Page 1 of 1
| Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 14/06/2018 at 13:59 #109653 | |
58050
2659 posts |
Just seen an article on BBC Look East this lunchtime showing for LUL District Line stock being converted by Vivarail into 2 car units to go into service in December 2018 on the Bedford - Bletchley - Bedford line. These will replace the current Cl.153 & Cl.150 units operated by London Midland. Even former Area Manager St. Pancras Adrian Shooter was interviwed about the unit conversions from 4DC to diesel. I remember a few years back when I was living in Chesterfield there was an article on BBC Look North about the very same thing, but having hybrid units converted from former LUL stock to work the Hull - Manchester - Hull services. Needless to say I don't think that has materialsed eyt! I would have thought it would have made more sense eletrifying the line between Bletchley & Bedford to co-incide with them eletrifying north to Corby atm. These new units are Class 230 apparently & there are some clips on YouTube.
Log in to reply |
| Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 14/06/2018 at 17:10 #109656 | |
Sacro
1171 posts |
Nope, not around Hull, Manchester trains are Transpennine 185s these days. Possibly to move to 68+MK5s, or perhaps 802s in the future.
Log in to reply |
| Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 14/06/2018 at 18:25 #109658 | |
|
58050
2659 posts |
Unless it was to replace the Cl.142, Cl.143 & Cl.144 units as an interim, but as I've not heard anymore that idea has no doubt been superseded. IIRC the stock was going to be upgraded at Horbury. Got to say the loco hauled formations will be alot better for the passengers. Come back loco hauled trains all is forgiven.
Log in to reply |
| Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 14/06/2018 at 22:57 #109668 | |
Steamer
3985 posts |
58050 in post 109653 said:Just seen an article on BBC Look East this lunchtime showing for LUL District Line stock being converted by Vivarail into 2 car units to go into service in December 2018 on the Bedford - Bletchley - Bedford line. These will replace the current Cl.153 & Cl.150 units operated by London Midland. Even former Area Manager St. Pancras Adrian Shooter was interviwed about the unit conversions from 4DC to diesel.The project has been underway for a few years now, and a couple of prototypes have been produced- one of which toasted itself near Kenilworth a year or two ago. That said, they do seem to have recovered from the set back. Quote: I would have thought it would have made more sense eletrifying the line between Bletchley & Bedford to co-incide with them eletrifying north to Corby atm.Unfortunately, Network Rail's incompetence has put the dampers on future electrification schemes, and even fully finishing the ones already in progress... "Don't stress/ relax/ let life roll off your backs./ Except for death and paying taxes/ everything in life.../ is only for now." (Avenue Q) Log in to reply |
| Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 15/06/2018 at 00:01 #109669 | |
postal
5265 posts |
Wikipedia has a page devoted to the project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_230). The intention is that the mechanics of the sets should be built up from modules which can be replaced by fork-lift truck avoiding the need for heavy lifting gear and indoor workshop attention. The engine comes on a raft that a forklift can replace in short order while for other variants of the project a battery pack on a raft fits into the same space so you can switch production between variants or even re-profile sets already in service a lot more easily than with current kit. The battery powered kit is designed to re-charge at charging points while turning round at the end of the route or by charging on the move from (comparatively) short lengths of overhead or third rail. The project is moving forward to the extent that there is interest from the USA in providing something similar as an economic option for opening or revitalising some of their local routes. “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Last edited: 15/06/2018 at 00:02 by postal Reason: None given Log in to reply The following user said thank you: 58050 |
| Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 15/06/2018 at 12:01 #109680 | |
|
trolleybus
150 posts |
230s have also been shortlisted for North Wales. See e.g. https://www.dailypost.co.uk/business/business-news/old-london-underground-trains-run-14757640.
Log in to reply |
| Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 17/06/2018 at 03:18 #109713 | |
Guts
604 posts |
Steamer in post 109668 said:[quote=58050;post=109653] Unfortunately, Network Rail's incompetence has put the dampers on future electrification schemes, and even fully finishing the ones already in progress...I think you should do a little research before making these statements. A lot of people don't know that a European change in the design of OHL has been the main issue with electrification, according to an article I read in RailEngineer. The change in standard changed the height of OHL in stations and some minor changes elsewhere. Electrification projects were designed and budgeted for about 2-3yrs if not 4yrs in advance. These normally set out, costs in terms of budget and materials, as well as equipment availabilities. Much of the current schemes were based on the successful Edinburgh to Bathgate extension. This was done on-time and on budget. Once these design changes were implemented and forced onto future projects, prices went up at least 3x the previous quotes and in some places 5x. This has obviously blown every budget projection out of the water. These electrification schemes were major undertakings so if the prices have rocketed so much, there is no way the company could keep to those projects and remain on budget. It is a tragedy, but beyond the control of Network Rail in my humble opinion; if you've budgeted for example for an £11m project and then suddenly this cost rises to £33m then I'm sure everyone can understand that £22m isn't suddenly going to appear from no-where to fill in that gap. Last edited: 17/06/2018 at 03:19 by Guts Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 17/06/2018 at 04:40 #109715 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
Guts in post 109713 said:Steamer in post 109668 said:A slightly higher wire at stations isn't going to triple the cost of the entire project. A much bigger cause is the use of huge masts instead of the ones that have served for 50 years.[quote=58050;post=109653] Unfortunately, Network Rail's incompetence has put the dampers on future electrification schemes, and even fully finishing the ones already in progress...I think you should do a little research before making these statements. As for the height changes themselves, it was open to NR to request derogations on the grounds that the existing heights had been shown to be safe. But they couldn't be bothered to. Log in to reply The following user said thank you: postal |
| Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 17/06/2018 at 06:17 #109716 | |
|
Guts
604 posts |
clive in post 109715 said:Guts in post 109713 said:That's business. Always happens. When NR want to change something the price goes up. The contract changes so any inflation or price hike gets added.Steamer in post 109668 said:A slightly higher wire at stations isn't going to triple the cost of the entire project. A much bigger cause is the use of huge masts instead of the ones that have served for 50 years.[quote=58050;post=109653] Unfortunately, Network Rail's incompetence has put the dampers on future electrification schemes, and even fully finishing the ones already in progress...I think you should do a little research before making these statements. To my understanding it was an insistence that the changes were to be made for any new project. There was only derogation on existing OHL Last edited: 17/06/2018 at 06:19 by Guts Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 17/06/2018 at 07:52 #109717 | |
|
postal
5265 posts |
Guts in post 109716 said:To my understanding it was an insistence that the changes were to be made for any new project. There was only derogation on existing OHLIf you have access to back copies of Modern Railways, you will see that more than one informed commentator holds a different view to that. “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Log in to reply |
| Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 17/06/2018 at 13:32 #109728 | |
|
Albert
1315 posts |
Rail Engineer at https://www.railengineer.uk/2018/06/04/getting-electrification-right/ has the same opinion.
AJP in games Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Guts |
| Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 17/06/2018 at 18:37 #109736 | |
|
kbarber
1743 posts |
clive in post 109715 said:Guts in post 109713 said:My understanding is that the increased clearances were in a new European standard. Electrification clearances on the Mainland were already pretty much compliant without needing huge amounts of redesign. There was a specific section of the standard produced especially for the UK, mandating approximately the existing UK clearances, but ORR decided in their infinite wisdom that this section of the standard should not be applied! I get the impression (from Modern Railways, of course) that NR was given an impression that derogations would not be looked upon favourably (and in any case any application for a derogation would require a detailed safety case for every structure). So I think this one goes down to Sir Humphrey.Steamer in post 109668 said:A slightly higher wire at stations isn't going to triple the cost of the entire project. A much bigger cause is the use of huge masts instead of the ones that have served for 50 years.[quote=58050;post=109653] Unfortunately, Network Rail's incompetence has put the dampers on future electrification schemes, and even fully finishing the ones already in progress...I think you should do a little research before making these statements. Last edited: 17/06/2018 at 18:38 by kbarber Reason: None given Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Guts |
| Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 18/06/2018 at 22:18 #109762 | |
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
kbarber in post 109736 said:clive in post 109715 said:I'm just bewildered that the EU has competence to tell us where to stick our wires.Guts in post 109713 said:My understanding is that the increased clearances were in a new European standard. Electrification clearances on the Mainland were already pretty much compliant without needing huge amounts of redesign. There was a specific section of the standard produced especially for the UK, mandating approximately the existing UK clearances, but ORR decided in their infinite wisdom that this section of the standard should not be applied! I get the impression (from Modern Railways, of course) that NR was given an impression that derogations would not be looked upon favourably (and in any case any application for a derogation would require a detailed safety case for every structure). So I think this one goes down to Sir Humphrey.Steamer in post 109668 said:A slightly higher wire at stations isn't going to triple the cost of the entire project. A much bigger cause is the use of huge masts instead of the ones that have served for 50 years.[quote=58050;post=109653] Unfortunately, Network Rail's incompetence has put the dampers on future electrification schemes, and even fully finishing the ones already in progress...I think you should do a little research before making these statements. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply The following users said thank you: Stephen Fulcher, Guts |
| Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 18/06/2018 at 22:36 #109763 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2084 posts 
|
I can understand standardisation on internationally used lines on the continent, but for it to apply here anywhere than in the new high speed routes is nonsensical
Log in to reply The following users said thank you: Peter Bennet, Guts |
| Former LUL stocl to replace Cl.150 & Cl.153 units on the Bedford - Bletchley service 19/06/2018 at 09:39 #109765 | |
|
kbarber
1743 posts |
Peter Bennet in post 109762 said:kbarber in post 109736 said:Actually I believe it's the successor to UIC (which preceded the EU by many years, and which this country was always a member of) who developed the standard. With the very sensible aim of ensuring maximum freedom to inter-run across national systems throughout the Mainland. And the EU, very sensibly, made it clear we could put our wires where they have always been put (with clearances validated by tests in the Independent Lines tunnels at Crewe back in the early '60s). It's ORR who decided our wires have to go where they would be able to go if we'd had the foresight to build our entire network to European gauge, and unfortunately they do have competence (legally, even though clearly not practically or scientifically).clive in post 109715 said:I'm just bewildered that the EU has competence to tell us where to stick our wires.Guts in post 109713 said:My understanding is that the increased clearances were in a new European standard. Electrification clearances on the Mainland were already pretty much compliant without needing huge amounts of redesign. There was a specific section of the standard produced especially for the UK, mandating approximately the existing UK clearances, but ORR decided in their infinite wisdom that this section of the standard should not be applied! I get the impression (from Modern Railways, of course) that NR was given an impression that derogations would not be looked upon favourably (and in any case any application for a derogation would require a detailed safety case for every structure). So I think this one goes down to Sir Humphrey.Steamer in post 109668 said:A slightly higher wire at stations isn't going to triple the cost of the entire project. A much bigger cause is the use of huge masts instead of the ones that have served for 50 years.[quote=58050;post=109653] Unfortunately, Network Rail's incompetence has put the dampers on future electrification schemes, and even fully finishing the ones already in progress...I think you should do a little research before making these statements. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: postal, WesternChampion |