:Jerry: wrote:
> "Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in message 
> news:ukkp041qldei58hpkb4qutf495k1fu4jdg@4ax.com...
> <snip>
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Not as bad as the replacements to the Cep's etc. though, how long did 
> they sit around in sidings all over the place until Fail-track had 
> updated all the sub-stations & TP huts?... 
> 
> 
As I recall a lot went into service with power reduced so that they did 
not trip out the sub-stations so longer journey times for a time. One of 
the first big projects for Network Rail as well. As you say fancy 
ordering trains then not thinking about the infrastructure needs one of 
the many benefits of the flawed privatisation.

Chris

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:02:07 +0100, Chris  wrote:

>:Jerry: wrote:
>> "Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in message 
>> news:ukkp041qldei58hpkb4qutf495k1fu4jdg@4ax.com...
>> <snip>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> 
>> Not as bad as the replacements to the Cep's etc. though, how long did 
>> they sit around in sidings all over the place until Fail-track had 
>> updated all the sub-stations & TP huts?... 
>> 
>> 
>As I recall a lot went into service with power reduced so that they did 
>not trip out the sub-stations so longer journey times for a time. One of 
>the first big projects for Network Rail as well. As you say fancy 
>ordering trains then not thinking about the infrastructure needs one of 
>the many benefits of the flawed privatisation.

I heard of other problems with out of gauge DMUs elsewhere.

One of the more doubtful features was independent sub-contractors not
supervised properly, and not making sure the loading gauge was correct
after working on the track.

>Chris

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:02:07 +0100, Chris  wrote:
> 
>> :Jerry: wrote:
>>> "Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in message 
>>> news:ukkp041qldei58hpkb4qutf495k1fu4jdg@4ax.com...
>>> <snip>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> Not as bad as the replacements to the Cep's etc. though, how long did 
>>> they sit around in sidings all over the place until Fail-track had 
>>> updated all the sub-stations & TP huts?... 
>>>
>>>
>> As I recall a lot went into service with power reduced so that they did 
>> not trip out the sub-stations so longer journey times for a time. One of 
>> the first big projects for Network Rail as well. As you say fancy 
>> ordering trains then not thinking about the infrastructure needs one of 
>> the many benefits of the flawed privatisation.
> 
> I heard of other problems with out of gauge DMUs elsewhere.
> 
> One of the more doubtful features was independent sub-contractors not
> supervised properly, and not making sure the loading gauge was correct
> after working on the track.
> 
>> Chris
Interesting story about when the Networkers were introduced was that 
they were designed as wide as possible with mm clearances in some 
tunnels so BR solved this by gluing the ballast. In later years 
maintenance wasn't so great so some of the units got some scrapes on them.

Chris

"Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in message 
news:9fes04t5hui1q42co5k0mdtb6esuet089o@4ax.com...
<snip>
>
> One of the more doubtful features was independent sub-contractors 
> not
> supervised properly, and not making sure the loading gauge was 
> correct
> after working on the track.
>

The problem was with the TOCs, using main designers and contractors 
who had f*ck all experience of building stock to the UK loading gauge, 
whilst those workshops that did (over a 150 years in some cases...) 
sat idle or closed... As you say, the price for a botched 
privatisation.

:Jerry: wrote:
> "Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in message 
> news:9fes04t5hui1q42co5k0mdtb6esuet089o@4ax.com...
> <snip>
>> One of the more doubtful features was independent sub-contractors 
>> not
>> supervised properly, and not making sure the loading gauge was 
>> correct
>> after working on the track.
>>
> 
> The problem was with the TOCs, using main designers and contractors 
> who had f*ck all experience of building stock to the UK loading gauge, 
> whilst those workshops that did (over a 150 years in some cases...) 
> sat idle or closed... As you say, the price for a botched 
> privatisation. 
> 
> 
I would not call Bombardier (inheritor of BREL at Derby) and Alstom 
(inheritor of Metro Cammell) companies with no experience of UK train 
design. The problems for Bombardier was getting the GTO power system in 
their electric trains passed for safety and some problems with engines 
that power the turbo stars. For Alstom the new French owners ignored the 
UK designers and insisted on using continental bogies under their 
Cordias and some poor design of the placement of engines. Ironically 
they did not experience many problems with the GTO power system on their 
electric trains but still had it with the bogies. The TOCs don't 
directly specify the trains as they are not the owners this is down to 
the ROSCOs who finance and order the trains. The DfT rail seems to be 
going back to the BR way of ordering trains but trying to keep them in 
the private sector, have a look at May's Modern Railways Informed 
Sources article. You can also visit 
http://home.ezezine.com/759/759-2008.04.21.00.01.archive.html for a 
presay of May's article.

Chris

"Chris"  wrote in message 
news:6P2dndW4a9BEfpPVRVnytAA@bt.com...
> :Jerry: wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> The problem was with the TOCs, using main designers and contractors 
>> who had f*ck all experience of building stock to the UK loading 
>> gauge, whilst those workshops that did (over a 150 years in some 
>> cases...) sat idle or closed... As you say, the price for a botched 
>> privatisation.
> I would not call Bombardier (inheritor of BREL at Derby) and Alstom 
> (inheritor of Metro Cammell) companies with no experience of UK 
> train design.

The parent company was the problem, not the workshops, they were non 
UK companies - another part of the botched privatisation, BREL should 
have been kept intact.

The problems for Bombardier was getting the GTO power system in
> their electric trains passed for safety and some problems with 
> engines that power the turbo stars. For Alstom the new French owners 
> ignored the UK designers and insisted on using continental bogies 
> under their Cordias and some poor design of the placement of 
> engines.

Exactly, they didn't understand the UK railway system, it's safety 
regime, and it's 'culture'.

 Ironically
> they did not experience many problems with the GTO power system on 
> their electric trains but still had it with the bogies. The TOCs 
> don't

They order the stock, if they refused to order from non UK owned 
railway workshops / companies...

> directly specify the trains as they are not the owners this is down 
> to the ROSCOs who finance and order the trains.

As I said, the botched privatisation...

 The DfT rail seems to be
> going back to the BR way of ordering trains but trying to keep them 
> in the private sector,

They have to, there is no public sector!...

:Jerry: wrote:
> "Chris"  wrote in message 
> news:6P2dndW4a9BEfpPVRVnytAA@bt.com...
>> :Jerry: wrote:
> <snip>
>>> The problem was with the TOCs, using main designers and contractors 
>>> who had f*ck all experience of building stock to the UK loading 
>>> gauge, whilst those workshops that did (over a 150 years in some 
>>> cases...) sat idle or closed... As you say, the price for a botched 
>>> privatisation.
>> I would not call Bombardier (inheritor of BREL at Derby) and Alstom 
>> (inheritor of Metro Cammell) companies with no experience of UK 
>> train design.
> 
> The parent company was the problem, not the workshops, they were non 
> UK companies - another part of the botched privatisation, BREL should 
> have been kept intact.
It could never have stayed as BREL for a number of good reasons:
1	Not large enough compared with international competitors.
2	Only strong in coaching stock with no in-house expertise in power 
systems. Anyone remember the international train BRELs attempt to break 
into the international market. No presence in locomotive construction or 
wagon construction.

The ownership changed in the late 80's before the railways themselves 
were semi-privatised. Before that the UK market was distorted with the 
quasi subsidisation of BREL which resulted in cost cutting in 
competitors products notably the 156 and mk4 coaches.
> 
> The problems for Bombardier was getting the GTO power system in
>> their electric trains passed for safety and some problems with 
>> engines that power the turbo stars. For Alstom the new French owners 
>> ignored the UK designers and insisted on using continental bogies 
>> under their Cordias and some poor design of the placement of 
>> engines.
> 
> Exactly, they didn't understand the UK railway system, it's safety 
> regime, and it's 'culture'.
All the UK companies had the same problems when the Networkers were 
introduced and the Dutch when the 323's were introduced. The only 
peculiarity was the third rail DC AC track circuits.
> 
>  Ironically
>> they did not experience many problems with the GTO power system on 
>> their electric trains but still had it with the bogies. The TOCs 
>> don't
> 
> They order the stock, if they refused to order from non UK owned 
> railway workshops / companies...
> 
Part of this was the order delay introduced by privatisation, York works 
closed because of this, and then the failure of Alstom to make their 
EMUs and DMus to work reliably quickly so we got German trains that 
compared with UK trains worked out of the box with no major problems.
>> directly specify the trains as they are not the owners this is down 
>> to the ROSCOs who finance and order the trains.
> 
> As I said, the botched privatisation...
> 
>  The DfT rail seems to be
>> going back to the BR way of ordering trains but trying to keep them 
>> in the private sector,
> 
> They have to, there is no public sector!... 
> 
> 
The last is more of an accounting trick to keep the cost off of the 
public account than anything else.

Chris