| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Thameslink Rolling Stock
The usual suspects, Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens; plus Hitachi, have applied
to build the Thameslink EMUs. This phase of the procurement process seems fairly predictable, would the DfT not save time and money by prequalifying the first three for any future UK rolling stock builds, or would that be against the rules, in case there are other train builders around who might be interested? http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/th...meslinkbidders Paul S |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
On Jul 14, 2:09 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: The usual suspects, Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens; plus Hitachi, have applied to build the Thameslink EMUs. This phase of the procurement process seems fairly predictable, would the DfT not save time and money by prequalifying the first three for any future UK rolling stock builds, or would that be against the rules, in case there are other train builders around who might be interested? The DfT would save even more taxpayers money if they just built another batch of the dual voltage 376/377 series with any appropriate traction system upgrades. But that would require a bit of common sense in government - a rare commodity. B2003 |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
On Jul 14, 2:59 pm, wrote:
On Jul 14, 2:09 pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: The usual suspects, Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens; plus Hitachi, have applied to build the Thameslink EMUs. This phase of the procurement process seems fairly predictable, would the DfT not save time and money by prequalifying the first three for any future UK rolling stock builds, or would that be against the rules, in case there are other train builders around who might be interested? The DfT would save even more taxpayers money if they just built another batch of the dual voltage 376/377 series with any appropriate traction system upgrades. But that would require a bit of common sense in government - a rare commodity. Yes in the short term. In the long term, it's likely to be more cost effective to not give a single manufacturer a monopoly in the supply of UK suburban rolling stock (and Siemens would've been justifiably ****ed off, given that a batch of dual-voltage 350s would be pretty much equivalent to a batch of 37xes). However, it would have been much more sensible (ie cheap) to make the TL2k+n specification equivalent to "Desiro or Electrostar, but a bit faster and a bit lighter; if you're not Siemens or Bombardier you're welcome to bid but bear in mind that we're not going to pay the development costs of a whole new train platform", rather than going for a step change in capabilities and weights. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
On 14 Jul, 17:38, John B wrote:
However, it would have been much more sensible (ie cheap) to make the TL2k+n specification equivalent to "Desiro or Electrostar, but a bit faster and a bit lighter; if you're not Siemens or Bombardier you're welcome to bid but bear in mind that we're not going to pay the development costs of a whole new train platform", rather than going for a step change in capabilities and weights. But how have they not done that? I'm sure Bombardier and Siemens' bids won't be far off a "Desiro or Electrostar, but a bit faster and a bit lighter", and the other companies' bids likewise. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
Paul Scott wrote:
The usual suspects, Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens; plus Hitachi, have applied to build the Thameslink EMUs. This phase of the procurement process seems fairly predictable, would the DfT not save time and money by prequalifying the first three for any future UK rolling stock builds, or would that be against the rules, in case there are other train builders around who might be interested? Alstom decided not to bid for IEP, so it's probably good that they weren't automatically pre-qualified! -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
On 14 Jul, 18:47, Mr Thant
wrote: On 14 Jul, 17:38, John B wrote: However, it would have been much more sensible (ie cheap) to make the TL2k+n specification equivalent to "Desiro or Electrostar, but a bit faster and a bit lighter; if you're not Siemens or Bombardier you're welcome to bid but bear in mind that we're not going to pay the development costs of a whole new train platform", rather than going for a step change in capabilities and weights. But how have they not done that? I'm sure Bombardier and Siemens' bids won't be far off a "Desiro or Electrostar, but a bit faster and a bit lighter", and the other companies' bids likewise. I'm not a procurement expert, but Uncle Roger seems to think that the DfT specification is far too complicated/hard to achieve (not least the self-propulsion). -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote: I'm not a procurement expert, but Uncle Roger seems to think that the DfT specification is far too complicated/hard to achieve (not least the self-propulsion). The Thameslink EMUs aren't IEP, just bog-standard 20m 4-car EMUs. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
Neil Williams wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT), John B wrote: I'm not a procurement expert, but Uncle Roger seems to think that the DfT specification is far too complicated/hard to achieve (not least the self-propulsion). The Thameslink EMUs aren't IEP, just bog-standard 20m 4-car EMUs. That doesn't stop the spec being "ambitious" as well. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
"Neil Williams" wrote in message
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT), John B wrote: I'm not a procurement expert, but Uncle Roger seems to think that the DfT specification is far too complicated/hard to achieve (not least the self-propulsion). The Thameslink EMUs aren't IEP, just bog-standard 20m 4-car EMUs. Yes, but a similarly greedy feature set is demanded (ie, much lighter, faster, extremely reliable, able to run at up to 30mph when the juice is off). Most of the demanded features would raise the weight, but DfT is asking for something as light as a simple 319. |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
"Recliner" wrote in message ... "Neil Williams" wrote in message On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT), John B wrote: I'm not a procurement expert, but Uncle Roger seems to think that the DfT specification is far too complicated/hard to achieve (not least the self-propulsion). The Thameslink EMUs aren't IEP, just bog-standard 20m 4-car EMUs. Yes, but a similarly greedy feature set is demanded (ie, much lighter, faster, extremely reliable, able to run at up to 30mph when the juice is off). Most of the demanded features would raise the weight, but DfT is asking for something as light as a simple 319. Including the requirement to get 1000 people on or off during a 45 sec stop. Oh and much less complex than existing stock, but must include ATO, and every other signalling option you can think of... Roger Ford's other main point is that the procurement calendar is far too compressed. Paul |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
On 14 Jul, 21:50, Arthur Figgis wrote:
I'm not a procurement expert, but Uncle Roger seems to think that the DfT specification is far too complicated/hard to achieve (not least the self-propulsion). The Thameslink EMUs aren't IEP, just bog-standard 20m 4-car EMUs. That doesn't stop the spec being "ambitious" as well. Indeed - I got the self-propelled bit confused with the onboard- storage-of-regenerated-energy bit. Still, the combination of weight and performance requirements appears to be tough enough that it'd be hard to achieve based on minor changes to the Desiro or Electrostar base design. 32 tonnes per car is required - that compares to 33 tonnes average for a 313, 35.5 for a 319, and 43 for a 350 or a 377. The 315s are the only postwar British AC EMUs to have achieved 32 tonnes; they only go at 75mph and aren't built to current crash standards. Meanwhile, the performance requirement is for 'best in class' performance (presumably = at least as good as a 350 or 377). -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
On Jul 14, 7:29 pm, John B wrote:
I'm not a procurement expert, but Uncle Roger seems to think that the DfT specification is far too complicated/hard to achieve (not least the self-propulsion). Self propelled? Wtf is that all about? And how would you achieve it without dragging around a barn full of batteries slung under one of the cards? B2003 |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
On Jul 14, 5:38 pm, John B wrote:
Yes in the short term. In the long term, it's likely to be more cost effective to not give a single manufacturer a monopoly in the supply of UK suburban rolling stock (and Siemens would've been justifiably ****ed off, given that a batch of dual-voltage 350s would be pretty much equivalent to a batch of 37xes). Who has copyright of the designs of these trains? Is it retained by the manufacturer or is it owned by the DfT? If the latter couldn't they just farm the work out to a number of seperate builders as has been done in the past on BR and LUL? B2003 |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
wrote:
On Jul 14, 7:29 pm, John B wrote: I'm not a procurement expert, but Uncle Roger seems to think that the DfT specification is far too complicated/hard to achieve (not least the self-propulsion). Self propelled? Wtf is that all about? And how would you achieve it without dragging around a barn full of batteries slung under one of the cards? You've summed up the flawed thinking of the DfT quite well there. Please refer to the Thameslink Rolling Stock spec for other conflicting requirements: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/th...levespecif.pdf Section 9.3 includes inter alia "The capability to move a short distance without the traction supply being present" LOROL Paul |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
On 15 Jul, 13:05, "Paul Scott" wrote:
You've summed up the flawed thinking of the DfT quite well there. *Please refer to the Thameslink Rolling Stock spec for other conflicting requirements: Roger Ford guesses a 200 hp diesel generator will need to be included under one of the carriages in each unit. It's not a terrible idea but I can't imagine a cost benefit analysis on it is positive - how often is the track navigable but the traction supply unavailable? U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
On Jul 15, 1:39 pm, Mr Thant
wrote: Roger Ford guesses a 200 hp diesel generator will need to be included under one of the carriages in each unit. It's not a terrible idea but Can't see that happening. They'd have to install diesel fuel supplies and engine maintenance facilities in the depots. Not cheap or perhaps even practical. Also Thameslink has some steep sections (eg city thameslink to blackfriars) and I'm wondering if 200hp would be enough to propel a 140 ton unit up them. B2003 |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
|
Thameslink Rolling Stock
Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Roger Ford guesses a 200 hp diesel generator will need to be included under one of the carriages in each unit. It's not a terrible idea but Can't see that happening. They'd have to install diesel fuel supplies and engine maintenance facilities in the depots. Not cheap or perhaps even practical. Also Thameslink has some steep sections (eg city thameslink to blackfriars) and I'm wondering if 200hp would be enough to propel a 140 ton unit up them. The diesel engine wouldn't actually be propelling the train, of course - merely generating enough electrickery to enable the motors to do so. I'm assuming there'd be batteries involved, too, Those will be the special DfT designed batteries that still allow the unit to be lighter than anything previously built of course... Paul S |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
On 15 Jul, 13:56, Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Roger Ford guesses a 200 hp diesel generator will need to be included under one of the carriages in each unit. It's not a terrible idea but Can't see that happening. They'd have to install diesel fuel supplies and engine maintenance facilities in the depots. Not cheap or perhaps even practical. Also Thameslink has some steep sections (eg city thameslink to blackfriars) and I'm wondering if 200hp would be enough to propel a 140 ton unit up them. The diesel engine wouldn't actually be propelling the train, of course - merely generating enough electrickery to enable the motors to do so. I'm assuming there'd be batteries involved, too, so if there was insufficient charge available to do the climb, it'd merely be a question of waiting at the platform at City Thameslink, with the diesels going full tilt, until enough sparks had been made and were waiting to be used... I can't see that working, particularly if the lack of current is down to snow or something. I've already bored everyone with my anecdote of a 319 failing twice to get up the slope in snowy conditions before reversing to the north end of City Thameslink and finally making it with long runup. |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
On 15 Jul, 13:53, wrote:
200hp would be enough to propel a 140 ton unit up them. Depends how fast you want to go. At 2mph you only need 55 hp to counteract gravity, which leaves you the rest for friction, rolling resistance, etc. Though it'd be far more sensible to send a failed train north from the central section. Batteries aren't part of the base spec. It does say "Some level of onboard energy storage may provide an optimal solution overall", with regard to maximizing the use of regenerated energy. Which is just an invitation for bidders to look into whether they're a good idea or not. U -- http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/ A blog about transport projects in London |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
In message
, at 06:30:52 on Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Mr Thant remarked: Batteries aren't part of the base spec. It does say "Some level of onboard energy storage may provide an optimal solution overall" Vary large elastic band? -- Roland Perry |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
In article ,
Mr Thant wrote: On 15 Jul, 13:05, "Paul Scott" wrote: You've summed up the flawed thinking of the DfT quite well there. *Please refer to the Thameslink Rolling Stock spec for other conflicting requirements: Roger Ford guesses a 200 hp diesel generator will need to be included under one of the carriages in each unit. It's not a terrible idea but I can't imagine a cost benefit analysis on it is positive - how often is the track navigable but the traction supply unavailable? Plus you['ve got to test the thing to make sure it's functional before the train goes out each day. Is it a critical failure if it doesn't start (which will do /wonders/ for train avaiablilty)? Personally, I rather liked UR's suggestion of a Spearfish power pack for the emergency self-propelling capability, but each use of a power-pack wouldn't be cheap :) -- Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth "Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes) |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 06:30:52 on Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Mr Thant remarked: Batteries aren't part of the base spec. It does say "Some level of onboard energy storage may provide an optimal solution overall" Vary large elastic band? It's a long time since I saw you post such a sensible proposal. You wind it up on braking, and it could occupy all that dead space between bogies. After all you can make airplane fly by that method... Jim Chisholm |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
"Andrew Robert Breen" wrote in message ... In article , Mr Thant wrote: On 15 Jul, 13:05, "Paul Scott" wrote: You've summed up the flawed thinking of the DfT quite well there. Please refer to the Thameslink Rolling Stock spec for other conflicting requirements: Roger Ford guesses a 200 hp diesel generator will need to be included under one of the carriages in each unit. It's not a terrible idea but I can't imagine a cost benefit analysis on it is positive - how often is the track navigable but the traction supply unavailable? Plus you['ve got to test the thing to make sure it's functional before the train goes out each day. Is it a critical failure if it doesn't start (which will do /wonders/ for train avaiablilty)? Personally, I rather liked UR's suggestion of a Spearfish power pack for the emergency self-propelling capability, but each use of a power-pack wouldn't be cheap :) Especially if they forget to specify they don't need a warhead... Paul |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, J. Chisholm wrote:
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 06:30:52 on Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Mr Thant remarked: Batteries aren't part of the base spec. It does say "Some level of onboard energy storage may provide an optimal solution overall" Vary large elastic band? It's a long time since I saw you post such a sensible proposal. You wind it up on braking, and it could occupy all that dead space between bogies. After all you can make airplane fly by that method... And run cottonreel tanks! tom -- As Emiliano Zapata supposedly said, "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees." And years after he died, Marlon Brando played him in a movie. So just think, if you unionize, Marlon Brando might play YOU in a movie. Even though he's dead. -- ChrisV82 |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
|
Thameslink Rolling Stock
On Jul 15, 7:29 pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
Generally the manufacturer, but the customer might own frilly bits like a fancy nose. Voyager noses have been mentioned in the past - Meridians are a bit different. AIUI the South Africans own the right to the nose of their Electrostars. I guess they nose a good deal when they see one ;) Ahem. B2003 |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
On Jul 15, 2:12 pm, MIG wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: even practical. Also Thameslink has some steep sections (eg city thameslink to blackfriars) and I'm wondering if 200hp would be enough to propel a 140 ton unit up them. to snow or something. I've already bored everyone with my anecdote of a 319 failing twice to get up the slope in snowy conditions before reversing to the north end of City Thameslink and finally making it with long runup. Todays Thamelink operations - and all those of the greater operation post 2015 - seem to work OK without any resort to self propulsion. There are no significant engineering blocks where diesel working would be useful - lines tend to be closed outright rather than OLE isolations, and the SR zone tend not to indulge in traction only isolations. It is the central sections BF-City-KX that would be most vulnerable to a train failure. But the service will be so intense through there that rather than **** around with alternative power (that will be so infrequently used it will itself be a liability) you simply bring up the train behind and push out. And as others have quite rightly pointed out, the central section has some fierce grades - that from City to BF is the steepest on the network for practical purposes (although ?? might change with the upgrade ??). Bearing in mind that an EMU with more than 50% motors cut out will struggle up there, I don't see how piddly 200 hp power packs will help any. Since the new TL is supposed to be about longer trains, the chances of a train with more than 50% out reduces - because to get to that state with modules of 4car EMUs you need multiple motor failures across the train affecting more than one unit. Thats pretty rare. Even with a complete disablement of a whole train, you push out with a fully functioning train, so unless a farce arises where it just happens that it is a 4car following a failed 12car, probability suggests its a fair risk to not bother with alternatives. I have to wonder if the person who wrote this into the spec just happens to be a TL commuter and got caught one day in one of those rare events of an AC/DC changeover failure at Farringdon and has gone for sledge hammers to crack nuts approach. Those failures are very rare, I've never been involved in one in regular travel on the route ever since it opened. On top of all this, won't these days of H&S paranoia demand extraction and filtration equipment in the tunnels to remove noxious gases from diesel engines, bionic duckweed trurbines or Swordfish power packs ? -- Nick |
Thameslink Rolling Stock
"D7666" wrote Todays Thamelink operations - and all those of the greater operation post 2015 - seem to work OK without any resort to self propulsion. There are no significant engineering blocks where diesel working would be useful - lines tend to be closed outright rather than OLE isolations, and the SR zone tend not to indulge in traction only isolations. It is the central sections BF-City-KX that would be most vulnerable to a train failure. But the service will be so intense through there that rather than **** around with alternative power (that will be so infrequently used it will itself be a liability) you simply bring up the train behind and push out. And as others have quite rightly pointed out, the central section has some fierce grades - that from City to BF is the steepest on the network for practical purposes (although ?? might change with the upgrade ??). Bearing in mind that an EMU with more than 50% motors cut out will struggle up there, I don't see how piddly 200 hp power packs will help any. Since the new TL is supposed to be about longer trains, the chances of a train with more than 50% out reduces - because to get to that state with modules of 4car EMUs you need multiple motor failures across the train affecting more than one unit. Thats pretty rare. Even with a complete disablement of a whole train, you push out with a fully functioning train, so unless a farce arises where it just happens that it is a 4car following a failed 12car, probability suggests its a fair risk to not bother with alternatives. I have to wonder if the person who wrote this into the spec just happens to be a TL commuter and got caught one day in one of those rare events of an AC/DC changeover failure at Farringdon and has gone for sledge hammers to crack nuts approach. Those failures are very rare, I've never been involved in one in regular travel on the route ever since it opened. Whilst I agree with much of this, and am not convinced that auxiliary traction power is justified, there is also the scenario where failure of the power supply traps trains between stations. While stations are close together between Farringdon and Blackfriars, so it is difficult to conceive circumstances where more than one train could be trapped on each road between each pair of stations, between Farringdon and Kentish Town stations are more widely spaced. Kings Cross Thameslink has been retained as an emergency evacuation location, but I can imagine the difficulties if say three peak trains were trapped between Kentish Town and St Pancras, and 3000 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. Peter |
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
|
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:50 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk