Thameslink Rolling Stock

"Andrew Robert Breen" <azb@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:j9l3l5xnbk.ln2@news.aber.ac.uk
> In article
> <a2ed70d2-c25d-4611-9080-9640b1080ec4@m3g2000hsc.************.com>,
> <thagor2008@***************> wrote:
>>
>> Why are new trains so much heavier? All they have over the old ones
>> is better crash protection and air con. Would those really make that
>> much difference to the overall weight? I can imagine it adding on a
>> few tons but not the huge excess we see in new stock.
>
> Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a
> family
> car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to
> crash protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c and
> such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by comparison.

Except that they've also (in some cases) switched to aluminium monocoque
construnction, which should make them lighter, just as it has in cars
such as the Jaguar XJ and XK. I have an XJ, and although it's much
bigger and has more gizmos than my previous BMW, it's also a fair but
lighter, and gets away with a smaller engine without loss of
performance. But the aluminium trains are heavier and use more power
than their steel predecessors.

"Graeme Wall" <Rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b05a47c04f%Rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> In message <j9l3l5xnbk.ln2@news.aber.ac.uk>
> azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
>

>> Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a family
>> car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to
>> crash
>> protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c and
>> such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by comparison.
>>
>
> NVH?

Noise, Vibration, Harshness; as Andy hasn't replied...

Paul

azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>>Except that they've also (in some cases) switched to aluminium monocoque
>>construnction, which should make them lighter, just as it has in cars
>>such as the Jaguar XJ and XK. I have an XJ, and although it's much
>>bigger and has more gizmos than my previous BMW, it's also a fair but
>>lighter, and gets away with a smaller engine without loss of
>>performance. But the aluminium trains are heavier and use more power
>>than their steel predecessors.

> Hmmm..
>
> 1968 Jaguar XJ6 4.2: weight 1537 kg.
>
> 2008 Jaguar XJ-R: 1659 kg.
>
> Much less of a difference than with the F*rds (much less of a difference
> in NVH too, I'd suspect), but in spite of the XK boat-anchor in the old
> Jag and the new 'un's alloy structure, the old'un is still lighter.
>
> So: the aluminium cars are heavier and use more power than their steel
> predecessors...

Small problem there... The X308 steel predecessor to the X350 ally XJ was
about 200kg heavier than the X350.

After the "Series" XJs, which would have steadily put on weight from the
s1 you quote above, the late '80s/early '90s XJ40 was north of 1800kg.

"Andrew Robert Breen" <azb@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:2s24l5x3t7.ln2@news.aber.ac.uk
> In article <1216301883.31232.0@proxy02.news.clara.net>,
> Recliner <nigelp@clara.co_dot_uk> wrote:
>> "Andrew Robert Breen" <azb@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:j9l3l5xnbk.ln2@news.aber.ac.uk
>>> In article
>>> <a2ed70d2-c25d-4611-9080-9640b1080ec4@m3g2000hsc.************.com>,
>>> <thagor2008@***************> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why are new trains so much heavier? All they have over the old ones
>>>> is better crash protection and air con. Would those really make
>>>> that much difference to the overall weight? I can imagine it
>>>> adding on a few tons but not the huge excess we see in new stock.
>>>
>>> Why would you imagine that: consider that the typical weight of a
>>> family
>>> car has close on doubled over the last 35 years - almost all due to
>>> crash protection (with some down to NVH supression and some to a/c
>>> and such). The weight growth of trains looks very modest by
>>> comparison.
>>
>> Except that they've also (in some cases) switched to aluminium
>> monocoque construnction, which should make them lighter, just as it
>> has in cars such as the Jaguar XJ and XK. I have an XJ, and although
>> it's much bigger and has more gizmos than my previous BMW, it's also
>> a fair but lighter, and gets away with a smaller engine without loss
>> of performance. But the aluminium trains are heavier and use more
>> power than their steel predecessors.
>
> Hmmm..
>
> 1968 Jaguar XJ6 4.2: weight 1537 kg.
>
> 2008 Jaguar XJ-R: 1659 kg.
>
> Much less of a difference than with the F*rds (much less of a
> difference in NVH too, I'd suspect), but in spite of the XK
> boat-anchor in the old Jag and the new 'un's alloy structure, the
> old'un is still lighter.
>
> So: the aluminium cars are heavier and use more power than their steel
> predecessors...

Hardly -- if you're going to use the original 1968 car as the benchmark,
you can't compare it with the current XJR, which is a much faster car.
I'd expect the current 3 litre XJ to be both faster and lighter than the
original 4.2 litre XJ6 from 40 years ago. And that's before you consider
all the standard kit a modern Jag has that the old ones didn't (much
more advance, relatively speaking, than trains).

In article <3abb78c04f%Rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>,
Graeme Wall <Rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <sjg4l5xs7k.ln2@news.aber.ac.uk>
> azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
>
> > In article <bbea5ac04f%Rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>,
> > Graeme Wall <Rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >In message <te24l5xop6.ln2@news.aber.ac.uk>
> > >
> > >IIRC wasn't the Cortina where they got they weight down by doing away with
> > >metal and just sprayed rust on the inside of the paintwork?
> >
> > You're thinking of the Vauxhall Victor.
> >
>
> I'm trying desperately not to :-)

My grandfather had two Victors, an F in fawn and red (rather like one of
those toffees with the raspberry centres) and an FA in two-tone blue. I
was too young to worry about rust but I was very impressed with the
lever that raised the FA's air intake - you could make believe it was a
gun turret and shoot other cars with it.

Well, I did, anyway...

Sam

Has anyone got any weights for Bombardier Movia 'S' stock for LU ?

A search of obvious places does not find any.

I know a Movia is designed for a different duty and to different
dimensions, but I just want to make a comparison.

--
Nick