Jump to content

Talk:DB Cargo Company Train

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copying of train features lists

[edit]

The lists on this page appear to have been copied verbatim from:

This needs rewriting unless permission was or has been obtained. Sladen 18:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion?

[edit]

I do not think this page should be deleted, such train being rare enough on UK metals to warrant an article. It might be rewritten however, in view of the takeover of EWS by DB and the fate of the train. It is still active in fact, having seen it in Edinburgh in April 2009. LHOON (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DVT control method

[edit]

The article made various unreferenced claims http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=DB_Schenker_Company_Train&oldid=468597221 - about the trains being "predecessors" or push pull class 67/mk3 passenger sets - according to http://www.mdrs.org.uk/documents/donkey131.pdf

For use on the EWS executive train, 67029 was repainted in a silver livery and fitted with a TDM decoder to operate in push-pull service with the matching EWS DVT 82146. Again, when not required for executive train duties it can appear anywhere - including getting ilthy dirty on railhead treatment trains in autumn.

and also

Open-access operator Wrexham & Shropshire opted to use Class 67's in push-pull operation with DVT's and Mk3 stock. Five locomotives have been placed in a dedicated pool (WAWN) for their use and modified. This includes fitting remotely operable fire extinguishing equipment on the locomotive. The five DVT's operated by W&S were modified to operate on the AAR system and the necessary jumpers added and to the W&S rolling stock. The AAR system was chosen over the TDM system as it was seen as more reliable although the DVT's retain the TDM equipment to permit them to operate with similarly equipped electric locomotives if required

If that source is innacurate then please leave a message.Mddkpp (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the EWS Company Train (×1), Wrexham and Shropshire/Chiltern Mainline (×4), Arriva units (×1) the basic operation involves new controller in the DVT, new fire-extinguisher setup for the corresponding loco (since when pushing, there will be nobody on-board the loco) and adding AAR control cables to the intermediate coaches. This is why: (a) only the dedicated intermediate Mk3 coaches can be used; (b) only the dedicated (modified) DVTs can be used; (c) when Wrexham and Shropshire started, they were running double-ended with Class 67s, as the DVT modifications hadn't been finished. My apologies for not having spotted this Talkpage comment a couple of days ago. The notable significance of the exercise is the addition of controllers/AAR 27-pin wiring to rejuvenate old coaches and make them work with newer locomotives, rather than the other way around. The resulting DVTs have been renumbered into the 82/3 series (note, the locomotives have not been renumbered). My apologies, I believed that this had been cited, from ESG themselves, at www.esg-rail.com/flcs-db-schenker-company-train.html. (Unfortunately that page is dead, and not in the wayback machine; but a Google Cache is at [1], "DVT control system and thru-train wiring for class 67 / DVT push pull operation"). While that does not mention AAR specifically, it hopefully substantiates the rewiring exercise. When 82146+67029 operate their departmental RHTT trains, there is a long AAR control cable strung from the loco to the DVT, cable-tied to the side of the wagons (just visible in [2], along wagon side, up railing and across the the centre position). —Sladen (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More diff - the claims about AAR need referencing because the Marlow & District Railway Society source says used TDM - note could this be AAR signal over TDM? I reinserted the table now there is a scot-rail reference.

I removed some text after I rewrote that which I could verify. The stuff about what the features of the individual coaches was already in - it's now duplicated with the table - it doesn't need saying 3 times. Please bear in mind verifyability and writing in an encyclopedic tone - also the scot-rail source is a wiki which is usually taken to be reliable - so if there is a better source please link that.Mddkpp (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hopefully we can find something as reliable as the original cites. See note about about ESG link and Google Cache. —Sladen (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that the only source I can find currently says that additional cables were added to the carriages for AAR signals to the W&SR vehicles (as you say), BUT, seems to say that a different method - was used for the Executive train. (or maybe I have misread that) - the old version of the esg link does seem to suggest that additional cables were wired in "DVT control system and thru-train wiring for class 67 / DVT push pull operation" (my emphasis) - but that could also mean that they installed equipment to allow the use of existing wires (ie TDM) - it's not 100% clear. It could have even multiplexed the AAR signals over the existing wiring.
I've modified it diff so it mentions the modification but doesn't say which of the two systems was used. I seem to remember this was covered in the rail-press when it was first made- I'll ask on the UKrailways project page if anyone has a source. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Talk:DB_Schenker_Company_Train.23Facts someone else might have a printed source.Mddkpp (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's doesn't mention the technology, although [3] does group the "DVT control system and through train wiring for class 67 / DVT push pull operation" modifications under the DVT section, rather than the loco. —Sladen (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I found something else that supports the idea that the 67 was modded - see the images
W&SR 67 - standard jumpers
Company train - jumper on right has been modified (expand)
it's the RCH jumper I think - is it relevant? - it's a mystery to me - the RCH jumper is used for TDM .. but .. there isn't any need to modify it to make it work as far as I know.
Not sure what that means/proofs (could it be something to do with the video signal? can that be sent down AAR ?
See the top part of the right hand jumper - it's got a "box" that sticks out - as far as I can tell 67029 is the only 67 with this.Mddkpp (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found Traction & Rolling Stock - Vehicle Electrical Interconnectors, which may be of interest. It doesn't answer the immediate question, but talks about the different standard connectors, and explains the TDM encoding over the lighting cables. —Sladen (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It just occurred to be that if I can find a picture of 67029 in the company train with the AAR connector plugged in then you are right.. That would prove it - I'll start looking ! Mddkpp (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very impressive; you're clearly better at searching than I! Best I could find of Toton yard side-on is with the rake in pieces, or uncoupled for shunting [4][5][6][7]. —Sladen (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This image http://www.rail-net.co.uk/jpgpage.php?picid=2901&storyid=178 seems to prove what you are saying - oddly the author of "skips for hire" seems to be certain that it's TDM - and they seem to have working experience of 67s.. Still AAR is definately connected.
The modified RCH is still a mystery to me (see image) - the cable is pretty thick - seems to be overkill for a video camera link. If you know what it is please let us know! Mddkpp (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have information on the extra socket hidden in front of the existing cable outlet, by process of elimination and educated guess it would be the company-train-specific umbilical carrying network/phones/video, and probably a piece of heavily shielded and armoured ducting to allow for posting additional future cables through too. In searching, I did come across pictures of 67003+82146 working the RHTT [8][9][10], which probably supports that whatever modifications were/were not done to the DVT they are generic enough to work with the other remote fire-extinguisher-enabled Class 67s, and the that fire-suppression activation is not carrying via the additional umbilical (which is only visibly present on 67029). One of the accompanying images[11] to the one you found above also shows the centrally-positioned AAR connector in the end Mk3 vehicle, and the large low-level ETH/ETS cable below the buffers (main power from loco to train). —Sladen (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed the author of the "Skips for Hire" article asking for clarification. —Sladen (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No reply, as-yet. —Sladen (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't discovered any more about the extra cable on 67029 either.Mddkpp (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed as the "Cab to train data jumper". —Sladen (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

I commented out platform height diff - reason - unless the Mk3s have been modified from standard then I don't think this is quite right - just by looking at the images - I don't see any extra stuff - so yes you can get off without a platform - but if there's a big jump then I don't think that counts. (Obviosly the 67 has steps and grabs from ground level - but there's no through connection) Ignore that -I forgot/never noticed steps on the mk3's

class 91 - this is M003?

Also - couplers - are these only on the 67 and end coach? - and isn't the one fitted a "side swinger" - which is M009 - but M003 is one that drops down eg as in class 91. Mk3 DVTs just have "buffers, chain and hook" so has the DVT been modified and http://www.railwayherald.co.uk/images/photos/750/750166018.jpg shows no buckeye as far as I can tell. The end Mk3 must have a AAR 'buckeye' [12] - because the buffers don't meet - though I can't make it out - this must be the M003 ?? And are the rest of the coaches unmodified?

Can you double check this edit diff for the couplers - If you've got a clear image of the Mk3 AAR buckeye please link it too. Mddkpp (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge: 10 couplers, 10 drawhooks: (of which: 9 also buckeyes (7 drophead, and 2 swingnose), 1 also screw coupling). As you note, the give-away is whether the buffers are touching—the buffers retract on the Mk3s, whereas there is on need on the Class 67s as swingnose is longer and so avoids the need to retract to avoid buffers touching.
I would assume that 82146 originally had a drophead and gangway pusher-plate on the front too, but probably lost them (c.1998/1999?). The photograph on the right (Class 91) with a drophead buckeye (M003) on the front and rear. The Mk4 DVT I believe has a drophead buckeye (M003) on the front and tightlock (M006) on the rear. The Railway Herald site is down today "for a relaunch"; but [13] shows the rear of 82146 DVT with buckeye raised plus buffers retracted and the special umbilical connection (extended in front of the left-hand RCH cable outlet). Whilst your earlier find of [14][15] shows the buckeye + swingnose knuckle connectors used between the Class 67 and First Open.
The ground-level access steps can be seen on [16] which also appears to show retracted buffers between the FO and ex-HST RFM, which means buffers were added at some point (HST stock doesn't have buffers; only the buckeye). Interestingly, [17] appears to have been updated, stating more firmly that it was the basis used for the Chiltern design. —Sladen (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the update to the ESG site too - it was a deadlink before - I readded that - I think it's safe to say that the external couplers (ie class 67 and DVT front end) have been unmodified - I could find any image or video clear enough to say for certain what sort of internal couplings were being used.Mddkpp (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to (hopefully) a full copy of the Company Train Drivers Guide [sic]. I've ordered a copy of RAIL (magazine) issue No. 499 (27 October 2004–9 November 2004) which is apparently the issue with the "EWS 'mobile-office' train exclusive". Should have more reference material in about a week. —Sladen (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally phoned ESG this afternoon and left an email. —Sladen (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might also want to try looking for press releases in http://wayback.archive.org/web/20050415000000*/http://www.ews-railway.co.uk/ around that time (I actually tried myself - but gave up as the "wayback machine" is so slow and goes offline a lot.., I couldn't find it myself which seems odd as they usually press released for just about everything else...Mddkpp (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify

[edit]
Bi-material "vestibule rubbing plate" (corridor connection base)

Can " the existing Mk3 buckeye couplers without touching the vestibule rubbing plate" be clarified a bit - ie vestibule rubbing plate - is this the thing on the coaches that folds down when there is a corridor connection, or something else completely ? Mddkpp (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, it's the big wide thing forming the base of the corridor connection (which thusly support the "fold down flap"). I've seen it variously referred to as "pusher plate", "buffing plate" et al. On Mk1/Mk2/Mk3/Mk4 coaches it is the bottom of the corridor connection, whilst the associated locomotives only have the plate itself (used in combination with the coach buckeye). Can you work out how to reword that? —Sladen (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. the 'vestibule' bit confused me - I know "rubbing plate" but had never heard "vestibule rubbing plate" before - I assumed it was something different - could say "coach's rubbing plate"Mddkpp (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on DB Schenker Company Train. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DB Schenker Company Train. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:DB_Cargo_Company_Train&oldid=1201391473"