EE507 wrote:
On Apr 9, 11:48 am, wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/5asy9b
http://tinyurl.com/5deoog

I love the fact that at the end of a highly detailed, demanding
technical specification for a train that is meant to be suitable for
metro-style ATO as well as Kings Lynn to Eastbourne runs, there is the
following:

"Maintenance downtimes must be significantly reduced from the current
increasing trend that has arisen due to unnecessary sophistication".

So - having read through the spec a few times, which of the sophisticated
technologies that the DfT have listed are the unnecessary ones?

Paul

On Apr 10, 12:27*pm, wrote:

As in class 424 / 425 in Germany ?

Yep more or less - the S-bahn version 423 is a 4car unit on 5 bogies.

Each 423 is the same length as the older 3car 420 they replaced. 423
have 3 door apertures per side, 420 4, so it all balances out.

Internal shots showing lack of
corridor connections and spaciousness that might help meet the dwell
times.

Indeed.

When I boarded one first immediate reaction was ''WTF is this'' but
very soon go used to them. They are what the UK should have been
getting when we were at least looking at 376s, if not before then, as
423 etc are something like 10+ years old design now.

Not sure if we would get away with the look ahead view like they do
though !

Probably not.

--
Nick

On Apr 10, 12:01*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
EE507 wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:14 am, D7666 wrote:
On Apr 10, 10:34 am, "Paul Scott"

Did anyone else spot "Some level of onboard energy storage may provide
an optimal solution overall"?

If you are only running on core routes, surely there will almost
always be other trains in the same section to use the regenerated
energy? *North of the Thames, energy could be exported to the grid
anyway, and inverting substations could be considered for the SR
routes.

Energy storage is surely needed only for extremities of the network
where traffic is light - Seaford, Arun Valley, etc. *I can't see it
being a problem in the metro area or Brighton main line.

That is exactly what the spec says immediately before your quote surely?

Yes, but people such as yourself are suggesting that the trains will
not now be running to the more remote outposts of the network. There
will always be enough trains on the Brighton main line and inner
suburban routes to use the regenerated energy - at least that's my
understanding. Perhaps Mr. Lawford knows otherwise?

BTW - The South London RUS now suggests that the Arun Valley or Seaford
won't see Thameslink trains, unless they'll run further off-peak of
course...

Or is it just in case units have to limp out of sections
which have suffered a loss of traction supply..?

Well that is one of the reliability requirements - as I pointed out a couple
of posts ago - so some form of onboard energy storage is essential.

My view is that dragging around supercapacitors, batteries or even
flywheels to cater for extremely infrequent events is counter to the
general objective of keeping weight as low as possible. The marginal
benefit does not exceed the cost IMHO.

EE507 wrote:
On Apr 10, 12:01 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Energy storage is surely needed only for extremities of the network
where traffic is light - Seaford, Arun Valley, etc. I can't see it
being a problem in the metro area or Brighton main line.

That is exactly what the spec says immediately before your quote
surely?

Yes, but people such as yourself are suggesting that the trains will
not now be running to the more remote outposts of the network. There
will always be enough trains on the Brighton main line and inner
suburban routes to use the regenerated energy - at least that's my
understanding. Perhaps Mr. Lawford knows otherwise?

I don't have access to any figures about the required amount of traffic that
allows for regen - but don't you also need to allow for start and end of
service, and I guess reduced frequencies on Sundays etc.

My view is that dragging around supercapacitors, batteries or even
flywheels to cater for extremely infrequent events is counter to the
general objective of keeping weight as low as possible. The marginal
benefit does not exceed the cost IMHO.

Agree entirely - its just like the stupid point they make about removing
'unneccessary sophistication' most of which is to meet DfT requirements...

Paul

On Apr 10, 2:17*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

suburban routes to use the regenerated energy - at least that's my
understanding. *Perhaps Mr. Lawford knows otherwise?

I know nothing.

Its an interesting point though - there must be a trade off somewhere.

I'll wait Mr.Catlow to comment ? )

--
Nick

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Chris Tolley wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, John B wrote:

Other interesting highlights:

* the trains must weigh less than 32 tonnes per coach

Is there an external driver for that requirement

No, the driver can be on board.

That rather depends on how much he weighs, i would think.

tom

--
Freedom, Beauty, Truth, and Love!

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Paul Scott wrote:

~ The capability to move a short distance without the traction supply being
present;"

Obviously the last requirement is highly compatible with low weight...

Hatches in the floor, and let the passengers do a bit of a Flintstones.

tom

--
Freedom, Beauty, Truth, and Love!

On 9 Apr, 20:26, Sky Rider wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
Well I was quoting from last month's MR

So was I, as it happens.

though on another read it's unclear - the DfT state "the Thameslink project will also introduce new vehicles", but in the table beside Roger has them as
25 377s from Southern.
But then a couple of pages on in the Thameslink article the latter is sort of framed as his own suggestion.

Point accepted, but I did say 'most likely'. Perhaps we agree on the
NGEMUs now, but just to further my case, I will quote a paragraph from
the RSP:

'15. In addition, the [Thameslink] programme requires additional
vehicles for KO1 in 2011. It is expected that these vehicles will be
either cascaded existing EMU vehicles or new vehicles based on existing
designs with some, but maybe not all, of the features of the next
generation vehicles. However, it is possible that the next generation
vehicles proposed for KO2 in 2015 could be delivered earlier, possibly
by 2010 - 2011, if manufacturers are capable of delivering the required
outputs.'

As we already know, the first NGEMU should be in passenger service by 1
February 2012, but certainly not another 24. For some reason (once again
I have the Captain to thank for this) the DfT expect the first NGEMU to
be delivered more than a year before the first IEP train despite the
fact that NGEMU procurement has only just started, whereas IEP
procurement has been active for months.

If only he were around to clarify.

Agreed. And he was around less than 2 hours ago. g

Right,

All these figures for Thameslink are inferred, as explained in the
write up on the Laughing Stock Plan.

FCC inferred from their net gain that they got 192 vehicles for KO. I
made it 100. I think I am right..

Either way, these are South Central 377s converted to dual voltage.
Hence South Central get 100 new vehicles to back fill.

The suggestion by DafT that the NGEMU could be delivered for KO1,
when tendering had not started and no detailed spec existed is par for
the course.

Meanwhile I have sussed out how the 1300 vehicles for Thameslink have
turned into 1100. Apparently further work since the LSP was published
shows that 1300 was over the top and 1100 will now do the job.

Hope this helps.

In article
,
(Capt. Deltic) wrote:

Meanwhile I have sussed out how the 1300 vehicles for Thameslink have
turned into 1100. Apparently further work since the LSP was published
shows that 1300 was over the top and 1100 will now do the job.

Doesn't that make some heroic assumptions that "they" know what the job
is? Lynn to Eastbourne requires more stock than Lynn to East Croydon or
Gatwick, surely?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Capt. Deltic wrote:

FCC inferred from their net gain that they got 192 vehicles for KO. I
made it 100. I think I am right..

Which KO? Is it still 92 for KO0 and 100 for KO1 as before?

Either way, these are South Central 377s converted to dual voltage.
Hence South Central get 100 new vehicles to back fill.

That point I remember from MR March 2008.

The suggestion by DafT that the NGEMU could be delivered for KO1,
when tendering had not started and no detailed spec existed is par for
the course.

Interesting...

Meanwhile I have sussed out how the 1300 vehicles for Thameslink have
turned into 1100. Apparently further work since the LSP was published
shows that 1300 was over the top and 1100 will now do the job.

I see...the bidders could still propose anything between 900 and 1300
vehicles though, right?