|
|
Post by domh245 on Mar 2, 2015 19:38:42 GMT
By your argument then the pacers should be withdrawn immediately! Their bodies detach and crumple in an alarming fashion, and similarly would be inadequately protected in the event of a side swipe by another train. Eg (142 059, Lime Street, 5/11/91)  My point is that if it wasn't safe enough for Network Rail then it wouldn't be cleared to go on the network end of. I doubt Vivarail with their rail engineering expertise would build a train that wouldn't be cleared for operation by Network Rail. |
|
|
|
Post by patstonuk on Mar 2, 2015 20:34:58 GMT
By your argument then the pacers should be withdrawn immediately! Their bodies detach and crumple in an alarming fashion, and similarly would be inadequately protected in the event of a side swipe by another train. My point is that if it wasn't safe enough for Network Rail then it wouldn't be cleared to go on the network end of. I doubt Vivarail with their rail engineering expertise would build a train that wouldn't be cleared for operation by Network Rail. Firstly, I am not arguing that all existing stock, particularly Pacers, meet current standards. They are 30 years old and manifestly do not, although your point about bodies detaching is a little out of date. I presume you are referring to the Winsford incident, since which the method of attaching the bodies to the chassis has been completely revised. As for D78s being cleared on the network, again you are missing a point. Network Rail appear to have confirmed that no assessment of crashworthiness is necessary as the units already co-exist with main line stock over a short distance of shared track in West London. The fact that tripcock protection applies here seems to be overlooked when (or if) D78s are deployed elsewhere in the country. I suppose it will have to be a case of waiting and seeing what transpires with Mr Shooter's enterprise. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 2, 2015 20:59:33 GMT
The Front of the D78s are getting a large revamp as part of the modification work. Part of said revamp is putting in a large crash structure (which I understand to essentially be a large steel plate) in a cross across the cab to reinforce it. It'll mean that should there be a crash, it won't behave any worse than a new generation piece of stock (such as the class 387s or 700s) - it will in all likelihood need to be built to meet modern crashworthiness requirements! As for TPWS, I thought it was mandatory for all trains to be fitted with it, which would include the D train? It's difficult from the head -on view Vivarail have provided to see exactly what the "crash helmet" fitted to the D trains will really look like, and how much of a crumple zone it will provide. www.vivarail.co.uk/WP/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Northern-Version-2.4.jpgAs for TPWS, I think the point is that LU are allowed lower crashworthiness standards than NR because the chance of a collision is lower on lines with tripcocks. let them out on the Big Railway where TPWS is not universal (even if all trains are fitted, not all tracks are) and they need the same crash protection as everything else. |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Mar 2, 2015 21:13:21 GMT
Eg (142 059, Lime Street, 5/11/91) The scrape marks are still there on the red column supporting the building! The barriers in that picture have now been replaced with concrete walls. I seem to remember after the Winsford crash in 1999 when a Pacer SPAD-ed onto the WCML and was hit from behind by a West Coast express:  ..there were a number of crash-worthyness modifications made to anchor the bodyshell to the underframe. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 3, 2015 18:55:16 GMT
Wasn't an ECS pacer written off more recently (2006ish at a guess?) in a collision?
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 3, 2015 19:23:16 GMT
As far as I am aware only three Pacers have been written off: namely 142008 (Winsford), 142059 (Lime Street), and 143613 which was written off after a fire at Nailsea (near Weston super Mare) in 2004. Only the last of these was in passenger service at the time of the incident.
142069 sustained serious damage to its underframe in a derailment at Rhymney in 2009 (in an ECS movement), and 142091 had major front-end damage after hitting a landslide near Retford in 2012 (in passenger service), but both have been repaired and put back into service. It is perhaps a sign of the rolling stock shortage that such repairs are deemed worthwhile (the earlier incidents happened during periods when new dmus were being built, so it was easier to get a replacement (not like-for-like"!) built.
|
|
North End
Beneath Newington Causeway
Posts: 1,769
|
Post by North End on Mar 3, 2015 23:19:26 GMT
As far as I am aware only three Pacers have been written off: namely 142008 (Winsford), 142059 (Lime Street), and 143613 which was written off after a fire at Nailsea (near Weston super Mare) in 2004. Only the last of these was in passenger service at the time of the incident. 142069 sustained serious damage to its underframe in a derailment at Rhymney in 2009 (in an ECS movement), and 142091 had major front-end damage after hitting a landslide near Retford in 2012 (in passenger service), but both have been repaired and put back into service. It is perhaps a sign of the rolling stock shortage that such repairs are deemed worthwhile (the earlier incidents happened during periods when new dmus were being built, so it was easier to get a replacement (not like-for-like"!) built. 143615 has also been scrapped, also as a result of fire damage. |
|
|
|
Post by thc on Apr 16, 2015 10:15:37 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2015 7:58:11 GMT
Has anyone got idea when the prototype rebuilt unit will be showcased?
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Apr 17, 2015 16:44:56 GMT
The March update suggested early Summer
|
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on Apr 17, 2015 18:02:03 GMT
This promotional video has appeared:
Looks interesting. I note that the inter-car connecting corridors haven't appeared, but the seat used in the interior are certianly different!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2015 7:05:05 GMT
This promotional video has appeared: Looks interesting. I note that the inter-car connecting corridors haven't appeared, but the seat used in the interior are certianly different! Thanks. This looks interesting aight changes to the exterior of the train far less than I expected however this is just a promotional video so the in the actual converted trains may well be different XF |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2015 0:12:14 GMT
By your argument then the pacers should be withdrawn immediately! Their bodies detach and crumple in an alarming fashion, and similarly would be inadequately protected in the event of a side swipe by another train. My point is that if it wasn't safe enough for Network Rail then it wouldn't be cleared to go on the network end of. I doubt Vivarail with their rail engineering expertise would build a train that wouldn't be cleared for operation by Network Rail. Firstly, I am not arguing that all existing stock, particularly Pacers, meet current standards. They are 30 years old and manifestly do not, although your point about bodies detaching is a little out of date. I presume you are referring to the Winsford incident, since which the method of attaching the bodies to the chassis has been completely revised. As for D78s being cleared on the network, again you are missing a point. Network Rail appear to have confirmed that no assessment of crashworthiness is necessary as the units already co-exist with main line stock over a short distance of shared track in West London. The fact that tripcock protection applies here seems to be overlooked when (or if) D78s are deployed elsewhere in the country. I suppose it will have to be a case of waiting and seeing what transpires with Mr Shooter's enterprise. Tripcocks are only used on the Underground so there is no requirement for them on these reborn trains! |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 20, 2015 9:19:01 GMT
Network Rail appear to have confirmed that no assessment of crashworthiness is necessary as the units already co-exist with main line stock over a short distance of shared track in West London. The fact that tripcock protection applies here seems to be overlooked when (or if) D78s are deployed elsewhere in the country.. Tripcocks are only used on the Underground so there is no requirement for them on these reborn trains! Haven't you missed the point? AIUI, lower crashworthiness standards are permitted on tripcock-fitted lines (including lines where where LU and NR trains currently co-exist) because the likelihood of collisions is deemed to be so low. Crashworthiness should therefore require upgrading if the D78s are intended to be used on non-tripcock lines. It should also be noted that although the D78s will not have their maximum speed increased, they will potentially find themselves on lines where other trains are permitted to go nearly twice as fast as they can, which will also make crashworthiness more important. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Apr 20, 2015 11:59:25 GMT
Mr Shooter appears to have done his homework!
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Apr 20, 2015 17:07:11 GMT
Did you notice the new front end said to improve crashworthiness?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2015 17:50:40 GMT
Tripcocks are only used on the Underground so there is no requirement for them on these reborn trains! Haven't you missed the point? AIUI, lower crashworthiness standards are permitted on tripcock-fitted lines (including lines where where LU and NR trains currently co-exist) because the likelihood of collisions is deemed to be so low. Crashworthiness should therefore require upgrading if the D78s are intended to be used on non-tripcock lines. It should also be noted that although the D78s will not have their maximum speed increased, they will potentially find themselves on lines where other trains are permitted to go nearly twice as fast as they can, which will also make crashworthiness more important. The issue is more than Tripcocks as you you have now clarified, however I think I would feel happier and safer in a former D78 rather than a Pacer held together by lots of rivets any day! As has been stated already Adrian Shooter is a smart cookie and I am sure he has already covered this issue. |
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by roythebus on Apr 21, 2015 7:38:37 GMT
Everyone seems to have forgotten that there's still a lot of heritage stock allowed on the main lines at up to 100mph that probably doesn't meet modern crashworthiness standards. I'd suggest there's "grandfather rights" for certain stock (VSOE Pullmans, Mk1 charter trains...) and that LU stock will come into that category.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 21, 2015 8:57:50 GMT
I'd suggest there's "grandfather rights" for certain stock (VSOE Pullmans, Mk1 charter trains...) and that LU stock will come into that category. Depends on the wording of the grandfather rights - the D78s will have been extensively modified and will be working on lines other than those to which their existing exemption applies. Considerable upgrade work is being done to the Brighton Belle stock to allow it run on the main line again - they have even had to develop fireproof marquetry! |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 21, 2015 14:48:16 GMT
The VSOE Pullman stock is top-and-tailed by mk1 or mk2 (I forget which) coaches with greater crashworthiness standards when it runs on the mainline.
|
|
|
|
Post by domh245 on May 12, 2015 10:48:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on May 12, 2015 12:30:49 GMT
They have been performing low speed crash tests on 7056 which has had the crash structure modifications. The mods look very much less significant than the "Darth Vader"- style cladding shown in the artist's impression. I would assume from the damage sustained by 7056 in protecting its dummy occupant that it is to be written off, or is there enough of it undamaged to make an intermediate car? |
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,421
|
Post by metman on May 13, 2015 19:10:41 GMT
Looks like it came out of that with pretty light damage!
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on May 13, 2015 19:41:28 GMT
Looks like it came out of that with pretty light damage! Look at the in-cab picture - there's quite a lot of distortion. This is I assume intentional, to act as a crumple zone and protect the driver (whose position has been moved back relative to the LU driving position) The higher standards of crashworthiness required on NR are presumably because on lines not fitted with trip cocks there is more risk of a collision, and some of the lines they might work have higher speed limits than LU experience. (The D trains won't be cleared for 100mph plus, but they might encounter trains which are). |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,758
|
Post by Chris M on May 13, 2015 21:18:56 GMT
There is also a far greater range of things they could potentially hit on NR than on LU, as the former has level crossings. Indeed I think the test was designed to simulate hitting a farm tractor - something that a train running entirely in urban and suburban London is very unlikely ever to encounter.
|
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on May 14, 2015 18:39:48 GMT
If it does end up on the Harrogate Line, north of Headingley is more likely
|
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on May 27, 2015 21:06:24 GMT
Rumours abound that Arriva Train Wales are interested in using these units.
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on May 27, 2015 22:37:14 GMT
Rumours abound that Arriva Train Wales are interested in using these units. I recall travelling on a D stock train on the day they were first introduced. Never did I imagine that one day I might be travelling on the same trains in North Wales, at stations such as Blaenau Ffestiniog. I think the view out the window will be prettier than the inside of the District Line tunnel wall. Simon |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 18:14:11 GMT
Worked these as a Guard @ both Acton and PG, would welcome seeing them on the Swansea - Pembroke Dock route instead of the awful pacers and other clapped out crud we get foisted upon us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2015 18:52:58 GMT
Not quite related to vivarail, but it does relate to second life D78's. I have reason to believe on of the new D78 RATS will be units 7010 and 7123
|
|
