In article
-september
..org, (Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article , d () wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:45:50 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 18/04/2017 21:22, Recliner wrote:
Apparently this Frday (21st) will be the last for the D-stock in
normal service in London. I believe there will be a farewell tour
on 7 May.

After that, of course, there may be opportnities to travel on them
on new routes, with an unfamiliar diesel rumble under the floor.

What are their further prospects for conversion to DMUs and eventual
entrance into revenue service, especially after the fire?

Adrian Shooter seems optimistic that more orders are in the pipeline.
The EMT trial would not, in any case, have led to a significant order,
even without the fire. In a way, the fire was a good thing, as it
uncovered a number of weaknesses that might not otherwise have come to
light till much later.

IMO the main weakness is using van engines at all. Safety issues aside
long term reliabilty is going to be a serious issue as these engines
were never designed to be worked at max power for hours on end then
spend another few hours idling almost 365 days a year. Their capacity
is small meaning the max power rpm will be much higher than normal
railway diesels and hence increased wear and tear. I'm sure the company
would point to the ability to swap out the engines but really, who is
going to want to spend the time and money replacing knackered engines
every few years?

I thought they'd managed to get diesels that don't need to be left
idling all the time these days?

Yes. Though I suppose one of the four power packs may need to be left
running at a terminus. And the D-train's duties certainly won't involve
running at "max power for hours on end".

It must be noted from the reports on the fire that there are genuine issues
with making the power packs compatible with a rail traction environment.
Fascinating.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article
-september
.org, (Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article , d () wrote:

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:45:50 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On 18/04/2017 21:22, Recliner wrote:
Apparently this Frday (21st) will be the last for the D-stock in
normal service in London. I believe there will be a farewell tour
on 7 May.

After that, of course, there may be opportnities to travel on them
on new routes, with an unfamiliar diesel rumble under the floor.

What are their further prospects for conversion to DMUs and eventual
entrance into revenue service, especially after the fire?

Adrian Shooter seems optimistic that more orders are in the pipeline.
The EMT trial would not, in any case, have led to a significant order,
even without the fire. In a way, the fire was a good thing, as it
uncovered a number of weaknesses that might not otherwise have come to
light till much later.

IMO the main weakness is using van engines at all. Safety issues aside
long term reliabilty is going to be a serious issue as these engines
were never designed to be worked at max power for hours on end then
spend another few hours idling almost 365 days a year. Their capacity
is small meaning the max power rpm will be much higher than normal
railway diesels and hence increased wear and tear. I'm sure the company
would point to the ability to swap out the engines but really, who is
going to want to spend the time and money replacing knackered engines
every few years?

I thought they'd managed to get diesels that don't need to be left
idling all the time these days?

Yes. Though I suppose one of the four power packs may need to be left
running at a terminus. And the D-train's duties certainly won't involve
running at "max power for hours on end".

It must be noted from the reports on the fire that there are genuine issues
with making the power packs compatible with a rail traction environment.
Fascinating.

Yes, and they'd clearly not put enough effort into the task. Vivarail seem
to have tried to simply outsource the whole power pack to a local firm,
which obviously bodged it. The proven Ford engine may be up to the job, but
how it's mounted in the power pack (plumbing, wiring, fire-proofing, etc)
is at least as important.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:44:06 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
with making the power packs compatible with a rail traction environment.
Fascinating.

Yes, and they'd clearly not put enough effort into the task. Vivarail seem
to have tried to simply outsource the whole power pack to a local firm,
which obviously bodged it. The proven Ford engine may be up to the job, but

Proven on the road maybe. Pulling a 2 ton flatbed on the road is completely
different to working as a generator.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:44:06 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
with making the power packs compatible with a rail traction environment.
Fascinating.

Yes, and they'd clearly not put enough effort into the task. Vivarail seem
to have tried to simply outsource the whole power pack to a local firm,
which obviously bodged it. The proven Ford engine may be up to the job, but

Proven on the road maybe. Pulling a 2 ton flatbed on the road is completely
different to working as a generator.

In what way, exactly?

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:35:54 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:44:06 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
with making the power packs compatible with a rail traction environment.
Fascinating.

Yes, and they'd clearly not put enough effort into the task. Vivarail seem
to have tried to simply outsource the whole power pack to a local firm,
which obviously bodged it. The proven Ford engine may be up to the job, but

Proven on the road maybe. Pulling a 2 ton flatbed on the road is completely
different to working as a generator.

In what way, exactly?

Stop trolling.

--
Spud

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:50:08 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:35:54 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:44:06 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
with making the power packs compatible with a rail traction environment.
Fascinating.

Yes, and they'd clearly not put enough effort into the task. Vivarail seem
to have tried to simply outsource the whole power pack to a local firm,
which obviously bodged it. The proven Ford engine may be up to the job, but

Proven on the road maybe. Pulling a 2 ton flatbed on the road is completely
different to working as a generator.

In what way, exactly?

Stop trolling.

Trolling? You're very good at asking questions, but you're rather
short on answers. Here's your chance to explain exactly why a Class
230 duty cycle will be more onerous than white van man thrashing it
all day.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:02:09 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:50:08 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:35:54 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:44:06 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
with making the power packs compatible with a rail traction environment.
Fascinating.

Yes, and they'd clearly not put enough effort into the task. Vivarail seem
to have tried to simply outsource the whole power pack to a local firm,
which obviously bodged it. The proven Ford engine may be up to the job,
but

Proven on the road maybe. Pulling a 2 ton flatbed on the road is completely
different to working as a generator.

In what way, exactly?

Stop trolling.

Trolling? You're very good at asking questions, but you're rather
short on answers. Here's your chance to explain exactly why a Class

What question did I ask exactly?

230 duty cycle will be more onerous than white van man thrashing it
all day.

Van man will only be thrashing it for an hour or 2 each day. The rest of the
time it'll be parked up outside the building site or wherever. It won't be
trying to accelerate and maintain the speed of 10 tons of carriage most of
the day then spend the rest of its time idling since apparently train drivers
don't know where the off switch is it would seem. This isn't a static generator
generating a constant 240V at a constant RPM, its got a duty cycle and it'll
be a hard one for a small road vehicle engine.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:02:09 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:50:08 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:35:54 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:44:06 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
with making the power packs compatible with a rail traction environment.
Fascinating.

Yes, and they'd clearly not put enough effort into the task. Vivarail seem
to have tried to simply outsource the whole power pack to a local firm,
which obviously bodged it. The proven Ford engine may be up to the job,
but

Proven on the road maybe. Pulling a 2 ton flatbed on the road is completely
different to working as a generator.

In what way, exactly?

Stop trolling.

Trolling? You're very good at asking questions, but you're rather
short on answers. Here's your chance to explain exactly why a Class

What question did I ask exactly?

230 duty cycle will be more onerous than white van man thrashing it
all day.

Van man will only be thrashing it for an hour or 2 each day. The rest of the
time it'll be parked up outside the building site or wherever. It won't be
trying to accelerate and maintain the speed of 10 tons of carriage most of
the day then spend the rest of its time idling since apparently train drivers
don't know where the off switch is it would seem. This isn't a static generator
generating a constant 240V at a constant RPM, its got a duty cycle and it'll
be a hard one for a small road vehicle engine.


Train engines work hard to get the train up to crusing speed (60 mph for
these trains). That takes a few minutes. The rest of the time they're
producing very little power. The engines will cut out automatically when
power isn't needed, just as road vehicles do.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:04:35 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Train engines work hard to get the train up to crusing speed (60 mph for
these trains). That takes a few minutes. The rest of the time they're
producing very little power. The engines will cut out automatically when
power isn't needed, just as road vehicles do.

Road vehicles can get away with that because the transmission keeps the
engine spinning so no restart is needed - the ECU simply starts injecting
fuel again. That won't work with a generator engine.

--
Spud

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:41:20 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:04:35 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Train engines work hard to get the train up to crusing speed (60 mph for
these trains). That takes a few minutes. The rest of the time they're
producing very little power. The engines will cut out automatically when
power isn't needed, just as road vehicles do.

Road vehicles can get away with that because the transmission keeps the
engine spinning so no restart is needed - the ECU simply starts injecting
fuel again. That won't work with a generator engine.

Mostly the engines stop in road vehicles when the vehicle is
stationary, so the starter motor is needed. With the generator
modules, I wonder if they can use the generator as the starter motor?
If not, then they just have a conventional starter.