Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:


Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a family
car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to
crash
protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c and
such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by comparison.


NVH?

Noise, Vibration, Harshness; as Andy hasn't replied...

Paul

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

In message
"Paul Scott" wrote:


"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:


Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a family
car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to
crash
protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c and
such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by comparison.


NVH?

Noise, Vibration, Harshness; as Andy hasn't replied...


Ta, I assume he's away playing with his telescope, he'll go blind one of
these days.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Why are new trains so much heavier? All they have over the old ones is
better crash protection and air con. Would those really make that much
difference to the overall weight? I can imagine it adding on a few
tons but not the huge excess we see in new stock.

Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a family
car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to crash
protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c and
such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by comparison.

Noise, vibration and harshness. Think that particular TLA was coined by
Ford engineers during the development of the original Cortina (weight:
787 kg[1]).

[1] A 2008 Ford Focus weighs about 1350 kg dry

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

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

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

In article ,
Recliner wrote:
"Andrew Robert Breen" wrote in message

In article
,
wrote:

Why are new trains so much heavier? All they have over the old ones
is better crash protection and air con. Would those really make that
much difference to the overall weight? I can imagine it adding on a
few tons but not the huge excess we see in new stock.

Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a
family
car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to
crash protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c and
such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by comparison.

Except that they've also (in some cases) switched to aluminium monocoque
construnction, which should make them lighter, just as it has in cars
such as the Jaguar XJ and XK. I have an XJ, and although it's much
bigger and has more gizmos than my previous BMW, it's also a fair but
lighter, and gets away with a smaller engine without loss of
performance. But the aluminium trains are heavier and use more power
than their steel predecessors.

Hmmm..

1968 Jaguar XJ6 4.2: weight 1537 kg.

2008 Jaguar XJ-R: 1659 kg.

Much less of a difference than with the F*rds (much less of a difference
in NVH too, I'd suspect), but in spite of the XK boat-anchor in the old
Jag and the new 'un's alloy structure, the old'un is still lighter.

So: the aluminium cars are heavier and use more power than their steel
predecessors...

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Why are new trains so much heavier? All they have over the old ones is
better crash protection and air con. Would those really make that much
difference to the overall weight? I can imagine it adding on a few
tons but not the huge excess we see in new stock.

Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a family
car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to crash
protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c and
such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by comparison.

Noise, vibration and harshness. Think that particular TLA was coined by
Ford engineers during the development of the original Cortina (weight:
787 kg[1]).

[1] A 2008 Ford Focus weighs about 1350 kg dry


IIRC wasn't the Cortina where they got they weight down by doing away with
metal and just sprayed rust on the inside of the paintwork?

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

"Andrew Robert Breen" wrote in message

In article ,
Recliner wrote:
"Andrew Robert Breen" wrote in message

In article
,
wrote:

Why are new trains so much heavier? All they have over the old ones
is better crash protection and air con. Would those really make
that much difference to the overall weight? I can imagine it
adding on a few tons but not the huge excess we see in new stock.

Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a
family
car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to
crash protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c
and such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by
comparison.

Except that they've also (in some cases) switched to aluminium
monocoque construnction, which should make them lighter, just as it
has in cars such as the Jaguar XJ and XK. I have an XJ, and although
it's much bigger and has more gizmos than my previous BMW, it's also
a fair but lighter, and gets away with a smaller engine without loss
of performance. But the aluminium trains are heavier and use more
power than their steel predecessors.

Hmmm..

1968 Jaguar XJ6 4.2: weight 1537 kg.

2008 Jaguar XJ-R: 1659 kg.

Much less of a difference than with the F*rds (much less of a
difference in NVH too, I'd suspect), but in spite of the XK
boat-anchor in the old Jag and the new 'un's alloy structure, the
old'un is still lighter.

So: the aluminium cars are heavier and use more power than their steel
predecessors...

Hardly -- if you're going to use the original 1968 car as the benchmark,
you can't compare it with the current XJR, which is a much faster car.
I'd expect the current 3 litre XJ to be both faster and lighter than the
original 4.2 litre XJ6 from 40 years ago. And that's before you consider
all the standard kit a modern Jag has that the old ones didn't (much
more advance, relatively speaking, than trains).

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message

IIRC wasn't the Cortina where they got they weight down by doing away with
metal and just sprayed rust on the inside of the paintwork?

You're thinking of the Vauxhall Victor.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
(Andrew Robert Breen) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Except that they've also (in some cases) switched to aluminium monocoque
construnction, which should make them lighter, just as it has in cars

Hmmm..

1968 Jaguar XJ6 4.2: weight 1537 kg.

2008 Jaguar XJ-R: 1659 kg.


Small problem there... The X308 steel predecessor to the X350 ally XJ was
about 200kg heavier than the X350.

After the "Series" XJs, which would have steadily put on weight from the
s1 you quote above, the late '80s/early '90s XJ40 was north of 1800kg.

Sure - but the XJ40 had most of the crash-resistance measures in place.
The OP's position was that crash protection couldn't add that much
weight..

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message

IIRC wasn't the Cortina where they got they weight down by doing away with
metal and just sprayed rust on the inside of the paintwork?

You're thinking of the Vauxhall Victor.


I'm trying desperately not to :-)

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

In article ,
_dot_uk (Recliner) wrote:

But the aluminium trains are heavier and use more power
than their steel predecessors.

The PEP-derivatives (Classes 313-315, 507 and 508) are aluminium bodied
and as light as anything around, though they are quite old now.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:57:08 +0100, Paul Scott wrote:


Providing enough battery to allow a set to limp to the next platform
might be some what useful and not that expensive in the grand scheme of
things.

But as we have already discussed, it flys completely in the face of the
DfT's light weight requirements...

But how much would it really add to the total weight ?. The trains will
be carrying batteries anyway - and those batteries will be expected to
not only run emergency lights and some basic 'control' circuits, but also
emergency ventilation fans and an air-compressor so that the pantograph/
shoe gear can be operated, (and possibly also to release spring activated
parking brakes). The trains will like wise also have all the battery
charging and monitoring gear anyway. Changing the traction system to
accept input from the battery bank wouldn't add much - another set of
contactors.

So really how much EXTRA battery capacity would be needed to 'limp' the
set to the next platform in the tunnel sections ?. And also remember the
traction converters are distributed - so say an extra 2 batteries and a
DC contactor in each motor car ?, and we don't want line speed here, only
enough power to overcome friction and the weight of the train on a grade
so that it will actually move.

Yes it adds weight, but not much, and it sounds to me a great idea for
being able to assist with moving trains to places were evacuation is much
easier.

Could also be handy in depots to get trains into inspection roads with
out having to go through the whole procedure of clearing the area and
energising the conductor rail/overhead and then locking it all out again
before work can start.

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message

IIRC wasn't the Cortina where they got they weight down by doing away with
metal and just sprayed rust on the inside of the paintwork?

You're thinking of the Vauxhall Victor.


I'm trying desperately not to :-)

Don't worry. It won't last very long.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:

In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
In message

IIRC wasn't the Cortina where they got they weight down by doing away with
metal and just sprayed rust on the inside of the paintwork?

You're thinking of the Vauxhall Victor.


I'm trying desperately not to :-)

My grandfather had two Victors, an F in fawn and red (rather like one of
those toffees with the raspberry centres) and an FA in two-tone blue. I
was too young to worry about rust but I was very impressed with the
lever that raised the FA's air intake - you could make believe it was a
gun turret and shoot other cars with it.

Well, I did, anyway...

Sam

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

In article ,
Sam Wilson wrote:

My grandfather had two Victors, an F ... and an FA ...

Lest I seem to be parading geekiness, I didn't know they were and F and
an FA until I saw the Wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauxhall_Victor.

Sam

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

In article ,
Sam Wilson wrote:

In article ,
Sam Wilson wrote:

My grandfather had two Victors, an F ... and an FA ...

Lest I seem to be parading geekiness, I didn't know they were and F and
an FA until I saw the Wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauxhall_Victor.

And looking over that page again I see I meant an F and an FB. That's
my credibility completely shot.

Sam

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

Has anyone got any weights for Bombardier Movia 'S' stock for LU ?

A search of obvious places does not find any.

I know a Movia is designed for a different duty and to different
dimensions, but I just want to make a comparison.

--
Nick

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
l.co.uk
In article ,
_dot_uk (Recliner) wrote:

But the aluminium trains are heavier and use more power
than their steel predecessors.

The PEP-derivatives (Classes 313-315, 507 and 508) are aluminium
bodied and as light as anything around, though they are quite old now.

But aren't the latest Electrostars much heavier? Of course, they're
air-conditioned, faster, safer and quieter, but exactly the same could
be said of modern vs old cars. And at least some modern cars haven't put
on weight (eg, the Jaguar XJ which I cited).

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

In article ,
_dot_uk (Recliner) wrote:

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
l.co.uk
In article ,
_dot_uk (Recliner) wrote:

But the aluminium trains are heavier and use more power
than their steel predecessors.

The PEP-derivatives (Classes 313-315, 507 and 508) are aluminium
bodied and as light as anything around, though they are quite old
now.

But aren't the latest Electrostars much heavier? Of course,
they're air-conditioned, faster, safer and quieter, but exactly the
same could be said of modern vs old cars. And at least some modern
cars haven't put on weight (eg, the Jaguar XJ which I cited).

Indeed so.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

On 18 Jul, 16:14, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article ,





(Recliner) wrote:
"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
el.co.uk
In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

But the aluminium trains are heavier and use more power
than their steel predecessors.

The PEP-derivatives (Classes 313-315, 507 and 508) are aluminium
bodied and as light as anything around, though they are quite old
now.

But aren't the latest Electrostars much heavier? *Of course,
they're air-conditioned, faster, safer and quieter, but exactly the
same could be said of modern vs old cars. And at least some modern
cars haven't put on weight (eg, the Jaguar XJ which I cited).

Indeed so.


They've also got considerably more glass to look out of, which is a
Good Thing, but heavy.

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

"MIG" wrote in message

On 18 Jul, 16:14, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article ,





(Recliner) wrote:
"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
l.co.uk
In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

But the aluminium trains are heavier and use more power
than their steel predecessors.

The PEP-derivatives (Classes 313-315, 507 and 508) are aluminium
bodied and as light as anything around, though they are quite old
now.

But aren't the latest Electrostars much heavier? Of course,
they're air-conditioned, faster, safer and quieter, but exactly the
same could be said of modern vs old cars. And at least some modern
cars haven't put on weight (eg, the Jaguar XJ which I cited).

Indeed so.


They've also got considerably more glass to look out of, which is a
Good Thing, but heavy.

Do new trains have bigger/more windows than 1970s trains? I'd have
thought that, if anything, they have less. Admittedly they're now
double-glazed, which wasn't always true 30 years ago.

Cap'n Deltic reckons the weight of the copper wire in a modern train is
appreciable, which I'm sure must be true -- but then, modern cars with
motorised-everything presumably also have quite a lot of power wiring.

As an example, the current XJ has a motorised pedal box, which I assume
the old ones didn't. It lets you adjust the position of the pedals to
suit the thickness of the soles of your shoes (yes, I know that's
decadent, but surprisingly useful). Presumably in some future version,
it'll detect sole thickness automatically as well.

And while the windows aren't bigger, even the side windows are now very
effective acoustic laminated glass which is, I dare say, heavier than
ordinary toughened glass. The steering wheel is also electrically
adjustable in two planes, with multiple memories and automatic
retraction when the driver enters and leaves the car -- a common feature
these days, but not 30-40 years ago. And that's before you start
counting all the airbags, which trains don't have.

And then consider the external mirrors -- these days, they're obviously
electrically adjustable, heated, with electro-chromic dimming,
auto-dipping on the near-side and with indicator lights in them. All of
this must add weight compared to the simple, basic wing mirrors fitted
long ago, yet the car hasn't got heavier.