Atomic Systems

Hey all...
Been reading in Rail about a replacement for the 222 that is currently "awaiting repairs" with Hull Trains, with a mention of a 442 halled by a 67 and DVT on the back, but i cant find any other mention of it anywhere, anyone know anything further?

I would say unlikey for a 442 to be used. After all why drag an EMU round when there is plenty of LHCS around in various forms.

JR

It was floated but rejected as a solution, for a number of reasons:
- The 442 is 100mph limited (442s use T4/P6 bogies, based on the Class 317-322 bogies, not BT10s found under Mark IIIs).
- Modifications would be excessive in order to operate using the DVTs and 67s.
- Pulling the 442s around for long periods with no current to the motors is bad news, and taking them off isn't really an option. And the centre vehicle is required due to the EP Brakes.

Apparently it'll be plain 67s+Mark IIIs at 110mph.

T4/P6 bogies also used on 325's. They're max speed is 110mph.

Andy.

mattvince wrote:
Apparently it'll be plain 67s+Mark IIIs at 110mph.

Although theres a lack of mk3s as the original plan was the use the West Coast WB64 rake but now thats back in use



Matt

Andy - By the book, both 325s and 442s are 100mph machines. The 325s may have been derogated for 110mph, but as Non-Passenger stock different rules will apply.

Matt - Should not 'available' be the operative word? Plenty of Mark IIIs, just few ready for service.

Surely MML have some spare mkIIIs at Derby and Neville Hill? they would be near enough ready to roll?

Whitemoor wrote:Surely MML have some spare mkIIIs at Derby and Neville Hill? they would be near enough ready to roll?

The MKIIIs at Neville Hill will be HST trailers, not LHCS.

I consider the chance of any Loco Hauled stock between Hull and London extremely unlikely, which in my opinion is a great shame.

The new GM locomotives are brilliant pieces of equipment, something I hate saying as an ardent fan of classic traction (eg class 37s, 47s etc). The fact that the class 67s are used mainly for freight and thunderbird work is a tragic, they should be on mainline express passenger work. In fact in other countries, they are employed on such work.

They should be - their common passenger work up on the West Highland seems to kill the locomotives within days!

In terms of Midland Mainline, bar odd spare trailers they don't have any full rakes left I believe.

Class 67s were intended for high-speed parcels services, a requirement which has disappeared. Being built to haul 5/6-car NPCCS, they don't quite have the muscle to haul anything longer at similar speeds - particularly when there is a huge amount of power being used for ETS purposes. Other countries never use similar designs for the kind of work (100mph-plus) that the UK requires, especially not the frequency of station-stops in the UK. And it's one engine: Question - what happens when it breaks down?

Class 67s maybe have a place in this kind of short-term leasing to cover stock shortages (but only on certain routes/services where 67+LHCS do not impose performance or capacity restrictions - you wouldn't use one on a peak-hour all-stops into Waterloo, for example, nor would you use one on the fastest WCML service). But as a long-term solution, the idea is a bit lacking.

mattvince wrote: Class 67s maybe have a place in this kind of short-term leasing to cover stock shortages (but only on certain routes/services where 67+LHCS do not impose performance or capacity restrictions - you wouldn't use one on a peak-hour all-stops into Waterloo, for example, nor would you use one on the fastest WCML service). But as a long-term solution, the idea is a bit lacking.

I've never heard of Class 67s having any problems hauling long rakes of passenger stock (while supplying ETS). I've been on various railtours which have utilised them on the diesel leg of the journey, and they certainly seemed to shift. In addition to this I have seen them on VSOE work and thrashing through my local station (Newark Northgate) hauling railtour stock and failed HSTs.

I think a large part of the problem lies with our track and infrastructure - if it was maintained to a higher standard, the axle weight of the 67 would not be such an issue. In Spain, they had one running at 140 MPH!

I'm sure I've seen photos of a class 67 type loco hauling commuter express trains in Iran.

I think GM locos are the way forward - look at the push pull sets in Northern Ireland for example....

Only the UK has 67s, those abroad may have similar bodies, but different innards.

But with the ever-increasing requirements for ETS in modern vehicles (either MU or LHCS), how long can you make the formation without affecting performance? Whilst a Mark 1 or Mark 2 will have fairly low ETS requirements, when you add in all the required things - such as power-doors, Customer Information Systems, and modern air-con units, let alone WiFi and other features - a modern IC carriage will be more power-hungry. That's before we discuss vehicle weight.

Track Maintenance - how much do you want the railway to cost? The low-axleweight railway is a lower-cost railway, which gets the spendthrifts like Gordy B. off the railway's back. And how many trains do you want to operate - more maintenance will mean more possessions, meaning more buses.

GM locos are not the way forward. Diesels are only used as none in authority have had the gumption to conceive a truly modern railway.

One has to say its rather silly for an operator to rely on having it's entire fleet operational to cover it's normal timetable.

I guess a 67+LHS is going to be the most likley cover. I wonder how difficult it would be to haul some of the 'spare' TPX 158s at 100mph+? P4/T4 bogies could handle it I'm sure. Could have them hauled by an AC loco as far as Doncaster, where they could then run under thier own power to Hull.

Cheers

Gaz

wouldnt like to be the shunter removing the coupling bar.

why have them hauled with a AC electric, the hull voyagers diesel all the way. im sure a 158 can keep a reasonable head up on the timetable.