector as well."

The government is expected to make an announcement in October on whether to approve the Hitachi consortium plans and site location.

The consortium, called Agility Trains, also includes John Laing and Barclays Bank.
Fatfield no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2010, 10:28 PM   #743
Maarten Otto
Registered User
 
Maarten Otto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Almere (Greater Amsterdam)
Posts: 464
Likes (Received): 24

And still, I put my money on the cancellation of the project. The UK government simply doesn't have the money to fund it.

A traxx and coaches is much, much cheaper.
Maarten Otto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2010, 10:46 AM   #744
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

The government doesn't need money to fund it, construction is paid for by the Agility trains consortium, and then rented out to the train operating companies.

It will be cancelled for being the wrong train for the job.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2010, 02:12 PM   #745
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maarten Otto View Post
And still, I put my money on the cancellation of the project. The UK government simply doesn't have the money to fund it.

A traxx and coaches is much, much cheaper.
Except for the small detail that Traxx can't run in the UK...
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2010, 08:00 PM   #746
WatcherZero
Registered User
 
WatcherZero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 19,590

The problem is when converting these foreign designs to work on UK gauge that its quite easy to make a vehicle wider than its present design, you just enlarge dimensions and strengthen a couple of key components.

Making a vehicle smaller than its design is much harder and more expensive, components may have to be minimised or relocated, clearances and accesses have to be maintained, etc...
WatcherZero no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2010, 10:04 PM   #747
Republica
BUND
 
Republica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,036
Likes (Received): 3

I've had a look at the new timetable previously.

Nearly everywhere will get more trains in fact. There are going to be more services and a clock face timetable. I believe the time increases are due to a bit more speed getting between York and London.
__________________
Rant
Republica no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2010, 10:21 AM   #748
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Perhaps the sub-4hours edin-LKX will be only on a select few servicesm but then I suppose whats wrong with that?

Can you tell me is the increase in services at most stations partly due to there being more services? I understand there is supposed to be 5tph minimum services off-peak. Do you have a link anywhere to it?
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 12th, 2010, 04:51 PM   #749
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,092
Likes (Received): 291

I don't see a new high speed rail line being built to Scotland. Maybe to Birmingham but not much further due to costs and space etc.
__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 13th, 2010, 01:48 PM   #750
Maarten Otto
Registered User
 
Maarten Otto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Almere (Greater Amsterdam)
Posts: 464
Likes (Received): 24

Quote:
Originally Posted by WatcherZero View Post
The problem is when converting these foreign designs to work on UK gauge that its quite easy to make a vehicle wider than its present design, you just enlarge dimensions and strengthen a couple of key components.

Making a vehicle smaller than its design is much harder and more expensive, components may have to be minimised or relocated, clearances and accesses have to be maintained, etc...
I am aware of the smaller UK loading gouge. But I think Bombardier and Siemens would be more then happy building a new electric type for the UK if they get the order. A UK Railjet like train would be a perfect solution for IEP. Or a Class 220/221/222 with a power pack coach added.
Maarten Otto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2010, 02:30 PM   #751
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

One of the reasons cited by the DfT for not having loco hauled trains is the platform space that is wasted by the loco, which seems to be why they want rid of the class 91s on the ECML even though they are far from life-expired. IMO this is one point the DfT have got right. Lengthening platforms is particularly problematic as many stations have points at each end of the platform, making it impractical. An multiple unit is the sensible choice.

I agree though it wouldn't be too difficult or costly for the manufacturer to convert Traxx to UK guage, especially in the numbers required.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2010, 02:07 AM   #752
Republica
BUND
 
Republica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,036
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
Perhaps the sub-4hours edin-LKX will be only on a select few servicesm but then I suppose whats wrong with that?

Can you tell me is the increase in services at most stations partly due to there being more services? I understand there is supposed to be 5tph minimum services off-peak. Do you have a link anywhere to it?
I had a look about 6 months ago. I just had another look for it and it appears they have hit some problems in the timetable... IE. cost cutting has resulted in not all of the new timetable being able to be implemented. It was on the eureka section of east coast, but it has dissapeared now, I guess they are currently re-working it. The reason i'm so interested as this could either **** up my commute, or vastly improve it. Lets hope for the latter.

heres one link: http://www.eastcoast.co.uk/about-us/...ast-Timetable/

It looks like grand central may be causing some problems as they appear to have been booted into the slow lane even further - it really frustrates me how the railways are clearly very congested already down and grand central trains are already second in line. the congestion on the railways had lead to all this slack built in to timetables which means slower and slower journies. I hope this new timetable can properly fix this, but i suspect itll just end up in regularly late (by a few mins) trains all over the place.
__________________
Rant

Last edited by Republica; August 15th, 2010 at 02:12 AM.
Republica no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 15th, 2010, 12:49 PM   #753
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

I don't see that Grand Central are on the slow lines? The only bit I don't quite get is that in the southbound timetable the Leeds service appears to be overtaken at Peterborough by the Edinburgh service, which requires the Leeds to use the slow lines on approach to Peterborough, and possibly afterwards if the Edinburgh train is delayed, very tight indeed. The Edinburgh train will have to follow right behind the Leeds train all the way from Doncaster to overtake it, and then to be 5 minutes ahead of the Leeds train at Kings Cross the Peterborough stop on the Leeds train must cost a minimum of 5 minutes + headway, at least 8 minutes. The slow line after Stoke tunnel has a linespeed of 70-80mph for 13 miles into Peterborough, this must account for the large retardation of the Leeds service, as the Edinburgh train will be just behind but be on the 125mph track.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2010, 03:53 PM   #754
TedStriker
Over Macho Grande
 
TedStriker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,517
Likes (Received): 385

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maarten Otto View Post

A traxx and coaches is much, much cheaper.

And more logical.

With a push-pull format there would be no issues with linking the non-electrified parts of the IC network with London since at various points a change over could occur between an electric and diesel locomotive.

I'm sure it would not take much for the manufacturers of the existing Continental electric designs to produce options specifically for the British loading gauge, and I'm also sure it would be pretty easy to come up with a 125mph design of diesel locomotive to cater for the trips to and from Aberdeen, Penzance and so on.
TedStriker está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 17th, 2010, 12:16 AM   #755
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedStriker View Post
...and I'm also sure it would be pretty easy to come up with a 125mph design of diesel locomotive to cater for the trips to and from Aberdeen, Penzance and so on.
We already have 30...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_67

Pic credit David Black, found on http://www.eastbank.btinternet.co.uk/index.htm
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2010, 12:57 PM   #756
Maarten Otto
Registered User
 
Maarten Otto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Almere (Greater Amsterdam)
Posts: 464
Likes (Received): 24

Problem with the Class 67 is the poor acceleration above 100mph and it;s diesel.
Maarten Otto no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 18th, 2010, 04:53 PM   #757
k.k.jetcar
Registered User
 
k.k.jetcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sapporo
Posts: 1,811
Likes (Received): 452

Despite the thread title (conjuring up in my mind Mark Twain's famous utterance "reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated"), the IEP seems to still be alive, at least in the hopes of some in the north and northwest of England:

http://www.leaderlive.co.uk/news/920...ew-trains.aspx

Anyway, putting aside issues of short term "value for money", I think one of the points of the IEP specs was to provide operating performance above any "off-the-shelf" push-pull schemes as well as lower running costs. As Maarten mentioned, any diesel locos will have lower acceleration than a distributed traction arrangement. Also, people tout the simplicity of switching between diesel and electric loco haulage, but you have to think of the costs involved- two crews involved rather than one straight through, not to mention separate maintenance facilities for each motive power type, time involved switching between modes (I dunno the operating schedule, but if you want to operate a competitive service, every minute counts, and sitting idle at a station waiting to couple/uncouple doesn't generate revenue), pathways for light engine moves, etc. Also, with a distributed traction train, you can concentrate all maintenance at dedicated facilities with staff specifically trained for that type. This has a positive effect on train availability.

Last edited by k.k.jetcar; August 18th, 2010 at 05:03 PM.
k.k.jetcar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 19th, 2010, 03:44 PM   #758
TedStriker
Over Macho Grande
 
TedStriker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,517
Likes (Received): 385

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maarten Otto View Post
Problem with the Class 67 is the poor acceleration above 100mph and it;s diesel.


Although you're tight to highlight the acceleration and top-speed issues of the Class 67, you're not right to say the locomotive is unsuitable because it's a diesel, because I had been referring specifically to the fact that the push-pull option for the IC Express programme will require diesel locomotives.

I'd imagine that a 3500-4000hp six-axle machine would be ideal, which certainly both EMD and GE are capable of providing.
TedStriker está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2010, 04:19 PM   #759
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by k.k.jetcar View Post
Despite the thread title (conjuring up in my mind Mark Twain's famous utterance "reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated"), the IEP seems to still be alive, at least in the hopes of some in the north and northwest of England
It will be interesting to see what happens, but it is likely the spec will be pared down to a superior-performing unit. I know that sounds like a contradiction but due to the uniquely peculiar approach to specification this is possible.

I will counter the rest of your points with the industry lobby's counter-claims, not as an argment against you but to elucidate on the argument that is going on in the industry as you are quite correct in stating the claims that were made for the IEP by the DfT. However it appears the DfT have not been all that realistic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k.k.jetcar View Post
Anyway, putting aside issues of short term "value for money", I think one of the points of the IEP specs was to provide operating performance above any "off-the-shelf" push-pull schemes as well as lower running costs. As Maarten mentioned, any diesel locos will have lower acceleration than a distributed traction arrangement.
This particular claim has since been rubbished. Roger Ford has consistently questioned the figures provided by the DfT, as in the original specs for 30-40% powered axles the superior acceleration due to tractive effort runs out at about 30km/h, barely 10 seconds into the journey, with the installed power specified. As it turned out Hitachi's design has 50% powered axles because they saw that the DfT's spec could not actually guarantee required adhesion in adverse weather conditions to maintain the timetable, but even this is not going to be enough to support a claim of superior performance over an HST. The IEP is not specified to be a 400m Shinkansen type with 100% motored axles and 18kW of power but a 260m half-motored-axle with 2kW of power on windy rainy hilly twisty victorian railways. The superior power output of an HST will allow it to outperform the bi-mode IEP sigificantly over these sections.

Indeed the recent review of the project has also voiced concern that the IEP bi-mode will be slower over hilly Scottish railways north of Edinburgh than an HST, as it has less power on diesel mode than an HST, and at the linespeeds of 60-90mph distributed power makes no difference with the small amount of power available.

From the review;

Quote:
In relation to IEP specifically, the concern centres on the capability of a single diesel generator carriage to power long-distance through-trains (i.e. trains which will also have pantograph/transformer carriages), especially in the often hilly regions in Scotland and the South West peninsula where they would be most called upon in the absence of electrification. Although Agility Trains have committed to contracting to deliver the required journey times, our analysis of IEP bi-mode performance (distance speed graphs) causes concern around the technical capability of the train to deliver these journey times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k.k.jetcar View Post
Also, people tout the simplicity of switching between diesel and electric loco haulage, but you have to think of the costs involved- two crews involved rather than one straight through, not to mention separate maintenance facilities for each motive power type, time involved switching between modes (I dunno the operating schedule, but if you want to operate a competitive service, every minute counts, and sitting idle at a station waiting to couple/uncouple doesn't generate revenue), pathways for light engine moves, etc. Also, with a distributed traction train, you can concentrate all maintenance at dedicated facilities with staff specifically trained for that type. This has a positive effect on train availability.
This is true but overcome by Virgin on a daily basis. I doubt this would be an issue for the London - north-Scotland journeys, as these are already over 5 hours and the 5-8 minute changeover is not going to put anyone off, especially if the new EMU has significantly superior performance which the electric IEP would have over the class 91s and HSTs (class 91s have even worse acceleration than the HSTs, with only 80t total locomotive weight, hauling 40t coaches instead of 35t ones on the HSTs, although they do start to blast away from the competition above 100mph due to their higher power, but by this point the electric variant IEP would be well away.)

The changeover issue may be of more concern on the busier London-south west route, which is why other options have been suggested, such as using diesel only variant for the whole route (its only going to be electrified to Newbury anyway), similarly cascading existing DEMUs such as Meridians or use the various other interim measures until futher electrification is authorised.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2010, 04:57 PM   #760
TedStriker
Over Macho Grande
 
TedStriker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,517
Likes (Received): 385

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
...until futher electrification is authorised.
How much more expensive would the GWML electrification project be if the wires are put in down to Penzance?
TedStriker está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
rail, railways

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium