"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message . li, at
22:06:28 on Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Tom Anderson
remarked:

And this is without that diesel-boosted electric idea that was floating
around for the IEPs. Is that still on the cards at all?

There appears to be an assumption that it's scrapped, although I don't
know exactly what's been said (other than the "Plan B" to have diesel loco
hauled EMUs).

Is there? Hammond announced two proposals for running IEP beyond the wires.
Loco haulage of electric sets, or underfloor diesels on otherwise electric
units.

Paul S

In article , (Roy
Badami) wrote:

In article
,
D7666 wrote:
I have accounted for what I am talking about i.e. ''cambridge
cruisers'' which is the term for all the non-stops and there are no
other trains Kings Lynns.

I'm not at all sure that 'Cambridge Cruiser' has been the term for
anything for serveral years now...

Since FCC took over their franchise to be precise. Still a better name
than "Cambridge Express" that they use now, IMHO.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:37:42 GMT
(Roy Badami) wrote:
I'm not at all sure that 'Cambridge Cruiser' has been the term for
anything for serveral years now...

Sounds like a trip to take if you want a really gay day out.

B2003

In message , at 11:48:00 on
Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Paul Scott remarked:
There appears to be an assumption that it's scrapped, although I
don't know exactly what's been said (other than the "Plan B" to have
diesel loco hauled EMUs).

Is there? Hammond announced two proposals for running IEP beyond the
wires. Loco haulage of electric sets,

Plan B.

or underfloor diesels on otherwise electric units.

Plan A.
--
Roland Perry

On Nov 30, 10:37*am, (Roy Badami) wrote:
In article ,

D7666 wrote:
I have accounted for what I am talking about i.e. ''cambridge
cruisers'' which is the term for all the non-stops and there are no
other trains Kings Lynns.

I'm not at all sure that 'Cambridge Cruiser' has been the term for
anything for serveral years now...

* * -roy

It's still referred to by that name on the departure boards at Kings
Cross.

In message
, at
05:20:25 on Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Jamie Thompson
remarked:
I'm not at all sure that 'Cambridge Cruiser' has been the term for
anything for serveral years now...

It's still referred to by that name on the departure boards at Kings
Cross.

Sounds like the "MMs bar", a name which EMT understandably did away
with, but is still stickered all over many of their trains.
--
Roland Perry

In article
,
(Jamie Thompson) wrote:

On Nov 30, 10:37*am, (Roy Badami) wrote:
In article
,

D7666 wrote:
I have accounted for what I am talking about i.e. ''cambridge
cruisers'' which is the term for all the non-stops and there are no
other trains Kings Lynns.

I'm not at all sure that 'Cambridge Cruiser' has been the term for
anything for serveral years now...

It's still referred to by that name on the departure boards at Kings
Cross.

It is not! They use "Cambridge Express".

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Paul Scott wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message . li, at
22:06:28 on Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Tom Anderson remarked:

And this is without that diesel-boosted electric idea that was floating
around for the IEPs. Is that still on the cards at all?

There appears to be an assumption that it's scrapped, although I don't know
exactly what's been said (other than the "Plan B" to have diesel loco
hauled EMUs).

Is there? Hammond announced two proposals for running IEP beyond the
wires. Loco haulage of electric sets, or underfloor diesels on otherwise
electric units.

Since we're back in armchair engineering territory - DfT sanctioned! -
would it be possible to have a diesel engine on wheels attached to the
electric trains, but rather than pulling them along, supply electricity
through their normal bus, so the train could still motor itself? Would
that not combine the best aspects of diesel locos (only present where
needed, large, efficient engine) and underfloor engines (fast
acceleration)?

tom

--
Any Christmas message which ends with "... everything's pointless
...." probably doesn't need sharing -- cleanskies

In article . li,
Tom Anderson wrote:
Since we're back in armchair engineering territory - DfT sanctioned! -
would it be possible to have a diesel engine on wheels attached to the
electric trains, but rather than pulling them along, supply electricity
through their normal bus, so the train could still motor itself? Would
that not combine the best aspects of diesel locos (only present where
needed, large, efficient engine) and underfloor engines (fast
acceleration)?

I thought that's pretty much what IEP bi-mode was. I wasn't aware
that it had been redisgned to use underfloor diesel engines.

-roy

"Roy Badami" wrote in message
...
In article . li,
Tom Anderson wrote:
Since we're back in armchair engineering territory - DfT sanctioned! -
would it be possible to have a diesel engine on wheels attached to the
electric trains, but rather than pulling them along, supply electricity
through their normal bus, so the train could still motor itself? Would
that not combine the best aspects of diesel locos (only present where
needed, large, efficient engine) and underfloor engines (fast
acceleration)?

I thought that's pretty much what IEP bi-mode was. I wasn't aware
that it had been redisgned to use underfloor diesel engines.

Underfloor engines on bi-mode IEP have been getting mentioned in most rail
mags for a few months, but last week's announcement by Hammond that they
were definitely one of two options for off the wires running was the first
formal mention, I think.

I think previous discussions here of a 'mobile diesel power pack' attached
to electric trains cast doubt on the method of getting the power required
across to the EMU. The current in any connectors was assumed to be very
high, so it couldn't easily be done with an auto coupler, there would have
to be separate power cables.

Paul S