Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

On Jul 16, 1:31 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:

or more passengers had to be evacuated on foot. It would be useful if
feasible to be able to move a train to a platform, or out of a platform to
clear it for a following train.

In concept yes - but this sort of thing tends not to happen *that*
often.

If DfT or H&S are really that concerned about moving trains in this
way to evac passegners, then they need to do so for all EMU of every
spec for every train of every railway to cover every just in case, if,
but, and maybe.

And this will have to include future LU stock.

--
Nick

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

On 16 Jul, 14:05, D7666 wrote:
If DfT or H&S are really that concerned about moving trains in this
way to evac passegners, then they need to do so for all EMU of every
spec for every train of every railway to cover every just in case, if,
but, and maybe.

It's nowt to do with evacuation - it's in the "Reliability" section
and is about getting failed trains out of the way. Where and why and
in what circumstances is another matter. I've also just noticed it's
in a list titled "This functionality might include...", which would
appear to make it optional. Sadly the full spec isn't online, only the
summary.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

On Jul 16, 9:29 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

appear to make it optional. Sadly the full spec isn't online, only the
summary.

Indeed.

--
Nick

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

There are diesel locomotives that can use their 'starting' batteries to
move them selves - intended for workshop moves and short 'light' yard
moves - so the main diesel plant doesn't have to be started up (and
warmed up, etc, etc) just to move the engine to another maintenance road.

Just how much extra battery would an EMU have to carry (over what it's
already carrying to run the lights, control and safety systems) to move
the train a low speed to the next station platform to allow an orderly
evacuation ?.

Providing enough auxiliary power to run at service speed is just plain
stupid in an EMU, and even an small diesel aux is a maintenance hassle.
If nothing else the fuel will keep going off in the tanks as it doesn't
get used.

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.

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

"Matthew Geier" wrote in message
...
There are diesel locomotives that can use their 'starting' batteries to
move them selves - intended for workshop moves and short 'light' yard
moves - so the main diesel plant doesn't have to be started up (and
warmed up, etc, etc) just to move the engine to another maintenance road.

Just how much extra battery would an EMU have to carry (over what it's
already carrying to run the lights, control and safety systems) to move
the train a low speed to the next station platform to allow an orderly
evacuation ?.

Providing enough auxiliary power to run at service speed is just plain
stupid in an EMU, and even an small diesel aux is a maintenance hassle.
If nothing else the fuel will keep going off in the tanks as it doesn't
get used.

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...

Paul

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

On Jul 16, 10:57 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Matthew Geier" wrote in message

...



There are diesel locomotives that can use their 'starting' batteries to
move them selves - intended for workshop moves and short 'light' yard
moves - so the main diesel plant doesn't have to be started up (and
warmed up, etc, etc) just to move the engine to another maintenance road.

Just how much extra battery would an EMU have to carry (over what it's
already carrying to run the lights, control and safety systems) to move
the train a low speed to the next station platform to allow an orderly
evacuation ?.

Providing enough auxiliary power to run at service speed is just plain
stupid in an EMU, and even an small diesel aux is a maintenance hassle.
If nothing else the fuel will keep going off in the tanks as it doesn't
get used.

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...

Paul

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.

B2003

Thameslink Rolling Stock
 

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.

--
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 ,
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.


NVH?

--
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
 

"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.