Britain's shame: importing trains

[Roadkill]

Well, I'm pretty sure that new steam engines would be entirely different beasts. By the end of steam, auto coal injecting systems were invented and I've no doubt that a modern engine would be nowhere near as labour intensive as the old 'uns.

I think the underlying point is that, although it would probably be possible to re-think the steam engine sufficiently to remove some of the classic type's disadvantages, it would be pretty much impossible to eliminate all of them, and the money spent on doing so would probably be better spent electrifying the railways and making the power stations providing the electricity cleaner.

e2a: Good luck to the 5AT project, of course. It's a very interesting idea and it'd be great to see a working prototype. I'm just not sure I see the point of producing an updated steam engine, which would very probably be no more efficient than existing diesel types and would share the same basic problem of dependence on fossil fuels. It's a strange mix of the ultra-modern and the determinedly retro: modern railway research and the Tornado project. It doesn't seem to me to be a very productive avenue to go down.

 

[teuchter]

Well if you can do it on a submarine...

Makes far more sense to built a nuclear plant and electrify the rail though

Yes indeed.

And even if it was feasible, you would need to do a pretty good PR campaign to convince people it was a good idea, considering the hysteria there is already around the trains that just transport spent fuel in crash-proof containers...

 

[Dr_Herbz]

We fucking invented them. We exported them all over the world. British locomotives were a pinnacle of technology and design. They broke records. They looked great. They lasted for decades and were widely admired.

So what the fuck has happened to the industry? We can't even make our own trains any more and have to spend hundreds of millions buying them off Japan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldLeChat
I'd reckon that you'd need to ask the editor who put up the suspostion that it was wrongful for trains to be imported from other areas becuase of some notianal boundary placed on things...

Not what I said at all, but now that you've set the patronising tone of your debate ("dearest"), there's no need to respond to me because I won't be engaging with you on this thread.

so say again what it is you didn't say... exactly...

I'm waiting...

Come on, Ed, are you going to tell us why it's ok for England to sell trains to other countries yet you whinge when they're imported?

*sees pattern emerging*

 

[editor]

Come on, Ed, are you going to tell us why it's ok for England to sell trains to other countries yet you whinge when they're imported?

Who mentioned England, fool? Where did I actually say it was "OK" for us to sell trains now" (not that I've got a problem with that)?

My opening post referred to the time when our export railway trade was at its peak. At that time most countries didn't have the capacity or the engineering know-how to make their own, so whatever piss weak point it is you're trying to dredge up is fucking meaningless anyway. And my real point was that we have lost the ability to do something that we were once very good at.

*sees pattern emerging*

You know what? I really hate it when twats who have had their pathetic arses whipped in other threads try and 'get their own back' by trying to stir it up on totally unrelated threads.

So here's a tip for you Herbz: fuck about in this forum with your disruptive personal attacks and you'll be banned. This is an interesting discussion for grown ups and you're not going to get away with reducing it to another of your infantile, lying wriggle-fests.

No need to respond. In fact, stay out of this thread completely please.

 

[editor]

Back on topic, the Great Western Railway experimented with gas turbine engines in 1946. Two locos were ordered, entering service in 1950 and 1951 although by that time the railways had been nationalised and taken in a diesel-tastic direction.

 

[Crispy]

ffs ed, loosen your tie - the blood appears to be trapped in your head.

 

[_pH_]

Back on topic, the Great Western Railway experimented with gas turbine engines in 1946. Two locos were ordered, entering service in 1950 and 1951 although by that time the railways had been nationalised and taken in a diesel-tastic direction.

APT-E was gas turbine driven too.

Typical bloody GWR trying to be different! With their broad gauge and (in Western Region days) Warship/Western/Hymek hydraulic locos!

 

[_pH_]

in the case of public transport however, we should just bear the pain and accept that public transport can never be run for profit but only for social good...

Really? In the years before the privatisation and break up of BR, both InterCity and Railfreight made an operating surplus (i.e., profit). InterCity's came from surpluses on the ECML and GW routes which more than cancelled out losses from the WCML and other routes*. Whilst there will always be sectors of the rail system that will need subsidy (less well-used but essential transport links in rural areas), these 2 sectors proved that public owned railways can make a surplus.

*Bizarre then, that GNER and First Great Western still both receive huge public subsidies! As does EWS.

 

[oneflewover]

*Bizarre then, that GNER and First Great Western still both receive huge public subsidies! As does EWS.

GNER do not receive a subsidy, that is how they lost the franchise, unable to meet payments.

 

[editor]

Typical bloody GWR trying to be different! With their broad gauge and (in Western Region days) Warship/Western/Hymek hydraulic locos!

As I recall, the GWR was the only one of the 'Big Four' to be making a profit at the time of nationalisation.

 

[pembrokestephen]

APT-E was gas turbine driven too.

Typical bloody GWR trying to be different! With their broad gauge and (in Western Region days) Warship/Western/Hymek hydraulic locos!

There was nothing inherently wrong with those diesel-hydraulics. Indeed, it was only the BTC fucking them up by insisting that they go for chassis-based construction rather than load-bearing body construction that reduced the weight advantage they had over the diesel-electrics. Even so, when they built the D800 series, the BTC had the sense to get them to build extra ones before deciding that diesel-hydraulic was "non-standard" (read "unfashionable") and that they would standardise on diesel-electric.

Even the broad gauge waws a technically superior option, though I think at the price of a rather more profound non-standardness than a mere choice of motive power engineering internals, it is true...

(I was always a huge fan of those weird and wonderful, alien-looking, yet somehow stylish Warships and Westerns...)

 

[chymaera]

Is it these new trains:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6968868.stm

Last Updated: Wednesday, 29 August 2007, 15:29 GMT 16:29 UK

New trains 'too heavy for tracks'

New trains with electric doors are heavier than old slam-door trains
New trains which have been introduced on several southern England routes have experienced track problems and rail delays because of their heavier weight.
The trains have been brought in by Southern, South West Trains, and Southeastern companies.

The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) said the heavier trains were "causing a different sort of wear to the track".

 

[T & P]

"The wrong kind of trains" then.

 

[editor]

(I was always a huge fan of those weird and wonderful, alien-looking, yet somehow stylish Warships and Westerns...)

They rocked!

 

[pembrokestephen]

They rocked!

I just remember the Warships on the Exeter services out of Waterloo (or I'm getting very confused). But I definitely remember Western-hauled stuff out of Paddington, though by that time (~1976), they were suffering for the deficit of maintenance and a tendency to snap an axle, so they weren't the most reliable.

But Westerns looked great, sounded great, and were no slouches in the getting things done stakes, either. Definitely my fave locomotive ever, but that might have to do with being about 13 at the time, too

 

[Roadkill]

Is it these new trains:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6968868.stm

Last Updated: Wednesday, 29 August 2007, 15:29 GMT 16:29 UK

New trains 'too heavy for tracks'

New trains with electric doors are heavier than old slam-door trains
New trains which have been introduced on several southern England routes have experienced track problems and rail delays because of their heavier weight.
The trains have been brought in by Southern, South West Trains, and Southeastern companies.

The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) said the heavier trains were "causing a different sort of wear to the track".

It's a complete non-story - or, at least, I hope it is. Everyone knew that whatever replaced the Mk1 slam-door stock would be heavier, and as a result would wear the track more. If Network Rail didn't anticipate that and plan around it, that represents a pretty damn serious failure of planning on their part. Tbh though, much as I question the ability of the privatised railway to plan for the long-term, I can't believe that something as obvious as this wasn't spotted a long time ago...

 

[Xanadu]

On BBC news today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6975672.stm

 

[_pH_]

If Network Rail didn't anticipate that and plan around it, that represents a pretty damn serious failure of planning on their part. Tbh though, much as I question the ability of the privatised railway to plan for the long-term, I can't believe that something as obvious as this wasn't spotted a long time ago...

Is that Network Rail's failure though? I mean they didn't order and don't own the new trains that are (possibly) causing the problems. But, yes, I agree with your point about planning/fragmentation under privatisation

 

[_pH_]

GNER do not receive a subsidy, that is how they lost the franchise, unable to meet payments.

They did at first (I've just read this - well worth reading), although I gather they stopped claiming/being paid a subsidy, hence the financial problems

 

[Roadkill]

Is that Network Rail's failure though? I mean they didn't order and don't own the new trains that are (possibly) causing the problems.

No, but it's not as if the leasing firm or TOC can turn up with any old train and expect to run it. They have to liase with Network Rail who know - or they certainly should - what's running on the network, how much wear it's likely to impose on the track and what to do about it. They set track the access charges, which vary according to the weight and other characteristics of the trains.

Network Rail have just produced a load of new rules governing speeds and so on of mainline steam operations. If they can put that much thought into regulating the handful of steam engines that operate on the national network, it shouldn't be beyond their wit to devise an appropriate regulatory/maintenance regime for everyday service trains/

 

[Roadkill]

They did at first (I've just read this - well worth reading), although I gather they stopped claiming/being paid a subsidy, hence the financial problems

It wasn't the subsidy: it was the premium payments their last contract to run the ECML tied them into. With slower-than-projected traffic growth and rising costs, they couldn't afford them and the government wouldn't renegotiate the franchise.

I'll read the book whose review you link to, btw: it looks interesting. Meanwhile, I'd recommend Christian Wolmar's On the Wrong Line for a good overview of what's been done to the railways in the last two deacdes...

 

[Isambard]

The new rival services to Hull and Sunderland weren't helpfull to GNER either.
I think they tried (and failed) to get an injunction on them.

 

[_pH_]

I'll read the book whose review you link to, btw: it looks interesting.

It's a good read, very interesting and funny at times, but also occasionally scary at some of the practices that used to go on.

 

[Roadkill]

The new rival services to Hull and Sunderland weren't helpfull to GNER either.
I think they tried (and failed) to get an injunction on them.

I don't know about Hull Trains, but they certainly tried that on Grand Central.

 

[oneflewover]

I don't know about Hull Trains, but they certainly tried that on Grand Central.

And failed, which is a bit mean to GNER as Grand Central pay no or very little track access charge, just like Hull trains.

 

[oneflewover]

New trains 'too heavy for tracks'

This was/is the case with TPEs 185s, they have to run at reduced speed on some sections of track because of axle loadings. One of the reasons 170s are on the Hull - Manchester route.

 

[oneflewover]

I'd quite like to see some real numbers for this. Cos my breif googlings have found efficiency figures for steam engines of around 8%, whereas a modern coal-powered power station runs at around 40%. I know there are transmission losses involved, but they can't be that heavy can they?

Someone oplease educate me about this supposed efficiency of steam locomotives, cos I don't see it.

Almost certainley the reusing of heat. On a steam locomotive lots of it must go to the atmosphere and out through the clinker box.