484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog

<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>

On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>
> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>

Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about running a
railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and towed that
through the tunnel before buying the new trains. Obviously, I'm daft, so
take no notice whatsoever.

On 11/06/2021 11:30, GB wrote:
> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>
>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>>
>
>
>
> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about running a
> railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and towed that
> through the tunnel before buying the new trains. Obviously, I'm daft, so
> take no notice whatsoever.
>
>
>

IIRC they did a gauging exercise a bit like that a while back.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:31:11 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 11/06/2021 11:30, GB wrote:
>> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>>
>>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about running a
>> railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and towed that
>> through the tunnel before buying the new trains. Obviously, I'm daft, so
>> take no notice whatsoever.
>>
>>
>>
>
>IIRC they did a gauging exercise a bit like that a while back.

Yes, the normal procedure is to use polystyrene blocks stuck on to a smaller vehicle. They may well have done so with
one of the old trains when they were still in service, and before the D-trains were even ordered.

On 11/06/2021 13:03, Recliner wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:31:11 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 11/06/2021 11:30, GB wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>>>
>>>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about running a
>>> railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and towed that
>>> through the tunnel before buying the new trains. Obviously, I'm daft, so
>>> take no notice whatsoever.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> IIRC they did a gauging exercise a bit like that a while back.
>
> Yes, the normal procedure is to use polystyrene blocks stuck on to a smaller vehicle. They may well have done so with
> one of the old trains when they were still in service, and before the D-trains were even ordered.
>

Someone posted a link to pictures of it but I can't find it at the moment.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>
>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>>
>
>
>
> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about running a
> railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and towed that
> through the tunnel before buying the new trains. Obviously, I'm daft, so
> take no notice whatsoever.
>

Making a millimetre-accurate 16m cardboard models probably more expensive
than bashing the dents out of the roof if the clearance calculations proved
wrong.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 11/06/2021 16:05, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>>
>>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about running a
>> railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and towed that
>> through the tunnel before buying the new trains. Obviously, I'm daft, so
>> take no notice whatsoever.
>>
>
> Making a millimetre-accurate 16m cardboard models probably more expensive
> than bashing the dents out of the roof if the clearance calculations proved
> wrong.

To clarify, I'd just make a 2D model of the maximum cross section. I
agree that a full sized 3D model would be silly.

I'm just surprised that the people in the photo are paying quite so much
attention. They ought to have been *absolutely* certain it would fit
before buying the thing! :)

>
>
> Anna Noyd-Dryver
>

GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
> On 11/06/2021 16:05, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>>>
>>>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about running a
>>> railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and towed that
>>> through the tunnel before buying the new trains. Obviously, I'm daft, so
>>> take no notice whatsoever.
>>>
>>
>> Making a millimetre-accurate 16m cardboard models probably more expensive
>> than bashing the dents out of the roof if the clearance calculations proved
>> wrong.
>
> To clarify, I'd just make a 2D model of the maximum cross section. I
> agree that a full sized 3D model would be silly.
>
> I'm just surprised that the people in the photo are paying quite so much
> attention. They ought to have been *absolutely* certain it would fit
> before buying the thing! :)
>

The track has been relaid and might have moved slightly, plus the vehicle
height may be different to the spec.

On 11/06/2021 11:30, GB wrote:
> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>
>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>>
>
>
>
> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about running a
> railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and towed that
> through the tunnel before buying the new trains. Obviously, I'm daft, so
> take no notice whatsoever.
>
>
>
The railways have always been empiricist; and that's not a bad thing
given the engineering who'd-a-thought-of-that horrors of IEP and GWEP.

Not to mention this NG ;-}

PA

GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
> On 11/06/2021 16:05, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>>>
>>>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about running a
>>> railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and towed that
>>> through the tunnel before buying the new trains. Obviously, I'm daft, so
>>> take no notice whatsoever.
>>>
>>
>> Making a millimetre-accurate 16m cardboard models probably more expensive
>> than bashing the dents out of the roof if the clearance calculations proved
>> wrong.
>
> To clarify, I'd just make a 2D model of the maximum cross section. I
> agree that a full sized 3D model would be silly.
>
> I'm just surprised that the people in the photo are paying quite so much
> attention. They ought to have been *absolutely* certain it would fit
> before buying the thing! :)
>
>

That doesn't deal with outswing on curves, both vertical and horizontal,
and at the ends and middle of the carriages.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 11/06/2021 15:58, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 11/06/2021 13:03, Recliner wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:31:11 +0100, Graeme Wall
>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/06/2021 11:30, GB wrote:
>>>> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>

That roof is a mess. A train should look nice from a bridge as well as a
platform.

>>
>> Yes, the normal procedure is to use polystyrene blocks stuck on to a
>> smaller vehicle. They may well have done so with
>> one of the old trains when they were still in service, and before the
>> D-trains were even ordered.
>>
>
> Someone

Me

> posted a link to pictures of it but I can't find it at the moment.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eoa0tpWXEAAlNWE?format=jpg&name=small

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
2006 - The Fall Of Mary - Finlay

On 11/06/2021 17:40, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> On 11/06/2021 16:05, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about running a
>>>> railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and towed that
>>>> through the tunnel before buying the new trains. Obviously, I'm daft, so
>>>> take no notice whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Making a millimetre-accurate 16m cardboard models probably more expensive
>>> than bashing the dents out of the roof if the clearance calculations proved
>>> wrong.
>>
>> To clarify, I'd just make a 2D model of the maximum cross section. I
>> agree that a full sized 3D model would be silly.
>>
>> I'm just surprised that the people in the photo are paying quite so much
>> attention. They ought to have been *absolutely* certain it would fit
>> before buying the thing! :)
>>
>>
>
> That doesn't deal with outswing on curves, both vertical and horizontal,
> and at the ends and middle of the carriages.

I had thought of that, actually. However, most of that can be calculated
pretty accurately with a bit of geometry and a piece of paper. Surely,
they can't order the new train and only then start to experiment?

Incidentally, vertical outswing - you mean that the highest part of the
carriage swings away from the centre line?

Is there a lot of movement on the suspension? Presumably, that would
vary with both speed and loading? There must be standards for the
clearances needed to allow for that sort of thing safely?

I worked on computer aided design in the engineering department at a
university in 1970. They were working on similar stuff then. Surely,
this is by now easy-peasy stuff to digitise and model with a standard
computer program, long long long before you actually buy any rolling stock?

If not, there's a worldwide market that ought to be crying out for a system.

What, on earth, would they have done if the rolling stock did not fit in
the tunnel, or could only go through at say 10MPH?

On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 18:45:36 +0100, GB wrote:

> On 11/06/2021 17:40, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2021 16:05, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about
>>>>> running a railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and
>>>>> towed that through the tunnel before buying the new trains.
>>>>> Obviously, I'm daft, so take no notice whatsoever.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Making a millimetre-accurate 16m cardboard models probably more
>>>> expensive than bashing the dents out of the roof if the clearance
>>>> calculations proved wrong.
>>>
>>> To clarify, I'd just make a 2D model of the maximum cross section. I
>>> agree that a full sized 3D model would be silly.
>>>
>>> I'm just surprised that the people in the photo are paying quite so
>>> much attention. They ought to have been *absolutely* certain it would
>>> fit before buying the thing! :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That doesn't deal with outswing on curves, both vertical and
>> horizontal,
>> and at the ends and middle of the carriages.
>
> I had thought of that, actually. However, most of that can be calculated
> pretty accurately with a bit of geometry and a piece of paper. Surely,
> they can't order the new train and only then start to experiment?
>
> Incidentally, vertical outswing - you mean that the highest part of the
> carriage swings away from the centre line?
>
> Is there a lot of movement on the suspension? Presumably, that would
> vary with both speed and loading? There must be standards for the
> clearances needed to allow for that sort of thing safely?
>
> I worked on computer aided design in the engineering department at a
> university in 1970. They were working on similar stuff then. Surely,
> this is by now easy-peasy stuff to digitise and model with a standard
> computer program, long long long before you actually buy any rolling
> stock?
>
> If not, there's a worldwide market that ought to be crying out for a
> system.
>
>
> What, on earth, would they have done if the rolling stock did not fit in
> the tunnel, or could only go through at say 10MPH?

Surely no-one would sign-off a product against a spec without actually
doing the test?

No matter how much calculation and playing with models may be done to
make sure that it will pass, the final test must be the real thing.

Of course, heads may roll if it fails, and no-one expects it to. But you
always do the test and document it.

nib

On 11/06/2021 18:45, Basil Jet wrote:
> On 11/06/2021 15:58, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 11/06/2021 13:03, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:31:11 +0100, Graeme Wall
>>> <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/06/2021 11:30, GB wrote:
>>>>> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>
> That roof is a mess. A train should look nice from a bridge as well as a
> platform.
>
>>>
>>> Yes, the normal procedure is to use polystyrene blocks stuck on to a
>>> smaller vehicle. They may well have done so with
>>> one of the old trains when they were still in service, and before the
>>> D-trains were even ordered.
>>>
>>
>> Someone
>
> Me
>
>> posted a link to pictures of it but I can't find it at the moment.
>
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eoa0tpWXEAAlNWE?format=jpg&name=small
>

Not the one I was thinking of but thanks.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 18:02:25 -0000 (UTC), nib
<news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 18:45:36 +0100, GB wrote:
>
>> On 11/06/2021 17:40, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/06/2021 16:05, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about
>>>>>> running a railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and
>>>>>> towed that through the tunnel before buying the new trains.
>>>>>> Obviously, I'm daft, so take no notice whatsoever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Making a millimetre-accurate 16m cardboard models probably more
>>>>> expensive than bashing the dents out of the roof if the clearance
>>>>> calculations proved wrong.
>>>>
>>>> To clarify, I'd just make a 2D model of the maximum cross section. I
>>>> agree that a full sized 3D model would be silly.
>>>>
>>>> I'm just surprised that the people in the photo are paying quite so
>>>> much attention. They ought to have been *absolutely* certain it would
>>>> fit before buying the thing! :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That doesn't deal with outswing on curves, both vertical and
>>> horizontal,
>>> and at the ends and middle of the carriages.
>>
>> I had thought of that, actually. However, most of that can be calculated
>> pretty accurately with a bit of geometry and a piece of paper. Surely,
>> they can't order the new train and only then start to experiment?
>>
>> Incidentally, vertical outswing - you mean that the highest part of the
>> carriage swings away from the centre line?
>>
>> Is there a lot of movement on the suspension? Presumably, that would
>> vary with both speed and loading? There must be standards for the
>> clearances needed to allow for that sort of thing safely?
>>
>> I worked on computer aided design in the engineering department at a
>> university in 1970. They were working on similar stuff then. Surely,
>> this is by now easy-peasy stuff to digitise and model with a standard
>> computer program, long long long before you actually buy any rolling
>> stock?
>>
>> If not, there's a worldwide market that ought to be crying out for a
>> system.
>>
>>
>> What, on earth, would they have done if the rolling stock did not fit in
>> the tunnel, or could only go through at say 10MPH?
>
>Surely no-one would sign-off a product against a spec without actually
>doing the test?
>
>No matter how much calculation and playing with models may be done to
>make sure that it will pass, the final test must be the real thing.
>
>Of course, heads may roll if it fails, and no-one expects it to. But you
>always do the test and document it.
>
Nobody thought a Duchess was foul to gauge on the line out of
Marylebone until the ballast had been packed up a few times over the
years (Willesden Green?).

On 11/06/2021 19:02, nib wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 18:45:36 +0100, GB wrote:
>
>> On 11/06/2021 17:40, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/06/2021 16:05, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about
>>>>>> running a railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and
>>>>>> towed that through the tunnel before buying the new trains.
>>>>>> Obviously, I'm daft, so take no notice whatsoever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Making a millimetre-accurate 16m cardboard models probably more
>>>>> expensive than bashing the dents out of the roof if the clearance
>>>>> calculations proved wrong.
>>>>
>>>> To clarify, I'd just make a 2D model of the maximum cross section. I
>>>> agree that a full sized 3D model would be silly.
>>>>
>>>> I'm just surprised that the people in the photo are paying quite so
>>>> much attention. They ought to have been *absolutely* certain it would
>>>> fit before buying the thing! :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That doesn't deal with outswing on curves, both vertical and
>>> horizontal,
>>> and at the ends and middle of the carriages.
>>
>> I had thought of that, actually. However, most of that can be calculated
>> pretty accurately with a bit of geometry and a piece of paper. Surely,
>> they can't order the new train and only then start to experiment?
>>
>> Incidentally, vertical outswing - you mean that the highest part of the
>> carriage swings away from the centre line?
>>
>> Is there a lot of movement on the suspension? Presumably, that would
>> vary with both speed and loading? There must be standards for the
>> clearances needed to allow for that sort of thing safely?
>>
>> I worked on computer aided design in the engineering department at a
>> university in 1970. They were working on similar stuff then. Surely,
>> this is by now easy-peasy stuff to digitise and model with a standard
>> computer program, long long long before you actually buy any rolling
>> stock?
>>
>> If not, there's a worldwide market that ought to be crying out for a
>> system.
>>
>>
>> What, on earth, would they have done if the rolling stock did not fit in
>> the tunnel, or could only go through at say 10MPH?
>
> Surely no-one would sign-off a product against a spec without actually
> doing the test?
>
> No matter how much calculation and playing with models may be done to
> make sure that it will pass, the final test must be the real thing.
>
> Of course, heads may roll if it fails, and no-one expects it to. But you
> always do the test and document it.
>

It's happened.

There was the infamous incident in France, where nobody bothered to
check rolling stock against loading gauge at stations, for one. I'm sure
that somebody knows more than me about that incident.

A similar thing happened on the New York City Subway in the 1960s, when
they acquired the R-38. It turned out that the railcars' length of 60
feet meant that the swingout was not clearing gangways in certain areas
along the Fulton Street Line. This necessitated rebuilding of some of
the tunnel structures in order to capacitate the new rolling stock,
AIUI.

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk <hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 11/06/2021 19:02, nib wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 18:45:36 +0100, GB wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/06/2021 17:40, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/06/2021 16:05, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about
>>>>>>> running a railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and
>>>>>>> towed that through the tunnel before buying the new trains.
>>>>>>> Obviously, I'm daft, so take no notice whatsoever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Making a millimetre-accurate 16m cardboard models probably more
>>>>>> expensive than bashing the dents out of the roof if the clearance
>>>>>> calculations proved wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> To clarify, I'd just make a 2D model of the maximum cross section. I
>>>>> agree that a full sized 3D model would be silly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just surprised that the people in the photo are paying quite so
>>>>> much attention. They ought to have been *absolutely* certain it would
>>>>> fit before buying the thing! :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That doesn't deal with outswing on curves, both vertical and
>>>> horizontal,
>>>> and at the ends and middle of the carriages.
>>>
>>> I had thought of that, actually. However, most of that can be calculated
>>> pretty accurately with a bit of geometry and a piece of paper. Surely,
>>> they can't order the new train and only then start to experiment?
>>>
>>> Incidentally, vertical outswing - you mean that the highest part of the
>>> carriage swings away from the centre line?
>>>
>>> Is there a lot of movement on the suspension? Presumably, that would
>>> vary with both speed and loading? There must be standards for the
>>> clearances needed to allow for that sort of thing safely?
>>>
>>> I worked on computer aided design in the engineering department at a
>>> university in 1970. They were working on similar stuff then. Surely,
>>> this is by now easy-peasy stuff to digitise and model with a standard
>>> computer program, long long long before you actually buy any rolling
>>> stock?
>>>
>>> If not, there's a worldwide market that ought to be crying out for a
>>> system.
>>>
>>>
>>> What, on earth, would they have done if the rolling stock did not fit in
>>> the tunnel, or could only go through at say 10MPH?
>>
>> Surely no-one would sign-off a product against a spec without actually
>> doing the test?
>>
>> No matter how much calculation and playing with models may be done to
>> make sure that it will pass, the final test must be the real thing.
>>
>> Of course, heads may roll if it fails, and no-one expects it to. But you
>> always do the test and document it.
>>
>
> It's happened.
>
> There was the infamous incident in France, where nobody bothered to
> check rolling stock against loading gauge at stations, for one. I'm sure
> that somebody knows more than me about that incident.

Yes, that's probably the worst known case:

French red faces over trains that are 'too wide'
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27497727>

On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 23:46:41 +0100, Charles Ellson
<charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 18:02:25 -0000 (UTC), nib
><news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 18:45:36 +0100, GB wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/06/2021 17:40, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/06/2021 16:05, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about
>>>>>>> running a railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and
>>>>>>> towed that through the tunnel before buying the new trains.
>>>>>>> Obviously, I'm daft, so take no notice whatsoever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Making a millimetre-accurate 16m cardboard models probably more
>>>>>> expensive than bashing the dents out of the roof if the clearance
>>>>>> calculations proved wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> To clarify, I'd just make a 2D model of the maximum cross section. I
>>>>> agree that a full sized 3D model would be silly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just surprised that the people in the photo are paying quite so
>>>>> much attention. They ought to have been *absolutely* certain it would
>>>>> fit before buying the thing! :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That doesn't deal with outswing on curves, both vertical and
>>>> horizontal,
>>>> and at the ends and middle of the carriages.
>>>
>>> I had thought of that, actually. However, most of that can be calculated
>>> pretty accurately with a bit of geometry and a piece of paper. Surely,
>>> they can't order the new train and only then start to experiment?
>>>
>>> Incidentally, vertical outswing - you mean that the highest part of the
>>> carriage swings away from the centre line?
>>>
>>> Is there a lot of movement on the suspension? Presumably, that would
>>> vary with both speed and loading? There must be standards for the
>>> clearances needed to allow for that sort of thing safely?
>>>
>>> I worked on computer aided design in the engineering department at a
>>> university in 1970. They were working on similar stuff then. Surely,
>>> this is by now easy-peasy stuff to digitise and model with a standard
>>> computer program, long long long before you actually buy any rolling
>>> stock?
>>>
>>> If not, there's a worldwide market that ought to be crying out for a
>>> system.
>>>
>>>
>>> What, on earth, would they have done if the rolling stock did not fit in
>>> the tunnel, or could only go through at say 10MPH?
>>
>>Surely no-one would sign-off a product against a spec without actually
>>doing the test?
>>
>>No matter how much calculation and playing with models may be done to
>>make sure that it will pass, the final test must be the real thing.
>>
>>Of course, heads may roll if it fails, and no-one expects it to. But you
>>always do the test and document it.
>>
>Nobody thought a Duchess was foul to gauge on the line out of
>Marylebone until the ballast had been packed up a few times over the
>years (Willesden Green?).

Same thing happened with a Duchess at Bramhope Tunnel, and King Edesrd
II had its saferty valves and whistle knocked off in a bridge strike
at Paddington.

GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
> On 11/06/2021 17:40, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2021 16:05, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about running a
>>>>> railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and towed that
>>>>> through the tunnel before buying the new trains. Obviously, I'm daft, so
>>>>> take no notice whatsoever.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Making a millimetre-accurate 16m cardboard models probably more expensive
>>>> than bashing the dents out of the roof if the clearance calculations proved
>>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> To clarify, I'd just make a 2D model of the maximum cross section. I
>>> agree that a full sized 3D model would be silly.
>>>
>>> I'm just surprised that the people in the photo are paying quite so much
>>> attention. They ought to have been *absolutely* certain it would fit
>>> before buying the thing! :)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That doesn't deal with outswing on curves, both vertical and horizontal,
>> and at the ends and middle of the carriages.
>
> I had thought of that, actually. However, most of that can be calculated
> pretty accurately with a bit of geometry and a piece of paper.
>

As indeed I'm very sure was done.

> Surely,
> they can't order the new train and only then start to experiment?
>

I'd be very confident that the necessary calculations were done before the
trains were ordered.

> Incidentally, vertical outswing - you mean that the highest part of the
> carriage swings away from the centre line?
>

Vertically, in terms of this tunnel, I'm thinking of what we've observed at
low bridges before (specifically mentioned by Roland I think) - a vehicle
will fit under a lower bridge on dead flat road/track than if that bridge
is over a dip in the road. ie, if the vertical curve is severe enough, the
mid-point of the carriage will be higher above rail level than when
measured above the bogie pivots.

Similarly going over a hump, the top of the front of the vehicle will be
higher above road/rail surface than the mid-point. (This is specifically
warned about on signs at UWCs on the electrified section of the Berks&Hants
(B&H) line, where the line is on low embankment compared to the fields
<https://twitter.com/annanoyddryver/status/1403482593362907139?s=21>

> Is there a lot of movement on the suspension? Presumably, that would
> vary with both speed and loading? There must be standards for the
> clearances needed to allow for that sort of thing safely?
>

Yes indeed, clearly listed in some NR documents no doubt.

> I worked on computer aided design in the engineering department at a
> university in 1970. They were working on similar stuff then. Surely,
> this is by now easy-peasy stuff to digitise and model with a standard
> computer program, long long long before you actually buy any rolling stock?
>

As was undoubtedly done.

> If not, there's a worldwide market that ought to be crying out for a system.
>
>
> What, on earth, would they have done if the rolling stock did not fit in
> the tunnel, or could only go through at say 10MPH?
>

Presumably make alterations to one, or the other, or both, or make a claim
against whoever provided the software which said it would fit?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 11/06/2021 23:46, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 18:02:25 -0000 (UTC), nib
> <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 18:45:36 +0100, GB wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/06/2021 17:40, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/06/2021 16:05, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>>>>> GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about
>>>>>>> running a railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and
>>>>>>> towed that through the tunnel before buying the new trains.
>>>>>>> Obviously, I'm daft, so take no notice whatsoever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Making a millimetre-accurate 16m cardboard models probably more
>>>>>> expensive than bashing the dents out of the roof if the clearance
>>>>>> calculations proved wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> To clarify, I'd just make a 2D model of the maximum cross section. I
>>>>> agree that a full sized 3D model would be silly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just surprised that the people in the photo are paying quite so
>>>>> much attention. They ought to have been *absolutely* certain it would
>>>>> fit before buying the thing! :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That doesn't deal with outswing on curves, both vertical and
>>>> horizontal,
>>>> and at the ends and middle of the carriages.
>>>
>>> I had thought of that, actually. However, most of that can be calculated
>>> pretty accurately with a bit of geometry and a piece of paper. Surely,
>>> they can't order the new train and only then start to experiment?
>>>
>>> Incidentally, vertical outswing - you mean that the highest part of the
>>> carriage swings away from the centre line?
>>>
>>> Is there a lot of movement on the suspension? Presumably, that would
>>> vary with both speed and loading? There must be standards for the
>>> clearances needed to allow for that sort of thing safely?
>>>
>>> I worked on computer aided design in the engineering department at a
>>> university in 1970. They were working on similar stuff then. Surely,
>>> this is by now easy-peasy stuff to digitise and model with a standard
>>> computer program, long long long before you actually buy any rolling
>>> stock?
>>>
>>> If not, there's a worldwide market that ought to be crying out for a
>>> system.
>>>
>>>
>>> What, on earth, would they have done if the rolling stock did not fit in
>>> the tunnel, or could only go through at say 10MPH?
>>
>> Surely no-one would sign-off a product against a spec without actually
>> doing the test?
>>
>> No matter how much calculation and playing with models may be done to
>> make sure that it will pass, the final test must be the real thing.
>>
>> Of course, heads may roll if it fails, and no-one expects it to. But you
>> always do the test and document it.
>>
> Nobody thought a Duchess was foul to gauge on the line out of
> Marylebone until the ballast had been packed up a few times over the
> years (Willesden Green?).
>

Or a King class near Hereford.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 11/06/2021 23:47, hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> There was the infamous incident in France, where nobody bothered to
> check rolling stock against loading gauge at stations, for one. I'm sure
> that somebody knows more than me about that incident.

A train got stuck at Banavie when they were making one of the films. I
think they removed the running boards from the carriages to get around
the curve.

On 12/06/2021 00:59, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> Same thing happened with a Duchess at Bramhope Tunnel, and King Edesrd
> II had its saferty valves and whistle knocked off in a bridge strike
> at Paddington.

I saw an ambulance station that had to have a slot cut in the roof beams
after one vehicle lost its blue light.

On 11/06/2021 11:30, GB wrote:
> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>
>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>
> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about running a
> railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and towed that
> through the tunnel before buying the new trains. Obviously, I'm daft, so
> take no notice whatsoever.

Do you know that they didn't?

Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
> On 11/06/2021 11:30, GB wrote:
>> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>>
>>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>>
>> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about running a
>> railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and towed that
>> through the tunnel before buying the new trains. Obviously, I'm daft, so
>> take no notice whatsoever.
>
> Do you know that they didn't?
>

Whatever measurements had been made in advance, there's no substitute for
an actual gauging test with the real vehicle. Among other things, based on
the actual measured clearances, they will need to assess what speed limit
to impose in the tunnel.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roger Lynn <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 11/06/2021 11:30, GB wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2021 01:07, Recliner wrote:
>>>> 484001 being trialled through Ryde tunnel, being towed by a Unimog
>>>>
>>>> <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3hUiBLXEAIbjKD?format=jpg&name=large>
>>>
>>> Now, if it were me, and of course I know nothing at all about running a
>>> railway, I'd have made a full-size cardboard cut-out and towed that
>>> through the tunnel before buying the new trains. Obviously, I'm daft, so
>>> take no notice whatsoever.
>>
>> Do you know that they didn't?
>>
>
> Whatever measurements had been made in advance, there's no substitute for
> an actual gauging test with the real vehicle. Among other things, based on
> the actual measured clearances, they will need to assess what speed limit
> to impose in the tunnel.
>
>

You also have to factor in simple human error. Lots of measurement and
modelling can be done in advance of production, with pages of detailed
specifications produced. But it only needs something to be specified or
transcribed incorrectly for that error to propagate through the entire
process. That’s how very expensive space missions, that have mountains of
paperwork, have been lost. The other problem with specifications are that
people tend to concentrate very hard on meeting the specs, but ignore
something that someone has failed to specify. There are few complex
engineering projects that are 100% watertight in their original
requirements and specifications.