New compliant DMU engines

[ryan125hst]

It seems to be accepted in the rail industry that new Diesel Multiple Units are not required as upcoming electrification works over the next six years or so prevents the need for them. This means that, of the passenger trains currently on order, the Bi-Mode IEP’s are the only trains that contain diesel engines. However, there is currently a national shortage of diesel trains, a situation which was shown now Chiltern will acquire First Transpennine Express’s 9 Class 170 Turbostars. There is currently a major problem in the north with Northern Rail’s diesel fleet aging, a problem which is made worse by the fact that many trains are overcrowded, meaning passengers have to travel on old, uncomfortable trains in crowded conditions.

First Transpennine Express are also in desperate need of additional rolling stock. The addition of the Class 350/4’s will help, but only in the short term as the loss of the Turbostars in a couple of years’ time will mean that, once again, they will be desperately short of rolling stock.

It annoys me when I see people claiming that compliant engines are not available and that there will be enough trains to cascade after electrification. I've seen the post by 158722 which shows that a cascade will allow the withdrawal of the Pacers, but his plan doesn't really address the issues of the requirement for extra capacity in the areas where Sprinters are being cascaded to. In my opinion, more DMU’s are the only answer, and we need them far before 2024 as suggested by rolling stock plans I’ve seen online. As far as I’m aware, passenger numbers are still on the increase, so even if there were enough DMU’s to go around, we still need additional trains to increase capacity.

I’m no expert on engine emissions standards (so I might be wrong here- forgive me if I am!), but I’m sure compliant engines are available, contrary to belief. The 6H 1800 R83P, as used by the Class 172, has a replacement, it seems, the 6H 1800 R85. It has the same horsepower, but is complaint with EU Nonroad directive 97/68 EC, Stage IIIB (source: http://www.mtu-online.com/great-bri...nes-for-rail-traction/powerpack-for-railcars/) For larger trains, there is the QSK19-R, an underfloor rail engine meeting tier 4 final/stage IIB lower emissions”, and that was revealed two years ago. (source: http://cumminsengines.com/news-pres...4+FINAL/STAGE+IIIB+LOW+EMISSIONS+AT+INNOTRANS ).

So, am I right? If so, I'm sure that new DMU's will need to be ordered within the next ten years or so to add capacity on routes that are overcrowded and, ultimately, replace the Sprinters. That is, unless the whole rail network is electrified...

Thank you

Ryan

 

[tbtc]

We could do with more units today, and we are going to be stretched over the next few years (as units need some time out of service to be upgraded to meet acessibility requirements etc), but I say no new DMUs should be built/ will be built. It's for two main reasons:

Firstly, regulations re engine emissions mean we can't build any more of recent modern stock, so it becomes harder and harder to have follow on orders at a reasonable price (contrast with how we've been able to get more 350s, many years after the initial batch were built). You could design a DMU with complaint engines (though they may go out of date shortly after for any further orders), but it becomes more and more expensive.

Secondly, with the remaining trunk routes (GWML, MML, TPE) being wired in CP5, any further electrification in CP6 - even if only half the distance is wired compared to CP5 - will mean large numbers of DMUs become surplus to requirements (e.g. whilst the MML won't replace hundreds of DMUs, it will improve the business case for filling in the missing gaps between Sheffield and Doncaster/ Leeds/ Huddersfield where there are a few "low hanging fruit).

So, by 2024 we'll probably be able to run the remaining diesel services with post-privatisation DMUs (168, 170, 171, 172, 175, 180, 185 etc). If there are going to be enough modern DMUs to run those services post-2024 then any new build of DMU is going to have to compete for the TOCs who still need diesel services.

Put it this way, if you built some "173" today (i.e. a follow on of a recent class of modern DMU) then you'd probably be able to lease them for the next seven/ten years, but after that there may be more DMUs than required - whilst a DMU is built to last maybe 25/30 years.

It's a bit like solving the housing "crisis" by building lots of new houses that we'll only need for a decade - great short term solution, but you're going to have an over-supply in a few years time.

The question is, how do we manage the scarce number of DMUs in the next few years? No more new diesel routes? Cut some DMU services back to minimise running "under the wires" (with possible EMU replacement on the electrified sections)?

 

[route:oxford]

It might not be a problem in early course.

If Scotland chooses to leave the UK later in the year - they may not be in Europe either. So the Scottish Government won't need to worry about Euro compliance.

Likewise following the promised UK/rUK Euro referendum the UK/rUK may also leave Europe so won't need to worry about compliance.

 

[WestCountry]

I'm sure that new DMU's will need to be ordered within the next ten years or so to add capacity on routes that are overcrowded and, ultimately, replace the Sprinters. That is, unless the whole rail network is electrified...

I doubt we'll see any more DMUs, other than perhaps a few more 172s to defuse the TPE/Chiltern situation. Within your 'ten years' the GW suburban, North-West, GOBLIN, EGIP and TPE North projects will have freed up enough to replace every Pacer, plus dozens more vehicles for expansion. The 15x units have plenty of life yet.
If there's still a demand for more diesels, wiring the Chiltern and Snow Hill lines would free up a large fleet of modern DMUs.

 

[thealexweb]

There is no chance of pre-privatization being remove from service entirely by 2024. Northern Rail would implode even with its handful of electrified routes.

 

[455driver]

I’m no expert on engine emissions standards (so I might be wrong here- forgive me if I am!), but I’m sure compliant engines are available, contrary to belief. The 6H 1800 R83P, as used by the Class 172, has a replacement, it seems, the 6H 1800 R85. It has the same horsepower, but is complaint with EU Nonroad directive 97/68 EC, Stage IIIB (source: http://www.mtu-online.com/great-bri...nes-for-rail-traction/powerpack-for-railcars/) For larger trains, there is the QSK19-R, an underfloor rail engine meeting tier 4 final/stage IIB lower emissions”, and that was revealed two years ago. (source: http://cumminsengines.com/news-pres...4+FINAL/STAGE+IIIB+LOW+EMISSIONS+AT+INNOTRANS ).

Thank you

Ryan

Does it fit under the solebar?
Our trains have to be quite a bit smaller than most of Europe!
The engine might well be compliant but the amount of gubbins (technical term ) stuck on the outside might mean that it wont fit!

 

[47802]

Would seem to me that some provincial EDMU's might be the answer. Hasn't Daft been considering the possibility, OK they might be more expensive, but clearly has the advantage of using them off electrified routes and not having to replace them if more of the route they are used on gets electrified.

Possibly not built in great quantities but possibly enough to ease the DMU situation in the medium term. Would allow such as Scarborough for instance to retain a TPX service, but at the same time eliminate the DMU requirement to be used elsewhere.

 

[ryan125hst]

OK, say new DMU's might not be needed before 2020, but what happens then? By 2020, even the 158's/9's will be 30 years old and the other Sprinters older still. While we will have the younger Turbostars which will more than likely be used on busier, longer distance and higher speed routes, they are overkill for branchlines and would surely be too expensive to run. How much would a Turbostar cost to run between Middlesbrough and Whitby, or from Cleethorpes to Barton-on-Humber compared to a Class 156 or Class 153?

While I agree that we can manage without new DMU's for a while as I have seen 158722's thread from September of last year (the only problem being increasing passenger numbers and service frequency improvements as I can't see much capacity to facilitate this), I'm sure we will be in a situation where more DMU's will be needed in, say 15-20 years time, surely.

After all, unless virtually the whole network is electrified, there will still be many lines without wires. I hope the DfT have thought this through!

If Scotland chooses to leave the UK later in the year - they may not be in Europe either. So the Scottish Government won't need to worry about Euro compliance.

If Scotland leaves the EU, will we be able to receive the cascaded 156's and 158's mention in 158722's plan? If not, we will certainly have a major shortage come 2019!

Does it fit under the solebar?
Our trains have to be quite a bit smaller than most of Europe!
The engine might well be compliant but the amount of gubbins (technical term ) stuck on the outside might mean that it wont fit!

I never considered this, but this is why I asked: I knew there would be a catch somewhere! If you follow the link to MTU's site above, you will be able to click on the engine models. Surprisingly, it looks like the compliant engine is quite a bit smaller than its predecessor. I don't know if that includes all the emissions cleaning gubbins though. As for Cummins, I don't think the data is available.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would seem to me that some provincial EDMU's might be the answer. Hasn't Daft been considering the possibility, OK they might be more expensive, but clearly has the advantage of using them off electrified routes and not having to replace them if more of the route they are used on gets electrified.

Possibly not built in great quantities but possibly enough to ease the DMU situation in the medium term. Would allow such as Scarborough for instance to retain a TPX service, but at the same time eliminate the DMU requirement to be used elsewhere.

I was thinking about this for new TPE stock (another plan of mine that I am yet to type out and post!) If they were to get, say, four car DEMU's: Three coaches of standard class, one of first with a buffet counter, toilet in in carriage, ability to double up to 8 carriages, Selective door operation, engines under each coach but a pantograph and transformer fitted, ability to remove all but one engine (for back up as with the IEP's). I think that would be a sensible plan for the Transpennine franchise. it would allow new stock to be built and come into service before electrification is complete and would allow engines to be removed as and when they aren't needed.

The above wouldn't help Northern much though, except for the 185's they might receive for the routes currently operated by 158's.

 

[170401]

If Scotland leaves the EU, will we be able to receive the cascaded 156's and 158's mention in 158722's plan? If not, we will certainly have a major shortage come 2019!



.

I'd be surprised if independence had any effect on current rolling stock or deployment plans. Unless an independent Scotland is willing to stump up the cash to buy them, all the Scottish units will still be owned by the leasing companies that currently own them and it would be up to them to do with as they see fit once their Scottish contracts terminated.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

153s won't be around much longer anyway, i read somewhere (probably a thread in this forum) that by the time all the stuff is done to comply with the accessibility regs, there wouldn't be very much seating left so they'll either be converted back into whatever class they were when they were 2 car units or get scrapped

 

[Manchester77]

153s won't be around much longer anyway, i read somewhere (probably a thread in this forum) that by the time all the stuff is done to comply with the accessibility regs, there wouldn't be very much seating left so they'll either be converted back into whatever class they were when they were 2 car units or get scrapped

Porterbrook (who own them) have released refurbishment options which very much take them into the 2020s implying that what you've said isn't true and they do have a future?
http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/downloads/brochures/153 Brochure.pdf

 

[jopsuk]

If there was sufficient demand for a compliant, powerful enough engine that could fit into a UK DMU then the engine manufacturers would produce one. It could be done without a doubt.

 

[Domh245]

If there was sufficient demand for a compliant, powerful enough engine that could fit into a UK DMU then the engine manufacturers would produce one. It could be done without a doubt.

But it would no doubt be expensive, with all of the development costs and all. They couldn't just scale down an existing engine on a linear scale, they'd probably need to add all sorts of fancy cooling mechanisms and other little modifications, which would also make it a bit more complex.

 

[jopsuk]

Indeed. But I've absolutely no doubt it could be done. They'd probably end up with tech that was useful on larger engines though.

 

[455driver]

153s won't be around much longer anyway, i read somewhere (probably a thread in this forum) that by the time all the stuff is done to comply with the accessibility regs, there wouldn't be very much seating left so they'll either be converted back into whatever class they were when they were 2 car units or get scrapped

Or rip the current toilet out and leave it as a standing area/ fit seats, or leave the non compliant toilet in and use them to strengthen services by coupling them up to a compliant 2 coach unit!

Not every coach will have to be converted, just one or two compliant coaches per train depending on the length of said train!

This a repeat this a repeat this a repeat this a repeat this a repeat.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I see the future as Battery trains with sporadic OHLE to charge. Just my personal vision i know we are short of diesel stock but come 2024 i think we will be fine....

 

[TheJRB]

While we will have the younger Turbostars which will more than likely be used on busier, longer distance and higher speed routes, they are overkill for branchlines and would surely be too expensive to run. How much would a Turbostar cost to run between Middlesbrough and Whitby, or from Cleethorpes to Barton-on-Humber compared to a Class 156 or Class 153?

Turbostars are already used on some branch lines. Greater Anglia 170s are mainly used on "secondary" routes like the lines to Lowestoft and Ipswich/Norwich to Cambridge/Peterborough. Southern 171s are used on the Ashford to Hastings and Uckfield to Oxted lines (admittedly, each service does then run over a faster electrified stretch). London Midland run theirs on Birmingham to Rugeley among other routes. Whilst all the lines I've listed are well used and certainly not the quietest lines in the country, they are not primary main line routes.

The whole "we're not building any more DMUs" seems to be a bit of a fad to me. Fine, it'd be great to say we're replacing all diesels with electric trains, but without significantly more electrification, that simply isn't practical and/or possible. Just another political move that thinks more about today than future implications.

At some point, there will have to be a new order of diesels. It just looks like it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

 

[DownSouth]

I see the future as Battery trains with sporadic OHLE to charge. Just my personal vision i know we are short of diesel stock but come 2024 i think we will be fine....

Sounds as if it will be just like fusion power, which has been "just 25 years away" for nearly 50 years now.

 

[jopsuk]

I see the future as Battery trains with sporadic OHLE to charge. Just my personal vision i know we are short of diesel stock but come 2024 i think we will be fine....

Do we know how the project to try this out with a 379 is going?

 

[The Ham]

As always there will be a mix of answers to the problem of a shortage of DMU's.

Firstly post IEP there will be some HST's being used on some services.

Next, once the ICWC franchise is let there's a good chance there will be most if not of their 221's will be released.

New technology (e.g. batteries) will remove the need for some DMU's.

IEP could, although they are mostly for intercity services, remove the need for some DMU's.

Electrification will release a load of DMU's.

Then there is likely going to be an order for DMU's.

Of course there may be other things which help.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Who says the diesel engines have to fit under the floor?
See the Stadler GTW design for example: http://www.stadlerrail.com/en/vehicles/gtw/

 

[WatcherZero]

For Stadler the corridor past the engine is really narrow, commonly accepted it wouldnt be possible in UK gauge.

Battery vehicles have been done before, many heavy rail prototypes and a few trams already in service.

 

[northwichcat]

One thing was mentioned in Network Rail's rolling stock strategy document was any new diesel rolling stock should be ordered for regional routes (which would have a good business case for new rolling stock) but be suitable to cascade down to rural services which would have a poor business case for either electrification or brand new rolling stock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Porterbrook (who own them) have released refurbishment options which very much take them into the 2020s implying that what you've said isn't true and they do have a future?
http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/downloads/brochures/153 Brochure.pdf

Have you actually read that brochure?

They have listed options for making them complaint but the conclusion at the end is:

Full PRM-TSI compliance -Depends on service requirements and lease length, no units currently contracted for this work.

In comparison for 150s they've said:

Full PRM-TSI compliance
Duration: 3 Weeks (with C6)
The vehicles will be modified to comply with the PRM TSI legislation which will include seat back handles, additional wheelchair space/call for aid button, door sounders, and boarding ramp fixing points. The toilet will need replacement for full PRM-TSI compliance.

And then gone on include Alternator Replacement, Fitting bar couplers at intermediate positions, Earth test points, Auxiliary heater change, Renew electrical boxes and Install CET tanks as part of the base offer with options for further enhancements.

So we can conclude Porterbrook see the 150s being refurbished in their current form and continuing to stay in service. However, for 153s they want to discuss with operators what they want them for and agree to a lease before any refurbishment program is undertaken.

 

[eastwestdivide]

For Stadler the corridor past the engine is really narrow, commonly accepted it wouldnt be possible in UK gauge.
...

I'm not suggesting the Stadlers as a definitive answer, just saying it's not necessarily a requirement for the engines to be underfloor. Other engineering solutions may be possible - more, but smaller engines to make a wide enough corridor; or build them with the engine compartment at one end instead, like the old SR DEMUs?

 

[transmanche]

or build them with the engine compartment at one end instead, like the old SR DEMUs?

Which was also the option chosen for the prototype Class 210 DEMUs wasn't it?

 

[455driver]

Which was also the option chosen for the prototype Class 210 DEMUs wasn't it?

And promptly dismissed as offering too few seats compared to the underfloor option.

 

[talltim]

As soon as I saw the thread title I knew there would be complaints

 

[northwichcat]

As soon as I saw the thread title I knew there would be complaints

Auto-correct like complaints.

Auto-correct is also the friend of Polar Bears: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ations-into-polar-bear-adoptions-9213867.html

 

[PG]

And promptly dismissed as offering too few seats compared to the underfloor option.

But they could do a '458/5' and have fewer seats in the saloon with more space for standees

 

[ryan125hst]

If there was sufficient demand for a compliant, powerful enough engine that could fit into a UK DMU then the engine manufacturers would produce one. It could be done without a doubt.

I'm sure this is the case. If there is demand, it will be done!

153s won't be around much longer anyway, i read somewhere (probably a thread in this forum) that by the time all the stuff is done to comply with the accessibility regs, there wouldn't be very much seating left so they'll either be converted back into whatever class they were when they were 2 car units or get scrapped

Or rip the current toilet out and leave it as a standing area/ fit seats, or leave the non compliant toilet in and use them to strengthen services by coupling them up to a compliant 2 coach unit!

Not every coach will have to be converted, just one or two compliant coaches per train depending on the length of said train!

I'm sure the 153's have life left in them yet. I've heard rumors that the bodies are sagging a little, but given that Poterbrook have release a brochure detailing how they intend to keep them running, it can't be that bad.

Porterbrook seem to suggest that it would be possible to remove the current toilet and built an accessible one at the opposite end of the vehicle. I don't know how expensive this would be though, given the fact that windows would need to be repositioned and the internal layout altered quite dramatically.

In my opinion, a better option would be to semi-permanently couple them to Class 156's, giving a 3 car train for busy routes. If they were to couple them toilet end towards the 156, and have the 156 so the toilet was at the opposite end to where the 153 was coupled (so 156 DMSL-DMS-153), you would end up with a train would around 200 seats, two toilets (one of which is accessible) and reasonably comfortable. Am I right in thinking that this would have a similar capacity to a double Pacer?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The whole "we're not building any more DMUs" seems to be a bit of a fad to me. Fine, it'd be great to say we're replacing all diesels with electric trains, but without significantly more electrification, that simply isn't practical and/or possible. Just another political move that thinks more about today than future implications.

At some point, there will have to be a new order of diesels. It just looks like it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

I'm glad there's someone else out there that thinks we need more DMU's! I understand electrification will reduce our reliance on them, but there are many lines out there that there is almost no hope in getting them electrified, not at the minute anyway. They'll need more DMU's before long.

Turbostars are already used on some branch lines. Greater Anglia 170s are mainly used on "secondary" routes like the lines to Lowestoft and Ipswich/Norwich to Cambridge/Peterborough. Southern 171s are used on the Ashford to Hastings and Uckfield to Oxted lines (admittedly, each service does then run over a faster electrified stretch). London Midland run theirs on Birmingham to Rugeley among other routes. Whilst all the lines I've listed are well used and certainly not the quietest lines in the country, they are not primary main line routes.

I wonder how these compare cost wise? Am I correct in saying the 172's are lighter than the 170's so would be cheaper to operate? If 170's can be used on branch lines, I don't see why 172's aren't a viable option (see my DMU plan that I intend to post shortly).

I see the future as Battery trains with sporadic OHLE to charge. Just my personal vision i know we are short of diesel stock but come 2024 i think we will be fine....

There are two things that worry me with this: Cost and running out of power mid section. Batteries are heavy and expensive and only have a limited lifespan, and you will need an awful lot of them to move a train at a decent speed (say 60mph) for any length of time, as well as supply air conditioning, lighting etc. It would probably be cheaper to make diesel engines complaint!

Also, what happens as the batteries age, or if a train has to stop midsection and the batteries end up going flat? Do you think a small diesel engine should be included for emergency use (to get the train to the next charging point?)

I'm not saying it will never happen- it's very innovative and exiting stuff. I'm wanting to go into Electrical and Electronic Engineering and I've accepted an offer at Sheffield Hallam University for a foundation year (Extended Degree in Engineering and Mathematics) that, if I pass, I will study the above, so all of this interests me. I just don't think it's that viable at the minute. The way technology is developing, I don't think we'll have to wait long though!