Extract from Rail News

"An invitation to train builders to tender for the manufacture of new
diesel powered trains is expected to be issued in the first half on
2006"

I just knew it wouldn't be dual fuel.

1501 (boldford@synstar.com) said:

> Extract from Rail News
>
> "An invitation to train builders to tender for the
> manufacture of new diesel powered trains is expected to
> be issued in the first half on 2006"
>
> I just knew it wouldn't be dual fuel.


Unless there was some sort of optional electric intermediate coach, 
having a dual-fuel HST wouldn't be economical to run on portions of the 
network where there is no electrification at all. The extra weight of 
the idle power car would put a lot of stress on the other.

-- 
Andrew

"Andrew Bell"  wrote in message 
news:k59Fe.76886$G8.65020@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> 1501 (boldford@synstar.com) said:
>> Extract from Rail News
>>
>> "An invitation to train builders to tender for the
>> manufacture of new diesel powered trains is expected to
>> be issued in the first half on 2006"
>>
>> I just knew it wouldn't be dual fuel.
>
> Unless there was some sort of optional electric intermediate coach, having 
> a dual-fuel HST wouldn't be economical to run on portions of the network 
> where there is no electrification at all. The extra weight of the idle 
> power car would put a lot of stress on the other.


Couldn't they have a diesel-electric train, like the present HST, but with a 
pantograph for driving the motors when under OHLE and diesel for driving 
them on third rail or un-electrified lines?

"Martin Underwood"  wrote in message
news:42e5265e$0$16723$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...

> Couldn't they have a diesel-electric train, like the present HST, but with
a
> pantograph for driving the motors when under OHLE and diesel for driving
> them on third rail or un-electrified lines?


It takes a bit more than just a pantograph.  The biggest item would be a
transformer, but there would also be a need for control gear, cooling for
the transformer, etc.

Roger

In article ,
1501  wrote:

>Extract from Rail News
>
>"An invitation to train builders to tender for the manufacture of new
>diesel powered trains is expected to be issued in the first half on
>2006"
>
>I just knew it wouldn't be dual fuel.


WTF should it be - I see no announcement of extensive electrification
on GWML, and where else is it /required/?

OK - on current timetabling there are ECML services through to Aberdeen
and a few to Inverness, but if it has a big impact on procurement
costs can't you just see those becomeing 170/22x connections. I'd
be very suprised if HST2 ends up as more than a GWML special.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
		http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
		"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
  		 and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

1501 wrote:

> Extract from Rail News
>
> "An invitation to train builders to tender for the manufacture of new
> diesel powered trains is expected to be issued in the first half on
> 2006"
>
> I just knew it wouldn't be dual fuel.


Depends who answers the tender doesn't it? One company has already
completed a great deal of the work, including the systems integration
demanded of (and ignored by) the SRA. The engineers who demanded this
of the SRA/DfT were in several cases involved in the design of the
Siemens proposal which has a very flexible approach to the HST "Family"
of trains. One aspect of this approach is the "Common Body,
Multi-System" approach whereby it is possible to convert diesel to
electric, or electro-diesel with coaches capable of being powered by
all three types of power car. The power car design as seen by me at a
briefing has an amazing amount of free space towards the rear which is
configured for use as luggage space, or electrical gear depending on
the version.

wrote in message 
news:1122323090.985388.86930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>
>
> 1501 wrote:
>> Extract from Rail News
>>
>> "An invitation to train builders to tender for the manufacture of new
>> diesel powered trains is expected to be issued in the first half on
>> 2006"
>>
>> I just knew it wouldn't be dual fuel.
>
> Depends who answers the tender doesn't it? One company has already
> completed a great deal of the work, including the systems integration
> demanded of (and ignored by) the SRA. The engineers who demanded this
> of the SRA/DfT were in several cases involved in the design of the
> Siemens proposal which has a very flexible approach to the HST "Family"
> of trains. One aspect of this approach is the "Common Body,
> Multi-System" approach whereby it is possible to convert diesel to
> electric, or electro-diesel with coaches capable of being powered by
> all three types of power car. The power car design as seen by me at a
> briefing has an amazing amount of free space towards the rear which is
> configured for use as luggage space, or electrical gear depending on
> the version.
>


That last point is good to see: one of the assets of the existing HST power 
cars has been the luggage area at the rear. With all the extra kit required 
over the years, this has been a lifeline for engineers trying to fit in all 
the extra equipment, such as ATP, OTMR, Inergen etc.

On 25 Jul 2005 19:54:19 +0100, azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen)
wrote:


>OK - on current timetabling there are ECML services through to Aberdeen
>and a few to Inverness, but if it has a big impact on procurement
>costs can't you just see those becomeing 170/22x connections. I'd
>be very suprised if HST2 ends up as more than a GWML special.


And, if that's what it will be, it may as well take advantage of it
and build as close to European loading gauge as the
generously-proportioned GWML will allow.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:07:23 +0000, Roger H. Bennett wrote:


> "Martin Underwood"  wrote in message
> news:42e5265e$0$16723$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>> Couldn't they have a diesel-electric train, like the present HST, but with
> a
>> pantograph for driving the motors when under OHLE and diesel for driving
>> them on third rail or un-electrified lines?
> 
> It takes a bit more than just a pantograph.  The biggest item would be a
> transformer, but there would also be a need for control gear, cooling for
> the transformer, etc.


 It comes down to 'dead weight' when running in the 'other mode', hauling
around dead transformers and switch groups when in diesel mode is
particularly a problem as you might have power-to-weight issues, and in
electric mode you are hauling around fuel, a diesel engine and alternator,
increasing your electricity consumption. Modern electric trains already
draw to much power due to a combination of high acceleration capablity and
air-conditioning.
 Some trains are now worse for kw/passenger than the best commercial
aircraft!

 I've read some where that the Virgin Pendolino's are carrying 12 tonnes
of 'passive safety' features and this is a contributing factor to it's not
so great kw/passenger figure. Adding another 20-30 tonnes to this for a
diesel alternate power source just isn't really viable.

 The best you can really expect is a HST like train with 'power cars'
where an electric version could be make by swapping the diesel power cars
for electric ones. An all in one is simply going to weigh to much.

"Matthew Geier"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.07.25.21.48.36.225767@wibble.sleeper.apana.org.au...

> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:07:23 +0000, Roger H. Bennett wrote:
>
> The best you can really expect is a HST like train with 'power cars'
> where an electric version could be make by swapping the diesel power cars
> for electric ones. An all in one is simply going to weigh to much.


Yes, maybe that's what I was really thinking of: a set of self-propelling 
carriages where the power source (electric loco with pantograph and 
transformer or diesel loco with engine/alternator) could be swapped, with 
common control gear for supplying the three-phase motors under the carriage 
floors. Ah, no, maybe three-phase isn't such a good idea after all, given 
the way that 465s' motors "sing" as the train accelerates :-(

An HST with underfloor diesel engines doesn't bear thinking about: the power 
needed would result in some very noisy engines, as for the HST replacement 
trains used on the GWML. I spent an hour stopped outside Maidenhead due to a 
fatality ahead, and the engines were kept racing (definitely not idling) for 
the whole hour, so the carriage was throbbing away. I had a pounding 
headache by the time the train eventually arrived at Didcot.

Anyway, it's not an HST if it hasn't got the ear-splitting turbo whistle 
from one power car and then the other as they go past you while you're 
waiting on the platform!

"John Tattersall"  wrote in message
news:dc3los$1pu$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
>  wrote in message
> news:1122323090.985388.86930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > 1501 wrote:
> >> Extract from Rail News
> >>
> >> "An invitation to train builders to tender for the manufacture of new
> >> diesel powered trains is expected to be issued in the first half on
> >> 2006"
> >>
> >> I just knew it wouldn't be dual fuel.
> >
> > Depends who answers the tender doesn't it? One company has already
> > completed a great deal of the work, including the systems integration
> > demanded of (and ignored by) the SRA. The engineers who demanded this
> > of the SRA/DfT were in several cases involved in the design of the
> > Siemens proposal which has a very flexible approach to the HST "Family"
> > of trains. One aspect of this approach is the "Common Body,
> > Multi-System" approach whereby it is possible to convert diesel to
> > electric, or electro-diesel with coaches capable of being powered by
> > all three types of power car. The power car design as seen by me at a
> > briefing has an amazing amount of free space towards the rear which is
> > configured for use as luggage space, or electrical gear depending on
> > the version.
> >
>
> That last point is good to see: one of the assets of the existing HST
power
> cars has been the luggage area at the rear. With all the extra kit
required
> over the years, this has been a lifeline for engineers trying to fit in
all
> the extra equipment, such as ATP, OTMR, Inergen etc.


And WTF, LOL, OMG, ROFLMAO and of course STFU.

Cru

In article ,
Neil Williams  wrote:

>On 25 Jul 2005 19:54:19 +0100, azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen)
>wrote:
>
>>OK - on current timetabling there are ECML services through to Aberdeen
>>and a few to Inverness, but if it has a big impact on procurement
>>costs can't you just see those becomeing 170/22x connections. I'd
>>be very suprised if HST2 ends up as more than a GWML special.
>
>And, if that's what it will be, it may as well take advantage of it
>and build as close to European loading gauge as the
>generously-proportioned GWML will allow.


ITYM "be built down to the very restrictive GWML loading gauge" ;)
- this month's Informed Sources points out that the GWML has the
/smallest/ loading gauge of any UK main line route, as clearances
haven't been increased during electrification (yep, I was
suprised by that, too). I'd guess the most generous loading
gauge in ,uk is now the WCML, given its upgrading for container
traffic.

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
		http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
		"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

But am I mistaken in remembering seeing a Siemens concept where each
end power cars had the transformer etc, and diesel generator set
powering both bogies of that vehicle and the nearest bogie of the
adjacent coach?

Martin Underwood  wrote:

> 
> Yes, maybe that's what I was really thinking of: a set of self-propelling 
> carriages where the power source (electric loco with pantograph and 
> transformer or diesel loco with engine/alternator) could be swapped, with 
> common control gear for supplying the three-phase motors under the carriage 
> floors. 


Perhaps, though operationally that's not much different from a rake of Mk2/3s
with 47 or 87 on the front.  I think we've discovered that loco changes just
don't happen.


> Ah, no, maybe three-phase isn't such a good idea after all, given 
> the way that 465s' motors "sing" as the train accelerates :-(


Assuming that's the same as the 365, the sound is due to the particular
algorithm that sets the frequency of the chopping electronics.  It's not a
fault of 3 phase as such.  444s don't make sure a noise.

Though that sound of 365 deceleration is always associated with the
announcement 'Bing-bong.  Welcome to Cambridge.' in my mind.

Theo

"Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote

>
> OK - on current timetabling there are ECML services through to Aberdeen
> and a few to Inverness, but if it has a big impact on procurement
> costs can't you just see those becomeing 170/22x connections. I'd
> be very suprised if HST2 ends up as more than a GWML special.
>

I wonder whether the long term answer for the ECML franchise is a single
fleet of electric trains, with thunderbirds to haul them beyond the wires,
in the style of the Holyhead Pendolinos. There will be a long term need for
thunderbirds on the ECML, for rescuing trains when the wires come down or
the fuses blow, and for diversions on non- electrified routes. There are
probably advantages in having some booked thunderbird workings, to maintain
crew familiarity. Running a diesel 400 miles under the wires because the
last 130 miles aren't wired doesn't seem best value, nor does having to
maintain two or three separate fleets when they only need just over 40
trains.

Peter

Matthew Geier wrote:

>  It comes down to 'dead weight' when running in the 'other mode', hauling
> around dead transformers and switch groups when in diesel mode is
> particularly a problem as you might have power-to-weight issues, and in
> electric mode you are hauling around fuel, a diesel engine and alternator,
> increasing your electricity consumption. Modern electric trains already
> draw to much power due to a combination of high acceleration capablity and
> air-conditioning.
>  Some trains are now worse for kw/passenger than the best commercial
> aircraft!


Interesting stuff. Does anyone know how the new SNCF bi-mode AGC
multiple units are in terms of efficiency? (I know they are different
beasts to HST2 as they have underfloor engines, but it proves that a
modern bi-mode train is feasible...)

For French speakers, http://autorails.free.fr/Agc6.htm looks like a
pretty good page of info.

In article <dc57jb$h7g$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
Peter Masson  wrote:

>
>"Andrew Robert Breen"  wrote
>>
>> OK - on current timetabling there are ECML services through to Aberdeen
>> and a few to Inverness, but if it has a big impact on procurement
>> costs can't you just see those becomeing 170/22x connections. I'd
>> be very suprised if HST2 ends up as more than a GWML special.
>>
>I wonder whether the long term answer for the ECML franchise is a single
>fleet of electric trains, with thunderbirds to haul them beyond the wires,
>in the style of the Holyhead Pendolinos. There will be a long term need for


The speculation on the Interfleet site - the industry consultants, 
anyway - was that they saw ECML becoming under-the-wires only in 
the medium term, with services north of Edinburgh presumably going
to the Scottish operator:

"Clearly, if through running is required on the East Coast Mainline 
between London and Inverness, then HST2 will be necessary. However, 
perhaps we should be looking to follow the French model of the high-speed 
core network with good inter-connecting services to the extremities. High 
Speed Electric Trains could serve the mainline between London and 
Edinburgh, with DMUs serving the branches to Harrogate and Hull and the 
longer legs to Inverness and Aberdeen."

If you're talking evolved-170s for Harrogate/Hull and 22x for Aberdeen
and Inverness (both off-the-shelf proven products, and tiltiing 22xs
would be very well-suited to the EC route north of Edinburgh) then
I see no problems with this.

ECML procurement (Cl.91/mk.4 replacement) then becomes a separate 
issue - the results might end up as an HST-2 evolution using 
electric power and similar passenger coaches, or it might be
somethng entirely other. If a UK-LGV happens, of course, all bets 
are off on this. I'd imagine the results would then be AGVs on
the high-speed line, with the ECML passenger services going over
to something more like the 350s (or equivalent, N years downline)...


>thunderbirds on the ECML, for rescuing trains when the wires come down or
>the fuses blow, and for diversions on non- electrified routes. There are
>probably advantages in having some booked thunderbird workings, to maintain
>crew familiarity. Running a diesel 400 miles under the wires because the
>last 130 miles aren't wired doesn't seem best value, nor does having to
>maintain two or three separate fleets when they only need just over 40
>trains.


OTOH you don't want your Thunderbird in Stonehaven when the knitting
falls down outside York..

-- 
Andy Breen ~ 	Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
		http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
		"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
  		 and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

Matthew Geier wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:07:23 +0000, Roger H. Bennett wrote:
>
> > "Martin Underwood"  wrote in message
> > news:42e5265e$0$16723$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
> >> >  The best you can really expect is a HST like train with 'power cars'
> where an electric version could be make by swapping the diesel power cars
> for electric ones. An all in one is simply going to weigh to much.


Siemens,and Bombardier, say different. The power car design mentioned
by me earlier would weigh no more than the current HST power car, and
the coaches, though larger, would weigh slightly less, and this
inclusive of two traction motors mounted beneath the coaches. Whilst
the concept is similar to HST, construction techniques, air con
systems, electrical and power systems have become much lighter yet
stronger.

In article ,
   1501  wrote:

> But am I mistaken in remembering seeing a Siemens concept where each
> end power cars had the transformer etc, and diesel generator set
> powering both bogies of that vehicle and the nearest bogie of the
> adjacent coach?


....just like the Blue Pullmans ?

David

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:


> "Clearly, if through running is required on the East Coast Mainline 
> between London and Inverness, then HST2 will be necessary. However, 
> perhaps we should be looking to follow the French model of the high-speed 
> core network with good inter-connecting services to the extremities. High 
> Speed Electric Trains could serve the mainline between London and 
> Edinburgh, with DMUs serving the branches to Harrogate and Hull and the 
> longer legs to Inverness and Aberdeen."


I wonder what the Scottish Executive and Hull Trains would make of such 
an idea?

Philip.

"Philip Hardy"  wrote in message 
news:WdWcnSktXo-vU3TfSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk...

> Andrew Robert Breen wrote:
>
>> "Clearly, if through running is required on the East Coast Mainline 
>> between London and Inverness, then HST2 will be necessary. However, 
>> perhaps we should be looking to follow the French model of the high-speed 
>> core network with good inter-connecting services to the extremities. High 
>> Speed Electric Trains could serve the mainline between London and 
>> Edinburgh, with DMUs serving the branches to Harrogate and Hull and the 
>> longer legs to Inverness and Aberdeen."
>
> I wonder what the Scottish Executive and Hull Trains would make of such an 
> idea?
>
> Philip.


The Scottish executive is more likely to do something about it than Hull 
trains - and so it should.

The suggestion above is likely to be the preferred approach but is not 
attractive for marketing purposes. On the other hand using 
HST's/Voyagers/66's long distances under the wires is totally stupid. DRS 
can't make use the 87's because treasury fatheads have not provided enough 
electrified network. Its the same on the passenger side. The 87's cannot be 
effectively cascaded.

At best the solution can be gradually achieved by an ambitious rolling 
programme of main line electrification. The bigger it is the cheaper it will 
be. Quick lads - get on with it!


David

David Haggas wrote:


> The Scottish executive is more likely to do something about it than Hull 
> trains - and so it should.


I doubt Hull Trains would just roll over and shut up shop because the 
government said so.

Philip.

>
>  I've read some where that the Virgin Pendolino's are carrying 12 tonnes
> of 'passive safety' features and this is a contributing factor to it's not
> so great kw/passenger figure. Adding another 20-30 tonnes to this for a
> diesel alternate power source just isn't really viable.
>


Which makes you wonder just how viable a class 57 plus Pendilino is in
North Wales.

On 30 Jul 2005 09:31:51 -0700, "allan tracy"
 wrote:


>Which makes you wonder just how viable a class 57 plus Pendilino is in
>North Wales.


I don't think it is at all.  The continued existence of the services
in any form, especially that of dragged Pendolinos but also as
Voyagers, hauled stock, HSTs or whatever you like, is in my mind a
political question and not one of financial viability.

In particular, there can be no non-political justification from the
Llandudno service, and I suspect that one will be quietly withdrawn in
time.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"allan tracy"  wrote:


>>
>>  I've read some where that the Virgin Pendolino's are carrying 12 tonnes
>> of 'passive safety' features and this is a contributing factor to it's not
>> so great kw/passenger figure. Adding another 20-30 tonnes to this for a
>> diesel alternate power source just isn't really viable.
>>
>
>Which makes you wonder just how viable a class 57 plus Pendilino is in
>North Wales.



The 57 and Pendolino is not viable except as a neat solution to a very
difficult political problem.  

Politically, North Wales must have its Pendolino, even if there are no
overhead wires, so Pendolinos must also have their Class 57s.

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 22:41:38 +0100, Tony Polson  wrote:


>The 57 and Pendolino is not viable except as a neat solution to a very
>difficult political problem.  
>
>Politically, North Wales must have its Pendolino, even if there are no
>overhead wires, so Pendolinos must also have their Class 57s.


The Class 57 isn't only for dragging Pendolinos in North Wales - it's
for rescuing dead Pendolinos as well, and for diversions.  Had it only
been for North Wales, the cost would probably have been prohibitive
and it'd have been Voyagers or bust.

That said, I suspect most of the motivation behind the use of
autocouplers rather than a traditional emergency coupler is to do with
use in service rather than emergency rescues.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Tony Polson"  wrote

>
> The 57 and Pendolino is not viable except as a neat solution to a very
> difficult political problem.
>
> Politically, North Wales must have its Pendolino, even if there are no
> overhead wires, so Pendolinos must also have their Class 57s.
>

While better solutions for North Wales would be 221s through to Euston (if
through trains can be justified), or make the punters change at Crewe, I can
see value in having some booked 57+Pendo services, to maintain staff
familiarity for times when the Thunderbirds are used for rescue, or dragging
through engineering diversions.

Peter

Rupert Candy wrote:


> Does anyone know how the new SNCF bi-mode AGC
> multiple units are in terms of efficiency? (I know they are different
> beasts to HST2 as they have underfloor engines, but it proves that a
> modern bi-mode train is feasible...)
>
> For French speakers, http://autorails.free.fr/Agc6.htm looks like a
> pretty good page of info.


The bit at the end is significant. I think they use "caisse" (body)
instead of "wagon" (carriage) because they're articulated vehicles.

Remarques :

- La version bi-caisse diesel ne comporte qu'un seul moteur thermique
et sa vitesse maxi est de 140 km/h.

The twin-body diesel version only carries a single motor [I don't
understand the thermique bit]and its maximum speed is 140 km/ht

- La version bi-mode permet le fonctionnement sous 1500 V continu pour
la version tri-caisse.

The bimodal version can be operated under 1500 V continuous in the
three-body version.

- Seule la version quadri-caisse bi-mode peut être bi-courant, le
transformateur étant placé dans la seconde remorque.

Only the 4-body bimodal version can be bi-current, the transformer
being located in the second trailer carriage.

- La version bi-mode quadri-caisse est limitée à 140 km/h, au lieu de
160 km/h pour les autres modèles.

The 4-body bimodal version is limited to 140 km/hr instead of the 160
km/hr of the other versions.

A bientot,

JA

"Sir John Aspinall"  wrote in message 
news:1122876111.991627.86470@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Rupert Candy wrote:


> Does anyone know how the new SNCF bi-mode AGC
> multiple units are in terms of efficiency? (I know they are different
> beasts to HST2 as they have underfloor engines, but it proves that a
> modern bi-mode train is feasible...)
>
> For French speakers, http://autorails.free.fr/Agc6.htm looks like a
> pretty good page of info.


The bit at the end is significant. I think they use "caisse" (body)
instead of "wagon" (carriage) because they're articulated vehicles.

Remarques :

- La version bi-caisse diesel ne comporte qu'un seul moteur thermique
et sa vitesse maxi est de 140 km/h.

The twin-body diesel version only carries a single motor [I don't
understand the thermique bit]and its maximum speed is 140 km/ht
'Thermique' is simply a synonym for 'diesel'- indeed, it is the preferred 
term, with SNCF's diesel pool coming under the heading of 'Traction 
Thermique'. There seems to be a general principle in french journalism that 
one doesn't use the same term twice in a paragraph if it is possible to 
avoid doing so- makes for very florid writing at times.
Brian
ps- in case anyone hadn't guessed ',continu' = DC

BH Williams wrote:


> 'Thermique' is simply a synonym for 'diesel'- indeed, it is the preferred
> term, with SNCF's diesel pool coming under the heading of 'Traction
> Thermique'.


Thankyou! My Petit Robert is at home and not in my office so I wasn't
able to check. It seemed obvious from the context but then you never
know ...


> There seems to be a general principle in french journalism that
> one doesn't use the same term twice in a paragraph if it is possible to
> avoid doing so - makes for very florid writing at times.


They can also spice it up with a few acronyms (never expanded) and some
snappy English words used in a sense that is incomprehensible to a
native English speaker. It's their revenge for "double-entendre" and
"cul-de-sac' I suppose ...


> Brian
> ps- in case anyone hadn't guessed ',continu' = DC


The centime hadn't dropped in my case -- I assumed DC from the 1500 v
and then got it muddled with "continuous rating" or some such. I do
remember reading a very good article in Today's Railways about the
projected design for these bi-modal railcars in which the greater
facility of using 1500v DC "under the wire" was emphasised.

Merci mille fois,

JA

"Sir John Aspinall"  wrote in message 
news:1122940623.847923.73070@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> BH Williams wrote:
>
>> 'Thermique' is simply a synonym for 'diesel'- indeed, it is the preferred
>> term, with SNCF's diesel pool coming under the heading of 'Traction
>> Thermique'.
>
> Thankyou! My Petit Robert is at home and not in my office so I wasn't
> able to check. It seemed obvious from the context but then you never
> know ...
>
>> There seems to be a general principle in french journalism that
>> one doesn't use the same term twice in a paragraph if it is possible to
>> avoid doing so - makes for very florid writing at times.
>
> They can also spice it up with a few acronyms (never expanded) and some
> snappy English words used in a sense that is incomprehensible to a
> native English speaker. It's their revenge for "double-entendre" and
> "cul-de-sac' I suppose ...
>
>> Brian
>> ps- in case anyone hadn't guessed ',continu' = DC
>
> The centime hadn't dropped in my case -- I assumed DC from the 1500 v
> and then got it muddled with "continuous rating" or some such. I do
> remember reading a very good article in Today's Railways about the
> projected design for these bi-modal railcars in which the greater
> facility of using 1500v DC "under the wire" was emphasised.
>
> Merci mille fois,
>
> JA
>

De rien, mate...
There's also the inverse thing that is often done in Rail Passion, for 
example, with acronyms/abbreviations, when they use one frequently but still 
insist on using the explanation in brackets.
@+
Brian

> > But am I mistaken in remembering seeing a Siemens concept where each
> > end power cars had the transformer etc, and diesel generator set
> > powering both bogies of that vehicle and the nearest bogie of the
> > adjacent coach?
>
> ...just like the Blue Pullmans ?


Almost, The concept I remember was for a set that could draw from the
OHLE where available or use the sucky, squeezy, squirty, bangy, blowy
bit to make the juice for elsewhere.