Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:25:17 +0100, Chris  wrote:
> 
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:53:06 +0100, "Martin"  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It though is interesting to see how the market has changed from literally 
>>>> brake second corridor composite to about 10 types in RTR production. People 
>>>> may knock the Mark 1 but it has been on our railways now for over 50 years, 
>>>> and has had at a quick count about 20 basic designs not including 
>>>> prototypes, post office, and sleepers once (all same body) 
>>> From a passenger comfort point of view the Mark 1s were the best of
>>> the BR designs.
>>>
>>> Compartment stock was always better than open, because it was more
>>> personal and private. And the Mark 1 compartments were far better
>>> sound insulated than the Mark 2. Crying children in the next
>>> compartment were noisier in Mark 2 than Mark 1.
>>>
>>> The operators didn't like third (later second) class compartments
>>> because even though they were officially four-a-side they were
>>> effectively three when the arm rests were down.
>>>
>> I wonder how they compare with mk3 compartments, soon to be removed from 
>> the Wessex units.
> 
> I never rode those. I did once ride the REP/TC units - and they were
> *fast*. Hardly surprising when the 4-REP was more that 3000 hp. With a
> pair of 4-TCs it meant a 12-coach train with almost the power of a
> Deltic, less the weight of the engine so an even better power to
> weight ration.
> 
> I heard stories of them doing the ton, and it didn't surprise me. But
> the current drawn must have been phenomenal.
> 
> 
> 
>> Chris
That's one of the reason 3rd rail voltage was increased from 660V to 
750V for the Bournemouth electrification.

Chris

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:58:42 +0100, Chris  wrote:

>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:25:17 +0100, Chris  wrote:
>> 
>>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:53:06 +0100, "Martin"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It though is interesting to see how the market has changed from literally 
>>>>> brake second corridor composite to about 10 types in RTR production. People 
>>>>> may knock the Mark 1 but it has been on our railways now for over 50 years, 
>>>>> and has had at a quick count about 20 basic designs not including 
>>>>> prototypes, post office, and sleepers once (all same body) 
>>>> From a passenger comfort point of view the Mark 1s were the best of
>>>> the BR designs.
>>>>
>>>> Compartment stock was always better than open, because it was more
>>>> personal and private. And the Mark 1 compartments were far better
>>>> sound insulated than the Mark 2. Crying children in the next
>>>> compartment were noisier in Mark 2 than Mark 1.
>>>>
>>>> The operators didn't like third (later second) class compartments
>>>> because even though they were officially four-a-side they were
>>>> effectively three when the arm rests were down.
>>>>
>>> I wonder how they compare with mk3 compartments, soon to be removed from 
>>> the Wessex units.
>> 
>> I never rode those. I did once ride the REP/TC units - and they were
>> *fast*. Hardly surprising when the 4-REP was more that 3000 hp. With a
>> pair of 4-TCs it meant a 12-coach train with almost the power of a
>> Deltic, less the weight of the engine so an even better power to
>> weight ration.
>> 
>> I heard stories of them doing the ton, and it didn't surprise me. But
>> the current drawn must have been phenomenal.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Chris
>That's one of the reason 3rd rail voltage was increased from 660V to 
>750V for the Bournemouth electrification.

I remember the French laughing when BR said they had experience of
100mph running on 3rd rail DC, when they were proposing the Eurostars
doing that. And BR were vindicated.

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:58:42 +0100, Chris  wrote:
> 
>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:25:17 +0100, Chris  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:53:06 +0100, "Martin"  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It though is interesting to see how the market has changed from literally 
>>>>>> brake second corridor composite to about 10 types in RTR production. People 
>>>>>> may knock the Mark 1 but it has been on our railways now for over 50 years, 
>>>>>> and has had at a quick count about 20 basic designs not including 
>>>>>> prototypes, post office, and sleepers once (all same body) 
>>>>> From a passenger comfort point of view the Mark 1s were the best of
>>>>> the BR designs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Compartment stock was always better than open, because it was more
>>>>> personal and private. And the Mark 1 compartments were far better
>>>>> sound insulated than the Mark 2. Crying children in the next
>>>>> compartment were noisier in Mark 2 than Mark 1.
>>>>>
>>>>> The operators didn't like third (later second) class compartments
>>>>> because even though they were officially four-a-side they were
>>>>> effectively three when the arm rests were down.
>>>>>
>>>> I wonder how they compare with mk3 compartments, soon to be removed from 
>>>> the Wessex units.
>>> I never rode those. I did once ride the REP/TC units - and they were
>>> *fast*. Hardly surprising when the 4-REP was more that 3000 hp. With a
>>> pair of 4-TCs it meant a 12-coach train with almost the power of a
>>> Deltic, less the weight of the engine so an even better power to
>>> weight ration.
>>>
>>> I heard stories of them doing the ton, and it didn't surprise me. But
>>> the current drawn must have been phenomenal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Chris
>> That's one of the reason 3rd rail voltage was increased from 660V to 
>> 750V for the Bournemouth electrification.
> 
> I remember the French laughing when BR said they had experience of
> 100mph running on 3rd rail DC, when they were proposing the Eurostars
> doing that. And BR were vindicated.
The Thameslink units have also managed a few 100mph runs on the Brighton 
line back before privatisation.

Chris

Christopher A. Lee  wrote in 
news:74es049n3sral8tok1ckg86l8r79soal8d@4ax.com:

> 
> I remember the French laughing when BR said they had experience of
> 100mph running on 3rd rail DC, when they were proposing the Eurostars
> doing that. And BR were vindicated.

SR surely?

-- 

All the best,

Chris Wilson

email to cwilson at britwar dor co dot uk, reply address is spamtrapped.
http://www.the-dormouse.org The Dormouse Line model railway

>>> I remember the French laughing when BR said they had experience of
>>> 100mph running on 3rd rail DC, when they were proposing the Eurostars
>>> doing that. And BR were vindicated.
>>
>>SR surely?

4REPs Southern Region

Martin wrote:
>>>>I remember the French laughing when BR said they had experience of
>>>>100mph running on 3rd rail DC, when they were proposing the Eurostars
>>>>doing that. And BR were vindicated.
>>>SR surely?
> 
> 4REPs Southern Region 

Presumably the BR people were thinking more of the 442 (and possibly 
319, I'm less sure of that), which has a design speed of 100mph on 3rd 
rail; the mk1 stuff was never meant for more than 90.

Robin

>>Presumably the BR people were thinking more of the 442 (and possibly 319, 
>>I'm less sure of that), which has a design speed of 100mph on 3rd rail; 
>>the mk1 stuff was never meant for more than 90.

Didn't stop them testing the REPs at 3 figure speeds

Martin wrote:
>>>Presumably the BR people were thinking more of the 442 (and possibly 319, 
>>>I'm less sure of that), which has a design speed of 100mph on 3rd rail; 
>>>the mk1 stuff was never meant for more than 90.
> 
> Didn't stop them testing the REPs at 3 figure speeds 

And the French have tested a TGV at 357 mph, but that hardly means they 
can do that in regular service.  Thing is the 442s can do (have done) 
100mph day in day out in regular service, and were doing so at the time 
the Eurostar was being built.

Robin

>>> Didn't stop them testing the REPs at 3 figure speeds
>>
>>And the French have tested a TGV at 357 mph, but that hardly means they 
>>can do that in regular service.  Thing is the 442s can do (have done) 
>>100mph day in day out in regular service, and were doing so at the time 
>>the Eurostar was being built.

Same traction gear between them, and the high speed tests were done by 4TC 
less REPs by all accounts.

Martin wrote:
>>>>Didn't stop them testing the REPs at 3 figure speeds
>>>And the French have tested a TGV at 357 mph, but that hardly means they 
>>>can do that in regular service.  Thing is the 442s can do (have done) 
>>>100mph day in day out in regular service, and were doing so at the time 
>>>the Eurostar was being built.
> 
> Same traction gear between them, and the high speed tests were done by 4TC 
> less REPs by all accounts. 

The issue of running on third rail at high speed is not one of power, 
but one of maintaining reliable electrical contact with the third rail. 
  After all, were it simply an issue of running gear, Mk1s were good for 
100, and Mk3s for 125.  What mattered for building the 100mph capacity 
on 3rd rail into Eurostar (and 442 and 319) was providing an adequate 
set of shoegear and shoe suspension.  For a one off test, I'm sure a REP 
would do it (and then some, they were powerful beasts), but in the same 
way that 300mph in a TGV is possible as a once off, it is not reliable 
day-to-day, and such a REP would be eating through shoegear from arcing 
and mechanical damage at an unsustainable rate.

Robin

"Martin"  wrote in news:fv425l$dq1$1$8300dec7
@news.demon.co.uk:

>>>> I remember the French laughing when BR said they had experience of
>>>> 100mph running on 3rd rail DC, when they were proposing the Eurostars
>>>> doing that. And BR were vindicated.
>>>
>>>SR surely?
> 
> 4REPs Southern Region 

You miss my point, SR in that they set up a system that has in essence kept 
pace with changes in demand and technology over the last 80 years or so 
without needing any real fundamental change. Yes, I accept that 600V became 
660V and then 750V etc but the basic underlying technology that they put in 
place all those years ago has stood the test of time. Nowadays getting 
something to last 8 years is somewhat of an achievement.

-- 
All the best,

Chris Wilson

email to cwilson at britwar dor co dot uk, reply address is spamtrapped.
http://www.the-dormouse.org The Dormouse Line model railway

Martin wrote:
>>>> I remember the French laughing when BR said they had experience of
>>>> 100mph running on 3rd rail DC, when they were proposing the Eurostars
>>>> doing that. And BR were vindicated.
>>> SR surely?
> 
> 4REPs Southern Region 
> 
> 
LSWR if we are being pedantic. The Thameslink units and Wessex units 
have also reached the ton on third rail well before Eurostar design.

Chris

R.C. Payne wrote:
> Martin wrote:
>>>>> Didn't stop them testing the REPs at 3 figure speeds
>>>> And the French have tested a TGV at 357 mph, but that hardly means 
>>>> they can do that in regular service.  Thing is the 442s can do (have 
>>>> done) 100mph day in day out in regular service, and were doing so at 
>>>> the time the Eurostar was being built.
>>
>> Same traction gear between them, and the high speed tests were done by 
>> 4TC less REPs by all accounts. 
> 
> The issue of running on third rail at high speed is not one of power, 
> but one of maintaining reliable electrical contact with the third rail. 
>  After all, were it simply an issue of running gear, Mk1s were good for 
> 100, and Mk3s for 125.  What mattered for building the 100mph capacity 
> on 3rd rail into Eurostar (and 442 and 319) was providing an adequate 
> set of shoegear and shoe suspension.  For a one off test, I'm sure a REP 
> would do it (and then some, they were powerful beasts), but in the same 
> way that 300mph in a TGV is possible as a once off, it is not reliable 
> day-to-day, and such a REP would be eating through shoegear from arcing 
> and mechanical damage at an unsustainable rate.
> 
> Robin
It is one of power as well as was found when heavy power hungry electro 
stars and desiros arrived requiring new substations and upgraded TP 
huts. As the power goes up so does the losses, much higher on DC third 
rail than high voltage OHLE. Also once the REP hit balancing speed the 
continuous power requirements would drop a bit.

Chris

>>For a one off test, I'm sure a REP would do it (and then some, they were 
>>powerful beasts), but in the same way that 300mph in a TGV is possible as 
>>a once off, it is not reliable day-to-day, and such a REP would be eating 
>>through shoegear from arcing and mechanical damage at an unsustainable 
>>rate.

Done a search - rumours of over 130!