ukclique > railway

Graham Harrison (13.09.2017, 20:19)
Once the reduced size FGW and Scotrail fleets have been created there
will be a number of trailers left over. Will there be any power cars
left? If there will be would it be feasible, technically (but
probably not finacially), to create some sets for use by Cross
Country? Alternatively, given some trailers were originally loco
hauled (or is that a red herring?) would it be possible to top and
tail with 67s or 68s?

Or are all the "leftovers" in such bad shape it would be chucking good
money away?
Christopher A. Lee (13.09.2017, 21:35)
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 19:19:05 +0100, Graham Harrison
<edward.harrisom.one> wrote:

>Once the reduced size FGW and Scotrail fleets have been created there
>will be a number of trailers left over. Will there be any power cars
>left? If there will be would it be feasible, technically (but
>probably not finacially), to create some sets for use by Cross
>Country? Alternatively, given some trailers were originally loco
>hauled (or is that a red herring?) would it be possible to top and
>tail with 67s or 68s?
>Or are all the "leftovers" in such bad shape it would be chucking good
>money away?


Would the electrical systems be compatible with class 67/68?
Patrick Hearn (13.09.2017, 22:21)
On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 7:19:10 PM UTC+1, Graham Harrison wrote:
> Once the reduced size FGW and Scotrail fleets have been created there
> will be a number of trailers left over. Will there be any power cars
> left? If there will be would it be feasible, technically (but
> probably not finacially), to create some sets for use by Cross
> Country? Alternatively, given some trailers were originally loco
> hauled (or is that a red herring?) would it be possible to top and
> tail with 67s or 68s?
> Or are all the "leftovers" in such bad shape it would be chucking good
> money away?


50-odd power cars to Scotland, 24 retained by GW, some on Newtork Rail, Grand Central, Cross Country and MML. Still should be some left from the original 197?

Patrick
Recliner (13.09.2017, 22:35)
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:21:41 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Hearn
<patrick.hearn39> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 7:19:10 PM UTC+1, Graham Harrison wrote:
>50-odd power cars to Scotland, 24 retained by GW, some on Newtork Rail, Grand Central, Cross Country and MML. Still should be some left from the original 197?


Yes, there should be plenty of Class 43 power cars left unused come
2020. The trailers aren't compatible with other locos, but that won't
be why they're retired, as there will also be plenty of other
loco-hauled carriages likely to be redundant in 2020, from Anglia (Mk
3) and VTEC (Mk 4).
rob499 (13.09.2017, 23:01)
On Wednesday, 13 September 2017 21:35:30 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:21:41 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Hearn
> <patrick.hearn39> wrote:
> Yes, there should be plenty of Class 43 power cars left unused come
> 2020. The trailers aren't compatible with other locos, but that won't
> be why they're retired, as there will also be plenty of other
> loco-hauled carriages likely to be redundant in 2020, from Anglia (Mk
> 3) and VTEC (Mk 4).


The HST carriages would require modification to work into 2020 and beyond, to comply with requirements for loos with retention tanks, power operated doors, disability fitments including minimum clearances, passenger information and so on. This is far from impossible, as ScotRail are proving, but it does require significant spend.

HST carriages are fed a three-phase hotel supply, chosen to save weight over the equipment required in the 1970s to use a single-phase supply as supplied by locos. It is possible to convert an HST carriage to loco-haulage (the opposite has been done a few times to bolster HST formations), but again comes with a price tag. HST carriages also require the cabling for connecting the power cars.

The question is, which makes the better financial sense for the TOC; a new train (for which the ROSCO will be charging a rent based on the full cost of the train over a number of years, plus heavy maintenance costs) of a refitted older train (for which the ROSCO might charge minimal rent for the written-down asset but will want to recover the costs of modifications and the(probably) higher maintenance costs associated with older kit)? The newer train will probably be more fuel efficient, but if the older train is cheaper to rent...

Rob.
ColinR (13.09.2017, 23:12)
On 13/09/2017 22:01, rob499 wrote:
> On Wednesday, 13 September 2017 21:35:30 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
> The HST carriages would require modification to work into 2020 and beyond, to comply with requirements for loos with retention tanks, power operated doors, disability fitments including minimum clearances, passenger information and so on. This is far from impossible, as ScotRail are proving, but it does require significant spend.


Out of interest as I do not know, how many of these requirements are EU
requirements and, therefore, alterable and how many are UK provisions
(or UK interpretations of EU requirements)?
Recliner (13.09.2017, 23:19)
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 14:01:09 -0700 (PDT), rob499 wrote:

>On Wednesday, 13 September 2017 21:35:30 UTC+1, Recliner wrote:
>The HST carriages would require modification to work into 2020 and beyond, to comply with requirements for loos with retention tanks, power operated doors, disability fitments including minimum clearances, passenger information and so on. This is far from impossible, as ScotRail are proving, but it does require significant spend.
>HST carriages are fed a three-phase hotel supply, chosen to save weight over the equipment required in the 1970s to use a single-phase supply as supplied by locos. It is possible to convert an HST carriage to loco-haulage (the opposite has been done a few times to bolster HST formations), but again comes with a price tag. HST carriages also require the cabling for connecting the power cars.
>The question is, which makes the better financial sense for the TOC; a new train (for which the ROSCO will be charging a rent based on the full cost of the train over a number of years, plus heavy maintenance costs) of a refitted older train (for which the ROSCO might charge minimal rent for the written-down asset but will want to recover the costs of modifications and the (probably) higher maintenance costs associated with older kit)? The newer train will probably be more fuel efficient, but if the older train is cheaper to rent...


The DfT also favours bids that include new trains.

The mods to old HST Mk 3s would have to be written off fairly quickly,
as it's assumed that the cars would in any case have to be retired
within 10-15 years due to fatigue and corrosion. After all, they've
been heavily used and will be over 40 years old in 2020.
Recliner (13.09.2017, 23:23)
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:12:53 +0100, ColinR
<rail> wrote:

>On 13/09/2017 22:01, rob499 wrote:
>Out of interest as I do not know, how many of these requirements are EU
>requirements and, therefore, alterable and how many are UK provisions
>(or UK interpretations of EU requirements)?


I think they're all UK gold-plating, introduced using the excuse of
new EU rules. We wouldn't be breaking any EU rules if we granted
grandfather rights to the HSTs, and did no mods at all.
Neil Williams (14.09.2017, 00:20)
On 2017-09-13 18:19:05 +0000, Graham Harrison said:

> Once the reduced size FGW and Scotrail fleets have been created there
> will be a number of trailers left over. Will there be any power cars
> left? If there will be would it be feasible, technically (but
> probably not finacially), to create some sets for use by Cross
> Country? Alternatively, given some trailers were originally loco
> hauled (or is that a red herring?) would it be possible to top and
> tail with 67s or 68s?
> Or are all the "leftovers" in such bad shape it would be chucking good
> money away?


I reckon ScotRail will end up with 5 or 6-car sets in short order when
the huge quality leap of switching to HSTs brings more passengers.

Neil
Recliner (14.09.2017, 00:28)
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 23:20:25 +0100, Neil Williams
<wensleydale> wrote:

>On 2017-09-13 18:19:05 +0000, Graham Harrison said:
>I reckon ScotRail will end up with 5 or 6-car sets in short order when
>the huge quality leap of switching to HSTs brings more passengers.


Yes, I assume they've reserved enough carriages to strengthen the
sets?
Anna Noyd-Dryver (14.09.2017, 03:03)
Christopher A. Lee <c.lee> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 19:19:05 +0100, Graham Harrison
> <edward.harrisom.one> wrote:
> Would the electrical systems be compatible with class 67/68?


AIUI all Mk. IIIs have wiring within the vehicle at 415 V 3-phase AC. On
HST trailers this is supplied direct from the power car; on LHCS the loco
supplies ~1000 V DC and (on Mk. IIIs) a Motor-Generator set converts this
to the 415 V AC required by the other equipment.

Those vehicles which were converted from LHCS to HST will presumably have
had the MG set removed and the wiring converted to suit; the question is
whether these changes are easily reversible.

67/68 provide the standard ~1000 V DC ETS, AIUI.

Anna Noyd-Dryver
Roland Perry (14.09.2017, 08:30)
In message <3cfb386a-b975-47b4-b5ce-5f0952ee2995>, at
14:01:09 on Wed, 13 Sep 2017, rob499 remarked:

>The HST carriages would require modification to work into 2020 and
>beyond, to comply with requirements for loos with retention tanks,
>power operated doors, disability fitments including minimum clearances,
>passenger information and so on.


Unless the SoS uses his newly-found Henry 8th powers in the Great Repeal
Bill to declare that it's all hysterical Brussels-inspired red tape
which we can no longer afford.
rcp27g (14.09.2017, 10:52)
On Thursday, 14 September 2017 08:34:50 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <3cfb386a-b975-47b4-b5ce-5f0952ee2995>, at
> 14:01:09 on Wed, 13 Sep 2017, rob499 remarked:
> Unless the SoS uses his newly-found Henry 8th powers in the Great Repeal
> Bill to declare that it's all hysterical Brussels-inspired red tape
> which we can no longer afford.


The EU is a bit of a red herring here, though, because the EU regulation does not apply to legacy rolling stock. The decision to make all rolling stock, rather than just new build, accessible from 2020 was a UK decision. I haven't done a deep dive into the legislation either existing or proposed (nor can I really be bothered) to figure out whether the new Henry VIII powers would apply to this case or not (or whether HMG could change the existing requirement with a new SI within their existing powers).

Robin
bathwellschap (14.09.2017, 11:09)
On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 9:52:03 AM UTC+1, rcp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 September 2017 08:34:50 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
> The EU is a bit of a red herring here, though, because the EU regulation does not apply to legacy rolling stock. The decision to make all rolling stock, rather than just new build, accessible from 2020 was a UK decision. I haven't done a deep dive into the legislation either existing or proposed(nor can I really be bothered) to figure out whether the new Henry VIII powers would apply to this case or not (or whether HMG could change the existing requirement with a new SI within their existing powers).
> Robin


Might be one less leftover HST after this morning...


Stephen
Roland Perry (14.09.2017, 11:12)
In message <970476f3-80a0-48f6-801e-bbcda408b630>, at
01:52:01 on Thu, 14 Sep 2017, rcp27g remarked:
>On Thursday, 14 September 2017 08:34:50 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
>The EU is a bit of a red herring here, though, because the EU
>regulation does not apply to legacy rolling stock. The decision to
>make all rolling stock, rather than just new build, accessible from
>2020 was a UK decision.


The UK gold-plates a lot of EU law, but there's nothing to stop that
gold plate being scraped off when the financial strictures of Brexit
hit.

OK, many leavers say "we'd rather be poor, and free", and this would be
one aspect of the self-inflicted poverty.

>I haven't done a deep dive into the legislation either existing or
>proposed (nor can I really be bothered) to figure out whether the new
>Henry VIII powers would apply to this case or not (or whether HMG could
>change the existing requirement with a new SI within their existing
>powers).


The thing is, assuming it would be unpopular then the obvious thing to
do is conflate it with Brexit, whichever SI process is used.

Similar Threads