Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: splott on 21 April 2010, 17:52:55
-
So simple but ingenius................................ :y
http://www.wimp.com/chinatrain/
-
Link not working :-/
-
The link doesn't work Splott :-? ;)
-
Try http://www.wimp.com/chinatrain
-
Link not working :-/
Oooooops.....................It is now :y
http://www.wimp.com/chinatrain/
-
The trouble with that idea for the UK is our loading gauge is too small to allow for such "piggy back" units.
Then with the new high speed lines there are very limited stations required along the route in between the termini, so for the UK at least I cannot see it catching on. ;)
-
all UK needs is longer trains! Link from Oxford Manchester, the trains only run 4 carriages, all main stops can cope with 12.
-
The trouble with that idea for the UK is our loading gauge is too small to allow for such "piggy back" units.
Then with the new high speed lines there are very limited stations required along the route in between the termini, so for the UK at least I cannot see it catching on. ;)
I think that it is aimed more for city/ suburb commuter systems, UK gauge is 4'8" where in other countries it is 5'2". I don't think the smaller gauge would make any great difference .
:-/
-
this can be used everywhere.. needs only adaptation..
-
The trouble with that idea for the UK is our loading gauge is too small to allow for such "piggy back" units.
Then with the new high speed lines there are very limited stations required along the route in between the termini, so for the UK at least I cannot see it catching on. ;)
I think that it is aimed more for city/ suburb commuter systems, UK gauge is 4'8" where in other countries it is 5'2". I don't think the smaller gauge would make any great difference .
:-/
No ours is actually 4' 8 1/2". "Gauge" though does not mean just for track; it also includes height and width of rolling stock and locomotives, commonly known as the "loading gauge". That is the problem. Bridges and tunnels here, and in Europe, could not accommodate those piggy back units. ;)
Oliver Bullied, when Chief Mechanical Engineer for the Southern Railway designed a double deck set of carriages, but due to the UK gauge he could not make them of an ideal height for loading and unloading, with that unique set being withdrawn in the seventies. ;) ;)
-
this can be used everywhere.. needs only adaptation..
Not in the UK Cem on existing track ;) ;)
-
The trouble with that idea for the UK is our loading gauge is too small to allow for such "piggy back" units.
Then with the new high speed lines there are very limited stations required along the route in between the termini, so for the UK at least I cannot see it catching on. ;)
I think that it is aimed more for city/ suburb commuter systems, UK gauge is 4'8" where in other countries it is 5'2". I don't think the smaller gauge would make any great difference .
:-/
No ours is actually 4' 8 1/2". "Gauge" though does not mean just for track; it also includes height and width of rolling stock and locomotives. That is the problem. Bridges and tunnels here, and in Europe, could not accommodate those piggy back units. ;)
Oliver Bullied, when Chief Mechanical Engineer for the Southern Railway designed a double deck set of carriages, but due to the UK gauge he could not make them of an ideal height for loading and unloading, with that unique set being withdrawn in the seventies. ;) ;)
Couldn't get my 1/2" to work on my mobile.
Don't think height would come into it if it was a bogey type of system. The idea, I presume, is trvelling time, speed of transfer of passengers and fuel efficiency. :-/ :-/
-
The trouble with that idea for the UK is our loading gauge is too small to allow for such "piggy back" units.
Then with the new high speed lines there are very limited stations required along the route in between the termini, so for the UK at least I cannot see it catching on. ;)
I think that it is aimed more for city/ suburb commuter systems, UK gauge is 4'8" where in other countries it is 5'2". I don't think the smaller gauge would make any great difference .
:-/
No ours is actually 4' 8 1/2". "Gauge" though does not mean just for track; it also includes height and width of rolling stock and locomotives. That is the problem. Bridges and tunnels here, and in Europe, could not accommodate those piggy back units. ;)
Oliver Bullied, when Chief Mechanical Engineer for the Southern Railway designed a double deck set of carriages, but due to the UK gauge he could not make them of an ideal height for loading and unloading, with that unique set being withdrawn in the seventies. ;) ;)
Couldn't get my 1/2" to work on my mobile.
Don't think height would come into it if it was a bogey type of system. The idea, I presume, is trvelling time, speed of transfer of passengers and fuel efficiency. :-/ :-/
How do you mean Splott?
There is limited clearance between the top of UK rolling stock and the roof;s of tunnels and bridges. Engineers have for a long time tried to fit as much within that fixed restriction as possible with various boggie layouts. They have only been able to actually successfully design coaches with level floor seating, apart from Bullied valiant attempt at double decking. For instance British engineers have never been able to place observation 'pods' on the top of coaches as the American, Austrialian, and South African trains have.
;)
-
The trouble with that idea for the UK is our loading gauge is too small to allow for such "piggy back" units.
Then with the new high speed lines there are very limited stations required along the route in between the termini, so for the UK at least I cannot see it catching on. ;)
I think that it is aimed more for city/ suburb commuter systems, UK gauge is 4'8" where in other countries it is 5'2". I don't think the smaller gauge would make any great difference .
:-/
No ours is actually 4' 8 1/2". "Gauge" though does not mean just for track; it also includes height and width of rolling stock and locomotives. That is the problem. Bridges and tunnels here, and in Europe, could not accommodate those piggy back units. ;)
Oliver Bullied, when Chief Mechanical Engineer for the Southern Railway designed a double deck set of carriages, but due to the UK gauge he could not make them of an ideal height for loading and unloading, with that unique set being withdrawn in the seventies. ;) ;)
Couldn't get my 1/2" to work on my mobile.
Don't think height would come into it if it was a bogey type of system. The idea, I presume, is trvelling time, speed of transfer of passengers and fuel efficiency. :-/ :-/
How do you mean Splott?
There is limited clearance between the top of UK rolling stock and the roof;s of tunnels and bridges. Engineers have for a long time tried to fit as much within that fixed restriction as possible with various boggie layouts. They have only been able to actually successfully design coaches with level floor seating, apart from Bullied valiant attempt at double decking. For instance British engineers have never been able to place observation 'pods' on the top of coaches as the American, Austrialian, and South African trains have.
;)
I was just thinking that if the concept was changed from 'piggy backing' a passenger module on top of a passenger train ( as is shown) to a low train just pulling boggies.Thus the 'take up' of the modules could be taken within the 'foot print' of a standard UK train.
I don't know? :-/ :-/
-
............................this is Bullied's attempt at double decking:
(http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk247/lizziefreeman/BulliedDDCoaches.jpg)
this is what is achieved in countries without loading gauge restrictions:
(http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk247/lizziefreeman/DDCoaches.jpg)
Oh, what could have been achieved with more foresight, such as with Brunel's 7' 0 1/4" gauge, but with a different attitude to loading gauge!! ::) ::) ::)
-
............................this is Bullied's attempt at double decking:
(http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk247/lizziefreeman/BulliedDDCoaches.jpg)
this is what is achieved in countries without loading gauge restrictions:
(http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk247/lizziefreeman/DDCoaches.jpg)
Oh, what could have been achieved with more foresight, such as with Brunel's 7' 0 1/4" gauge, but with a different attitude to loading gauge!! ::) ::) ::)
As you said,Lizzie, it's our bridges and tunnels that are the UKs main problem.
-
And the bridges and tunnels are compromised by 40 years of just dumping down more ballast without digging the old stuff out...we have lost best part of 500mm thanks to that
-
this can be used everywhere.. needs only adaptation..
Not in the UK Cem on existing track ;) ;)
now you tell me that your engineers cant make the necessary modification ;D
who believes that ;D :y
-
The trouble with that idea for the UK is our loading gauge is too small to allow for such "piggy back" units.
Then with the new high speed lines there are very limited stations required along the route in between the termini, so for the UK at least I cannot see it catching on. ;)
I think that it is aimed more for city/ suburb commuter systems, UK gauge is 4'8" where in other countries it is 5'2". I don't think the smaller gauge would make any great difference .
:-/
No ours is actually 4' 8 1/2". "Gauge" though does not mean just for track; it also includes height and width of rolling stock and locomotives. That is the problem. Bridges and tunnels here, and in Europe, could not accommodate those piggy back units. ;)
Oliver Bullied, when Chief Mechanical Engineer for the Southern Railway designed a double deck set of carriages, but due to the UK gauge he could not make them of an ideal height for loading and unloading, with that unique set being withdrawn in the seventies. ;) ;)
Couldn't get my 1/2" to work on my mobile.
Don't think height would come into it if it was a bogey type of system. The idea, I presume, is trvelling time, speed of transfer of passengers and fuel efficiency. :-/ :-/
How do you mean Splott?
There is limited clearance between the top of UK rolling stock and the roof;s of tunnels and bridges. Engineers have for a long time tried to fit as much within that fixed restriction as possible with various bogies layouts. They have only been able to actually successfully design coaches with level floor seating, apart from Bullied valiant attempt at double decking. For instance British engineers have never been able to place observation 'pods' on the top of coaches as the American, Australian, and South African trains have.
;)
I was just thinking that if the concept was changed from 'piggy backing' a passenger module on top of a passenger train ( as is shown) to a low train just pulling bogies.Thus the 'take up' of the modules could be taken within the 'foot print' of a standard UK train.
I don't know? :-/ :-/
Right. Even with container wagons, that are low slung the height of the containers is still restricted to the limits of the coaches and locomotives due to the tunnels and bridges as previously described. In America for instance their container wagons take two containers in height due to no such restriction.
In the early part of the 20th century, right the way through to the 1950s, the British railway system under the private companies used 'slip' coaches to affect the 'unloading' of passengers, without stopping the express train.
It worked by the express approaching the station and a guard for the slip coach at the rear of the train pulling a chain to release the coupling. The slip coach then just ran into the station on its own momentum until the guard braked it to a halt. 8-) 8-)
-
seriously its a matter of budget.. you give them money and some time, and see what they can do..
-
this can be used everywhere.. needs only adaptation..
Not in the UK Cem on existing track ;) ;)
now you tell me that your engineers cant make the necessary modification ;D
who believes that ;D :y
They could Cem, but it would take billions, if not trillions of £'s to do what would be required! :'( :'(
..........and then what would the advantages actually be? What would be the return on capital for such an investment?
At the moment all the UK can afford is a new purpose built extension to the high speed line to the North of England and Scotland 8-) 8-) ;) ;)
-
fast trains like 260-270 kmph was a long project waited for 25-30 years and here our enginrers completed within 1-2 years..
-
this can be used everywhere.. needs only adaptation..
Not in the UK Cem on existing track ;) ;)
now you tell me that your engineers cant make the necessary modification ;D
who believes that ;D :y
They could Cem, but it would take billions, if not trillions of £'s to do what would be required! :'( :'(
it can be done , although will require some time
with clever planning and necessary tools..
there are always better and practical ways.. :y
and with the money you mention you can build a new country :o
-
fast trains like 260-270 kmph was a long project waited for 25-30 years and here our enginrers completed within 1-2 years..
With the UK high speed line in the South East it was not the building time that was important. It was the arrangements to secure a route through densely populated parts of our country, with compulsory purchase orders on private property after numerous public enquiries and protests!! ::) ::) ;)
-
fast trains like 260-270 kmph was a long project waited for 25-30 years and here our enginrers completed within 1-2 years..
With the UK high speed line in the South East it was not the building time that was important. It was the arrangements to secure a route through densely populated parts of our country, with compulsory purchase orders on private property after numerous public enquiries and protests!! ::) ::) ;)
yep..thats your problem..too much democracy ;D
how you say expropriation or nationalisation.. you make the law, you apply the law.. solves the problems quickly.. ;D
-
The trouble with that idea for the UK is our loading gauge is too small to allow for such "piggy back" units.
Then with the new high speed lines there are very limited stations required along the route in between the termini, so for the UK at least I cannot see it catching on. ;)
I think that it is aimed more for city/ suburb commuter systems, UK gauge is 4'8" where in other countries it is 5'2". I don't think the smaller gauge would make any great difference .
:-/
Most countries do use 4' 8.5" a few use 5'3" but standard gauge is the most common - eg all of North America, all of Western Europe except Ireland, Portugal and Spain
-
Brunels loading gauge was not great - he liked the carrages to ride between the wheels.
As to that idea - try it with the main train doing 125mph.
-
Brunels loading gauge was not great - he liked the carrages to ride between the wheels.
As to that idea - try it with the main train doing 125mph.
But they were very stable trains which on the rare occasion they derailed remained upright. In those days they also reachied what was considered 'high' speeds. Indeed evidence to the Royal Gauge Commission in 1845 showed that the GWR broad gauge trains carried an average of 67 tons on passenger trains, compared to the London & Birmingham railway average of 42.4 tons, and with frieght GWR carried an average weight of 265 tons, verses 162 tons on the L&B. GWR average speeds were greater at an average of 27.5 mph, compared to the L&B of 20 mph.
By the 1880s broad gauge engines were still achieving the highest average speeds of all the railway companies ;) ;)
-
For those interested this is a GWR pair of slip coaches in the 1930s that have just been separated from an express train:
(http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk247/lizziefreeman/GWRSlipCoaches.jpg)
8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) ;)
-
Brunels loading gauge was not great - he liked the carrages to ride between the wheels.
As to that idea - try it with the main train doing 125mph.
They could get from London to Brighton in four minutes when I was a child....................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7GXWuTwkF8
and I believed it ;) ;) ;)
-
Brunels loading gauge was not great - he liked the carrages to ride between the wheels.
As to that idea - try it with the main train doing 125mph.
They could get from London to Brighton in four minutes when I was a child....................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7GXWuTwkF8
and I believed it ;) ;) ;)
lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
When the Beatles released A Ticket To Ride in 1965 on Top Of The Pops they showed a film trailer of the front view, looking forward, from a London to Brighton train that was speeded up to start and finish within the time of the record. Great stuff! 8-) 8-) 8-)
PS I don't think your film is the same as ToPs used ;)
-
For those interested this is a GWR pair of slip coaches in the 1930s that have just been separated from an express train:
(http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk247/lizziefreeman/GWRSlipCoaches.jpg)
8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) ;)
How did they pick them up again without stopping, or did they shunt them back to the original starting point?
The concept that I originally posted just shuffles the passenger modules. Seems a lot more efficient to me. ;) ;)
Mind you, I do prefer the look of the old coaches though :y :y. :y
-
Brunels loading gauge was not great - he liked the carrages to ride between the wheels.
As to that idea - try it with the main train doing 125mph.
They could get from London to Brighton in four minutes when I was a child....................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7GXWuTwkF8
and I believed it ;) ;) ;)
lol ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
When the Beatles released A Ticket To Ride in 1965 on Top Of The Pops they showed a film trailer of the front view, looking forward, from a London to Brighton train that was speeded up to start and finish within the time of the record. Great stuff! 8-) 8-) 8-)
PS I don't think your film is the same as ToPs used ;)
This film was way before ToPs was thought about I was only 4 or 5 years old then :'(
but I do remember Pans People, say no more :P :P :P
-
For those interested this is a GWR pair of slip coaches in the 1930s that have just been separated from an express train:
(http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk247/lizziefreeman/GWRSlipCoaches.jpg)
8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) ;)
How did they pick them up again without stopping, or did they shunt them back to the original starting point?
The concept that I originally posted just shuffles the passenger modules. Seems a lot more efficient to me. ;) ;)
Mind you, I do prefer the look of the old coaches though :y :y. :y
They didn't Splott, as any attempt to "slip on" a coach was not successful, I think for obvious reasons! :D :D
But as I am led to believe they collected them up using all station stopping trains, with them being re-connected to the expresses at the main termini. ;)
That of course was a bit of a weakness in the system! ::) ::)
-
'T O P S' is railway jargon for Total Operations Process System.
-
'T O P S' is railway jargon for Total Operations Process System.
You know where mind was then :-[ :-[ :-[ ;)