Porterbrook to create Pacer demonstrator (now unveiled)

[Greybeard33]

The regulations attach to the engine not the train. So you can carry on reconditioning the old engine indefinitely and even fit it to a new train, but if an existing train gets a new engine it will have to comply with the new regulations.

This does beg the question of how extensive the "reconditioning" can be before the "old" engine is regarded as a newly manufactured one that must be Stage IIIB compliant. If virtually all the original parts are replaced, i.e. new cylinder block and head, crankshaft, pistons etc., does the engine still retain its grandfather rights?

I guess the bottom line is that there can be no net increase in the number of non-compliant engines in service, so a new train can only get an old engine if it was originally fitted to a carriage that has now been scrapped.

 

[class 9]

That was the 150s (the oldest) after a Northern one was sent for heavy maintenance which finished up taking 18 months due to serious corrosion issues being found.

Angel trains 142s and 150s are in the process of having their floors replaced due to corrosion.
The 150s are being done at Wabtec Doncaster and the 142s at Holbeck.
They are Newton Heath sets, as they are returned there when done by Freightliner HH drivers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As an aside, I'm not sure how the SWT & Poterbrook plans are currently progressing with the trial re-geared SWT 158 - It has been back out in service recently, but the ZF Self Changing Gears seem to be giving it a much jerkier ride than the original Voith T211 set up, and the talk about re engining the fleet with newer fuel efficient engines seem to have gone quiet.

Interesting, as the Class 172s, while they sound like modern buses rather than trains[1], don't seem to ride particularly jerkily.

[1] What's new? The Class 101s sounded (and rattled) like classic buses.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Interesting, as the Class 172s, while they sound like modern buses rather than trains[1], don't seem to ride particularly jerkily.

[1] What's new? The Class 101s sounded (and rattled) like classic buses.

Neil

The Leyland National buses sounded like trains - the someone had the idea of creating a train based on the Leyland National bus. :roll:

 

[Murph]

Interesting, as the Class 172s, while they sound like modern buses rather than trains[1], don't seem to ride particularly jerkily.

[1] What's new? The Class 101s sounded (and rattled) like classic buses.

The 101s had a BUT (AEC / Leyland) engine, which was basically a contemporary bus engine. Not certain, but it may well have been a Leyland O.680 in the 101s, which you would find in many Leyland buses.

 

[edwin_m]

To clarify, if an existing train gets a new engine, the new regulations that apply to engines apply, or the whole train becomes governed by the new regulations?

The regulations I am referring to are the European emissions rules, which apply to engines used in off-road equipment. So the new engine would have to meet the stricter emissions limits, which might involve providing extra equipment to clean up the exhaust. It wouldn't affect the compliance of the rest of the train with Group Standards etc.

 

[Domh245]

Which is why GBRf and EMD did the silly thing where they built loads of engines for the 66s, shipped them here, sent them back and are now fitting them, because technically the engine is still fine. Does that mean that you could in theory design a new DMU compliant with latest group standards, but use an old engine that can be obtained in large quantities to power it - or do the latest group standards prohibit that?

 

[edwin_m]

This does beg the question of how extensive the "reconditioning" can be before the "old" engine is regarded as a newly manufactured one that must be Stage IIIB compliant. If virtually all the original parts are replaced, i.e. new cylinder block and head, crankshaft, pistons etc., does the engine still retain its grandfather rights?

I guess the bottom line is that there can be no net increase in the number of non-compliant engines in service, so a new train can only get an old engine if it was originally fitted to a carriage that has now been scrapped.

I don't know that level of detail. You'll have to dig through the regulations to answer that one - good luck!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which is why GBRf and EMD did the silly thing where they built loads of engines for the 66s, shipped them here, sent them back and are now fitting them, because technically the engine is still fine. Does that mean that you could in theory design a new DMU compliant with latest group standards, but use an old engine that can be obtained in large quantities to power it - or do the latest group standards prohibit that?

It was some kind of get-round of the emissions regulations. I think there was also a concession to allow a limited number of 66s to be built after they came into effect.

Yes you could put an old engine into a new unit. It would count as a new unit in terms of Group Standards but the emissions rules are a separate thing and the ones that would apply would be the ones that applied to the engine when it was built.

 

[fgwrich]

Has it been doing the Lymington branch or the Waterloo-Exeter route?

Initially it was being kept to the Salisbury 6 route, but it has been noticed working singly on the Salisbury to Waterloo stopping services and is now on the Lymington Branch as of this week.

The 101s had a BUT (AEC / Leyland) engine, which was basically a contemporary bus engine. Not certain, but it may well have been a Leyland O.680 in the 101s, which you would find in many Leyland buses.

Indeed they were, there is little difference between a rail mounted and bus mounted Leyland O.680 Engine and initially the earlier DMUs were powered by BUT (British United Traction - a joint venture between AEC & Leyland) engines, before the parternership was bought out by Leyland Motors who continued production until the advent of the TL11 Engine - Which also found use in buses such as the Leyland Tiger and the Class 140-144 Pacers.

Which is why GBRf and EMD did the silly thing where they built loads of engines for the 66s, shipped them here, sent them back and are now fitting them, because technically the engine is still fine. Does that mean that you could in theory design a new DMU compliant with latest group standards, but use an old engine that can be obtained in large quantities to power it - or do the latest group standards prohibit that?

That said, GBRf & EMD were at one stage looking into the possibility of constructing more 66s over here at Doncaster Roberts Road, and having the engines over here would be useful in case of a 66 requiring a spare engine before finding the loophole and sending the spare engines back to EMD.

Going back to the this thread though, I'm surprised RVEL are carrying out the work, I'd have thought Porterbrook would be working with Wolverton or WABTEC on this as apposed to RVEL who as of yet, have had little passenger rolling stock work.

 

[Greybeard33]

Which is why GBRf and EMD did the silly thing where they built loads of engines for the 66s, shipped them here, sent them back and are now fitting them, because technically the engine is still fine. Does that mean that you could in theory design a new DMU compliant with latest group standards, but use an old engine that can be obtained in large quantities to power it - or do the latest group standards prohibit that?

It was some kind of get-round of the emissions regulations. I think there was also a concession to allow a limited number of 66s to be built after they came into effect.

Yes you could put an old engine into a new unit. It would count as a new unit in terms of Group Standards but the emissions rules are a separate thing and the ones that would apply would be the ones that applied to the engine when it was built.

I suspect that the DfT would look critically at any scheme that was a blatant attempt to evade the regulations on a large scale. For example, refurbishing the engines from Pacers as they are withdrawn and using them to power a new Class of DMU. Any minor modification to suit the new installation, for example in the interfaces or control systems, might be used as an excuse to regard it as a new type design of engine, which would therefore be subject to the latest regulations.

 

[Murph]

I suspect that the DfT would look critically at any scheme that was a blatant attempt to evade the regulations on a large scale. For example, refurbishing the engines from Pacers as they are withdrawn and using them to power a new Class of DMU. Any minor modification to suit the new installation, for example in the interfaces or control systems, might be used as an excuse to regard it as a new type design of engine, which would therefore be subject to the latest regulations.

Why would DfT do that? The regs in question are not DfT's regs, and are actually just as much of a PITA to them as to the industry. There's absolutely nothing gained for DfT by meddling with fake-enforcement of regs that are not theirs. If anything, the EU competition regs would probably prohibit the DfT from grossly misinterpreting the EU emissions regs like that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would DfT do that? The regs in question are not DfT's regs, and are actually just as much of a PITA to them as to the industry. There's absolutely nothing gained for DfT by meddling with fake-enforcement of regs that are not theirs. If anything, the EU competition regs would probably prohibit the DfT from grossly misinterpreting the EU emissions regs like that.

Given that the DfT allow the blatent mickey-take that is "connectional" bus services that aren't in the slightest bit connectional other than in the timetable, in order for them to be eligible for domestic hours, I suspect they'd turn a blind eye to this too.

Neil

 

[Domh245]

Not if it was a DfT authorised and sanctioned scheme by A British train manufacturer to build more DMUs for very low prices. Especially if said DfT was part of a eurosceptic goverment.

 

[Greybeard33]

Why would DfT do that? The regs in question are not DfT's regs, and are actually just as much of a PITA to them as to the industry. There's absolutely nothing gained for DfT by meddling with fake-enforcement of regs that are not theirs. If anything, the EU competition regs would probably prohibit the DfT from grossly misinterpreting the EU emissions regs like that.

Not if it was a DfT authorised and sanctioned scheme by A British train manufacturer to build more DMUs for very low prices. Especially if said DfT was part of a eurosceptic goverment.

As I understand it, the DfT is responsible for enforcement of EU Directive 97/68/EC in the UK. The Directive is implemented into UK law. This is not some dastardly Brussels plot to cripple the UK's railways - these emissions standards are widely accepted internationally (not just in the EU) as necessary to protect public health from the harmful effects of particulates.

 

[Murph]

As I understand it, the DfT is responsible for enforcement of EU Directive 97/68/EC in the UK. The Directive is implemented into UK law. This is not some dastardly Brussels plot to cripple the UK's railways - these emissions standards are widely accepted internationally (not just in the EU) as necessary to protect public health from the harmful effects of particulates.

You were proposing that the DfT invent arbitrary rules which were not a part of the actual directive, to prevent people from being able to carry out business in ways permitted by the directive. I'd be surprised if such behaviour by them wouldn't end up being illegal, or at least the subject of significant backlash, public inquiries, etc. There's no benefit to the DfT from grossly misrepresenting the EU regs, so why on earth would they do such a thing?

 

[Brian Aylott]

Angel trains 142s and 150s are in the process of having their floors replaced due to corrosion.
The 150s are being done at Wabtec Doncaster and the 142s at Holbeck.
They are Newton Heath sets, as they are returned there when done by Freightliner HH drivers.

I presume that these are part of the planned C6 overhauls
Brian

 

[Greybeard33]

You were proposing that the DfT invent arbitrary rules which were not a part of the actual directive, to prevent people from being able to carry out business in ways permitted by the directive. I'd be surprised if such behaviour by them wouldn't end up being illegal, or at least the subject of significant backlash, public inquiries, etc. There's no benefit to the DfT from grossly misrepresenting the EU regs, so why on earth would they do such a thing?

No, I was merely suggesting that the DfT might want to ensure that the business proposal is fully compliant with the letter of the regs before permitting old polluting engines to stay in service for another 30 years or more. Otherwise it could come under fire from environmentalists and health campaigners.

 

[class 9]

I presume that these are part of the planned C6 overhauls
Brian

Apparently not, although I'm not 100% about the 150s at Wabtec, the 142s being done at Holbeck are just have there floors replaced, they are not even replacing the seats, the bus style bench seats are going straight back in!

 

[455driver]

153s wont conform to the regulations either post 2019 so conversion to 155s is usually mentionned

Stick a 153 in the middle of a 150/1 which is compliant to make a 3 coach unit, job done.

 

[northwichcat]

Stick a 153 in the middle of a 150/1 which is compliant to make a 3 coach unit, job done.

Been suggested before but apparently that would effectively create a new class of train due to 153s not being cleared for all routes 150s are cleared for and not all crews who sign 153s sign 150s and vice versa.

 

[455driver]

Been suggested before but apparently that would effectively create a new class of train due to 153s not being cleared for all routes 150s are cleared for and not all crews who sign 153s sign 150s and vice versa.

They are both existing designs so I dont see a problem, they would only work where they do now so what clearance and crew knowledge has to do with it I dont know!

It wasnt a problem when 153399 was formed up!

 

[northwichcat]

They are both existing designs so I dont see a problem, they would only work where they do now so what clearance and crew knowledge has to do with it I dont know!

150s work to Buxton now. 153s don't as they aren't cleared for Hazel Grove-Buxton and Buxton crews don't sign them. Even if the 153s were cleared and Buxton crews did sign them there would still be the issue of peak time services on the Buxton line needing to the 4 car 150s due to the level of usage and platform lengths.

Similar situations apply to other lines as well. Just because it wasn't an issue to do it with 1 x 153 in the South West doesn't mean you can create 70 x hybrid trains and not have any issues.

Another technicality - would it require Porterbrook to buy 150s off Angel, or Angel to buy 153s off Porterbrook to be able to do that with all the 153s?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If the 153s were becoming centre cars in 150s or in any other units, signing them shouldn't be an issue for drivers at the very least, as the cabs won't ever be leading, surely?

 

[route:oxford]

If the 153s were becoming centre cars in 150s or in any other units, signing them shouldn't be an issue for drivers at the very least, as the cabs won't ever be leading, surely?

The cab equipment would be removed or isolated surely?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does it not make more sense just to double them up and make them into 155s? I thought the point was that adding a proper wheelchair space (there is one, but it's small and at the opposite end to the bog) and large bog will just reduce capacity to the point a single-car unit is not a sensible concept, particularly in these days of significant growth where there are very few services for which one is suitable even without the modifications?

Could there be a workaround with a chance for some kind of formal derogation if they are used for strengthening only, and never on their own? The wheelchair user would use whatever the other unit was.

Neil

 

[Murph]

Could there be a workaround with a chance for some kind of formal derogation if they are used for strengthening only, and never on their own? The wheelchair user would use whatever the other unit was.

It might not even need a derogation, as it seems like the regs already look at the train as a whole and not individual carriages. Reforming them into 155s (with the same PRM-TSI mods used for 156s) is probably the better option though, as you then retain the ability to run them alone, so probably easier for fleet management (can't end up with an unusable by regs unit stuck in a place where you really want to use it).

 

[Bletchleyite]

It might not even need a derogation, as it seems like the regs already look at the train as a whole and not individual carriages. Reforming them into 155s (with the same PRM-TSI mods used for 156s) is probably the better option though, as you then retain the ability to run them alone, so probably easier for fleet management (can't end up with an unusable by regs unit stuck in a place where you really want to use it).

Probably. I think we're getting to the point where single units on their own are of very little use anyway. Though if demand continues to increase 3-car 155s might be worthy of consideration (and cheaper, as you'd only have to do all the modifications to one of them - only minor ones on the other two).

Where there is a line that merits only a single coach, such as a branch line (though even these are getting busier - I was amazed to read of trains full and standing on Ormskirk-Preston), as someone else said upthread the modified Pacers would be fine.

Neil

 

[Chris125]

Does it not make more sense just to double them up and make them into 155s? I thought the point was that adding a proper wheelchair space (there is one, but it's small and at the opposite end to the bog) and large bog will just reduce capacity to the point a single-car unit is not a sensible concept, particularly in these days of significant growth where there are very few services for which one is suitable even without the modifications?

Might be easier just to run them without any toilet at all, restricting them to shorter distance services on their own or in multiple with another unit which does have toilet facilities.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The cab equipment would be removed or isolated surely?

One would think so- I was assuming a bargain basement conversion (just lock the cabs OOU), but either way, drivers wouldn't need to update their traction knowledge... Other than remembering the extra 23m!

 

[The Ham]

Given that there maybe some need for single units why not keep a few a single units and convert a load into 3 coach sets for use on lines where 2 coach units are too busy?