Q stock to run again?

[Chris W]

Nov 20, 2018 20:20:35 GMT @aetearlscourt said:

Wasn’t this Q38 a pilot

goo.gl/images/E8RwCq

Absolutely right...

So are the D stock RATS's effectively.....

However having been inside a RAT car when the compressors kicks in (the compressor would normally be underneath the missing trailer car), I promise you that you don't want to be anywhere near it..!!

[Chris M]

Nov 20, 2018 19:56:54 GMT Chris W said:

There is also a reason why a unit it called a unit. Each car performs a task that compliments one another, much like a team. With no team to work together, they are merely static cars. This would mean that components under solebar would need to be designed, built and installed allowing them to operate together.... not to mention the time it would take to test so that they could operate to the high standards that LU operate to.

I think Ollie's idea was for all the necessary for the running of a train - motors, compressors, etc, to be in the pilot cars and for the heritage vehicles to be unpowered - i.e. a train composed of locomotives and trailers. All that would be required would be for the equipment on the old units to be bypassed/cut out.

That doesn't impact of course on all the other reasons this would be impractical without several shed loads of money, of course.

[Deleted]

Thanks very much Chris W for your rundown on why it isn’t a good idea - I do genuinely like to get advice from those who I can learn from and Chris M: spot on, with my lack of knowledge I presumed very little had to be done - my idea really is better summaried as ‘a drag with passengers and fancy locomotives’. As for being a billionaire, although that would be lovely, I’m sure by that if that were ever to happen (it’s not) the Q Stock will be long completed and even the standard stock may be back up and running. Possibly even the CO/CP at Quainton. Or the T Stock...

On a serious note though, I shall refrain from bothering anyone else with my ideas in future.

[Chris W]

Nov 20, 2018 21:37:22 GMT @ollie102030 said:

Thanks very much Chris W for your rundown on why it isn’t a good idea - I do genuinely like to get advice from those who I can learn from and Chris M: spot on, with my lack of knowledge I presumed very little had to be done - my idea really is better summaried as ‘a drag with passengers and fancy locomotives’. As for being a billionaire, although that would be lovely, I’m sure by that if that were ever to happen (it’s not) the Q Stock will be long completed and even the standard stock may be back up and running. Possibly even the CO/CP at Quainton. Or the T Stock...

On a serious note though, I shall refrain from bothering anyone else with my ideas in future.

Please don't refrain....

Industry, no matter in which forum, needs to have thinkers....

You are, as you say, someone who is still at school. The world is your oyster. Keep thinking.... keep speaking.... keep asking.,, keep questioning !

My response, was not intended to silence. Merely to explain other pressures....

Keep engaging

[Deleted]

Thanks again Chris W, I will definitely carry on thinking for sure, maybe even one day I may actually think of something good 😀

Back to what’s actually happening, which of the trailers is going to be used in the 3 car set? I’m going to presume it’s Q35 trailer 08063 though I have no grounds for that...

[miff]

I’m aware it is ruled out in the short/medium term but does anyone know if LUL have had any long-term thoughts about running heritage trains under ‘modern’ signalling systems?

[brigham]

Nov 20, 2018 21:08:12 GMT Chris M said:

I think Ollie's idea was for all the necessary for the running of a train - motors, compressors, etc, to be in the pilot cars and for the heritage vehicles to be unpowered - i.e. a train composed of locomotives and trailers. All that would be required would be for the equipment on the old units to be bypassed/cut out.

That doesn't impact of course on all the other reasons this would be impractical without several shed loads of money, of course.

Impractical unless you happened to have a withdrawn 2-car Rail Adhesion set available...

[Chris M]

Nov 21, 2018 8:34:13 GMT brigham said:

Nov 20, 2018 21:08:12 GMT Chris M said:

I think Ollie's idea was for all the necessary for the running of a train - motors, compressors, etc, to be in the pilot cars and for the heritage vehicles to be unpowered - i.e. a train composed of locomotives and trailers. All that would be required would be for the equipment on the old units to be bypassed/cut out.

That doesn't impact of course on all the other reasons this would be impractical without several shed loads of money, of course.

Impractical unless you happened to have a withdrawn 2-car Rail Adhesion set available...

Why?
In Ollie's idea the motive power would be from new-build vehicles and so as long as the vehicles being used as trailers could be mechanically coupled to each another the composition wouldn't really matter. Sure through air and electrical connects would be very significantly useful but the lack of them not showstoppers.

[Deleted]

For anything to run on LU metals during non engineering hours, every car has to be braked.

[brigham]

It must be a cheaper option to use an existing pair of driving motors to control the 'heritage' stock than to pay for 'new-build'.
There will be fewer compatibility problems, too.

[Chris M]

Cheaper? Almost certainly.
Fewer compatibility problems? Not necessarily - new build would be designed from the ground up to be compatible with what is being hauled and with the signalling system(s) it would be used for running under (it would be pointless otherwise) including matching performance profiles where possible, whereas with existing stock it really depends on what is used.

[ted672]

There are some interesting points being raised here, that can also apply to any preserved electric multiple unit. If a simple form of delivering power to restored traction equipment can be devised (subject to appropriate safety standards presumably) then the possibilities are considerable - we could have 4 SUBs, 4 CEPs and any other exile from the erstwhile Electric Railway Museum available for people to enjoy. I believe there's an SR motor luggage van somewhere with a diesel generator that hauls a 4 CEP. And maybe some of Vivarail's technology could be adapted.

Anyway, whatever the outcome, it will be great to see the Q stock out and about.

[roythebus]

The problems of compatability with various stocks are are not insurmountable. The most obvious differences between Q and later stock is that Q stock is car stock, designed to run as individual cars formed to make a train using Ward couplers; it has everything working from line volts except door controls and certain driving controls. Braking systems are much the same as later stock, a standard Westinghouse air brake and the earlier A type EP brake. It has separate jumper cables and air pipes between cars. Later stock is "unit" stock, permanently coupled in 2,3 or 4 car units with bar couplers at inner ends and Wedgelock couplers at outer ends. These carry not only the physical mechanism to couple the trains together but have the electrical and air connections. These are totally incompatible with Ward couplers.

However, with the Q stock being extensively rebuilt with modern low voltage wiring for the lights and control circuits, it would be possible to make it electrically compatible with later stock providing it could be fitted with Wedglock couplers on the outer ends.

The same sort of problems will be encountered with BR SUB stock and EP-type units. SUBs have everything working from line volts, no EP brake, just Westinghouse, and no buckeye couplers. That would not stop a SUB being coupled to an EP unit using the screw coupler, air brake extension pipes and hauling the lot with a suitable locomotive. It would not be possible to control a SUB from an EP unit and vice versa.

I'm also aware that district stock carried an emergency Ward to Wedglock coupling adaptor for emergency use. But these did not have any facility to enable a through brake pipe or control wires. It was a pure mechanical device and very heavy when it had to be deployed!

[fish7373]

Hi all yesterday i was in the mueseum looking at the Q stock to do some work on one of the cars they are only working on the Q35 trailer 08063 and Q38 4417 at the moment the other Q38 car is outside covered over but still needs working on same as the Q23 motor car and there is still a lot of work to be done on them to say. and only running as a three car unit and we did talk about signaling out there is a box with some MODS you can plug in but for a lot of money i wont go in to much detail for the 38.

[spsmiler]

To be honest, at this stage getting even a few cars in a bay platform somewhere (High St Ken? Plaistow? Moorgate? Chalfont & Latimer? Mansion House, Rickmansworth,) with doors open, lights on, etc would represent an achievement in itself.

This is what was done with some of the vintage Met Rly carriages that now form the Chesham Set and it helped raise funds for the restoration of the rest of the trainset. So hopefully doing the same with this train will reap similar rewards.

[MoreToJack]

Nov 22, 2018 11:35:43 GMT spsmiler said:

To be honest, at this stage getting even a few cars in a bay platform somewhere (High St Ken? Plaistow? Moorgate? Chalfont & Latimer? Mansion House, Rickmansworth,) with doors open, lights on, etc would represent an achievement in itself.

This is what was done with some of the vintage Met Rly carriages that now form the Chesham Set and it helped raise funds for the restoration of the rest of the trainset. So hopefully doing the same with this train will reap similar rewards.

Considering how intensively used High Street, Moorgate and Plaistow bays are used in disruption I'd rather not see them clogged up with jollies for a day.

Heritage has a place on LU, but it must not come at the expense of the core service.

Many seem to forget that you can't have it both ways.

[Chris M]

Once converted to sidings, the former National Rail bays at Moorgate may be an option. Kensington Olympia may also be on a day there is no LU service to that station.

[MoreToJack]

Nov 22, 2018 13:39:02 GMT Chris M said:

Once converted to sidings, the former National Rail bays at Moorgate may be an option. Kensington Olympia may also be on a day there is no LU service to that station.

Olympia is another useful bolt hole to turn a late running train, and likewise City Sidings are being provided as a way to put away more trains in the City during disruption than is currently possible.

[Chris M]

If you approach it from a point of view of "This can't work" then obviously it will never work. If you look at it from a perspective of "How can we make this work?" then it will happen. Is the non-availability of one stabling berth on one day when there may or may not be disruption really a show-stopper? I'm not a service controller so I can't say for certain, but my gut instinct is no. Some locations will have a higher impact than others of course, but with adequate planning and coordination - perhaps it would happen on a day when there is a reduce service in operation for other reasons. For example if the District line is going to be closed one weekend due to work at Hanger Lane junction but no work is being carried out at the station, the heritage units could spend a day or two in platform 8 at Ealing Broadway arriving shortly before the last train on the Friday and leave around the time of the first train on the Monday.

[Deleted]

The biggest problem is honestly to do with getting the train to work together if made of different stocks (A,C,D etc). They all have different braking and acceleration curves so it would literally be trying to pull itself apart in use. Where stock is designed to work as a unit (D stock being 3 car units for example), the equipment required for the unit to run is spread over different cars.

Its not impossible by no means, but would require a lot more work that most would expect.

[Deleted]

Nov 22, 2018 15:42:57 GMT @luacton said:

The biggest problem is honestly to do with getting the train to work together if made of different stocks (A,C,D etc). They all have different braking and acceleration curves so it would literally be trying to pull itself apart in use. Where stock is designed to work as a unit (D stock being 3 car units for example), the equipment required for the unit to run is spread over different cars.

Its not impossible by no means, but would require a lot more work that most would expect.

If I were tasked with making this idea work I would run the heritage cars on the outside of the formation (assuming wedgelocks could replace the solid bars) and in an ideal world the centre motor cars would be controlled from the heritage coach cabs via some sort of console connected in some way (wireless maybe?) to the control equipment inside the motor cars.

Just as an example let’s say the powered unit in question is a 3 car double ended D Stock in the formation DM-UNDM-DM (the use of D Stock is just hypothetical, the powered unit could be anything). The central car (and possibly the DMs if needed) would have extra compressors retrofitted in the passenger saloons to provide air for the whole formation and the A and C stock DMs would be retrofitted with wedgelocks on the inner ends and equipment to give them the same braking curve as the D Stock. The motors within the C and A stocks would be somehow isolated.

The formation therefore would be DT(A Stock) - DM(D Stock) - UNDM(D Stock) - DM(D Stock) - DT(C Stock)

I’m not sure about tractive effort and air requirements but let’s say only 1 D Stock DM and the D stock UNDM had to be fitted with compressors, you then have 3 cars of 3 different stocks to let passengers travel in. Again just a theory but if for some reason the met line RAT could temporarily be used for this it could save some money (still a lot to be spent I know) but if this did somehow worked it would be a perfect example of my idea.

[Deleted]

Nov 22, 2018 19:22:29 GMT @ollie102030 said:

Nov 22, 2018 15:42:57 GMT @luacton said:

The biggest problem is honestly to do with getting the train to work together if made of different stocks (A,C,D etc). They all have different braking and acceleration curves so it would literally be trying to pull itself apart in use. Where stock is designed to work as a unit (D stock being 3 car units for example), the equipment required for the unit to run is spread over different cars.

Its not impossible by no means, but would require a lot more work that most would expect.

If I were tasked with making this idea work I would run the heritage cars on the outside of the formation (assuming wedgelocks could replace the solid bars) and in an ideal world the centre motor cars would be controlled from the heritage coach cabs via some sort of console connected in some way (wireless maybe?) to the control equipment inside the motor cars.

Just as an example let’s say the powered unit in question is a 3 car double ended D Stock in the formation DM-UNDM-DM (the use of D Stock is just hypothetical, the powered unit could be anything). The central car (and possibly the DMs if needed) would have extra compressors retrofitted in the passenger saloons to provide air for the whole formation and the A and C stock DMs would be retrofitted with wedgelocks on the inner ends and equipment to give them the same braking curve as the D Stock. The motors within the C and A stocks would be somehow isolated.

The formation therefore would be DT(A Stock) - DM(D Stock) - UNDM(D Stock) - DM(D Stock) - DT(C Stock)

I’m not sure about tractive effort and air requirements but let’s say only 1 D Stock DM and the D stock UNDM had to be fitted with compressors, you then have 3 cars of 3 different stocks to let passengers travel in. Again just a theory but if for some reason the met line RAT could temporarily be used for this it could save some money (still a lot to be spent I know) but if this did somehow worked it would be a perfect example of my idea.

I know the D78 RAT very well, and I know for sure that this is not something that will ever happen. D stock uses a totally different braking and train monitoring system to say something like an A stock. As such, all 5 cars on the D stock would be required to have the train run, or you would have to modify it, which will not happen. D stock uses a braking system consisting of only main line pressure, whereas most stock older than it uses a train line and a mainline. The mods then required for the brakes to become compatible quickly kill the idea.

Getting traction to work on any heritage cars to be used in your idea is not an issue, as you don't need it. You need a fully braked train regardless what you want to do, otherwise it is unlikely the controller will let you out onto the main. If you look at the 5 car 62TS RAT train, it has the ability to couple up to 92TS and actually run as a 50/50% train, but only because of the control boxes fitted to the unit that allows the brakes to work.

[Deleted]

@luacton I see... thank you very much for taking the time to highlight the issues to my ideas; I do find it rather insightful to say the least, although I think it is time for me to call it a day with my hybrid train idea. On a side note however, is 6110 still being kept as part of the project?

[fish7373]

Nov 21, 2018 21:44:25 GMT roythebus said:

The problems of compatability with various stocks are are not insurmountable. The most obvious differences between Q and later stock is that Q stock is car stock, designed to run as individual cars formed to make a train using Ward couplers; it has everything working from line volts except door controls and certain driving controls. Braking systems are much the same as later stock, a standard Westinghouse air brake and the earlier A type EP brake. It has separate jumper cables and air pipes between cars. Later stock is "unit" stock, permanently coupled in 2,3 or 4 car units with bar couplers at inner ends and Wedgelock couplers at outer ends. These carry not only the physical mechanism to couple the trains together but have the electrical and air connections. These are totally incompatible with Ward couplers.

However, with the Q stock being extensively rebuilt with modern low voltage wiring for the lights and control circuits, it would be possible to make it electrically compatible with later stock providing it could be fitted with Wedglock couplers on the outer ends.

The same sort of problems will be encountered with BR SUB stock and EP-type units. SUBs have everything working from line volts, no EP brake, just Westinghouse, and no buckeye couplers. That would not stop a SUB being coupled to an EP unit using the screw coupler, air brake extension pipes and hauling the lot with a suitable locomotive. It would not be possible to control a SUB from an EP unit and vice versa.

I'm also aware that district stock carried an emergency Ward to Wedglock coupling adaptor for emergency use. But these did not have any facility to enable a through brake pipe or control wires. It was a pure mechanical device and very heavy when it had to be deployed!

One like this roythebus i still have one at Northfieds Depot that`s why they want Money to do the two brake vans up for the Q stock.

[spsmiler]

Nov 22, 2018 12:15:48 GMT MoreToJack said:

Nov 22, 2018 11:35:43 GMT spsmiler said:

To be honest, at this stage getting even a few cars in a bay platform somewhere (High St Ken? Plaistow? Moorgate? Chalfont & Latimer? Mansion House, Rickmansworth,) with doors open, lights on, etc would represent an achievement in itself.

This is what was done with some of the vintage Met Rly carriages that now form the Chesham Set and it helped raise funds for the restoration of the rest of the trainset. So hopefully doing the same with this train will reap similar rewards.

Considering how intensively used High Street, Moorgate and Plaistow bays are used in disruption I'd rather not see them clogged up with jollies for a day.

Heritage has a place on LU, but it must not come at the expense of the core service.

Many seem to forget that you can't have it both ways.

Moorgate and High St Ken have two bays. Are both used (outside of rush hours)? Can't some trains (S7) still reverse at Liverpool St?

I don't recall which one but I thought that one of the Dagenham stations also has a bay?

re: Plaistow, there is a brand new siding which trains could reverse in. An added benefit is its being located between the running lines, so westbound trains exiting the siding won't block eastbound trains, as happens at Plaistow.

Ealing Broadway and Richmond could also be contenders, perhaps.

I purposely did not mention Aldgate, Tower Hill, Hammersmith (Met), Wimbledon or Barking... because at these stations the terminus tracks are needed for service trains at weekends too. Ditto Edgware Road and Upminster, even though all tracks are through lines.

[spsmiler]

re: ollie102030's idea for a mixed stock train, I think that such would only work as static exhibits at a depot open day type of event / on a museum railway.

Or in paintings / 'model railway' format.

However, I would like to see something done with historic LU trains which emulates what now exists with Paris Metro Sprague stock. This would not actually operate on LU metals but instead would run at a museum railway - or even (in London) on a Sunday on a branch line such as West Ealing - Greenford or the Southall branch. ie: somewhere where it would not interface with normal services.

[norbitonflyer]

Nov 23, 2018 13:53:51 GMT spsmiler said:

I don't recall which one but I thought that one of the Dagenham stations also has a bay?

Carto Metro shows one at Dagenham East

Nov 23, 2018 13:53:51 GMT spsmiler said:

re: Plaistow, there is a brand new siding ..........An added benefit is its being located between the running lines, so westbound trains exiting the siding won't block eastbound trains, as happens at Plaistow

I assume you mean the siding at West Ham which opened, according to Carto Metro, in 2011.

[Deleted]

Dagenham East still has a bay road

[Deleted]

Nov 23, 2018 13:53:51 GMT spsmiler said:

Nov 22, 2018 12:15:48 GMT MoreToJack said:

Considering how intensively used High Street, Moorgate and Plaistow bays are used in disruption I'd rather not see them clogged up with jollies for a day.

Heritage has a place on LU, but it must not come at the expense of the core service.

Many seem to forget that you can't have it both ways.

Moorgate and High St Ken have two bays. Are both used (outside of rush hours)? Can't some trains (S7) still reverse at Liverpool St?

I don't recall which one but I thought that one of the Dagenham stations also has a bay?

re: Plaistow, there is a brand new siding which trains could reverse in. An added benefit is its being located between the running lines, so westbound trains exiting the siding won't block eastbound trains, as happens at Plaistow.

Ealing Broadway and Richmond could also be contenders, perhaps.

I purposely did not mention Aldgate, Tower Hill, Hammersmith (Met), Wimbledon or Barking... because at these stations the terminus tracks are needed for service trains at weekends too. Ditto Edgware Road and Upminster, even though all tracks are through lines.

High Street Ken especially platform 3 is used quite regularly outside early mornings and late at night. Platform 4 is only really used during the day as little as possible as the staircase leading to the concourse is quite narrow.

Putting trains or train cars in places where little action goes on is not a good thing especially for security and vandalism, it’s really not practical.

[Chris M]

Well the idea of putting heritage stock out and about would be for it to generate activity, so the little action point isn't the most relevant during the day and (for a bit of money) additional security could be provided for the odd day.