CAF rolling stock confirmed for Arriva

[jon0844]

Silly question, but for buses, coaches etc - is there any reason why they can't switch to petrol? Aren't modern turbo/supercharged engines now quite efficient.

Maybe not as efficient as diesel, but if it reduces the harmful emissions markedly then wouldn't it make sense to switch to petrol/electric hybrids instead of diesel/electric?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I am afraid that the unthinkable might happen - namely that the much expected completion of electrification for most of the UK will not happen. History has a habit of repeating itself and the reasons are already re-appearing !. So these CAF DMUs might never find themselves on rural lines which will either get closed or plod on with really tired units.

Don't talk complete and utter nonsense.

Electrification schemes are being prepared, many are going through GRIP3 now, and several feature as options to funders in the next 2 control periods.

Scotland and Wales have options on more than 250 single track kilometres of electrification, extension and infill schemes are being thought out, and feeder capacity planned for several additional schemes in England.

We are looking at 65-70% of the network being electrified by 2034 and 80% by 2043.

 

[northwichcat]

We are looking at 65-70% of the network being electrified by 2034 and 80% by 2043.

2034-2018 = 16
2034-2010 = 24
2034-2006 = 28

So by the time 80% of the network is electrified it will need to be considered how economical it will be to continue to keep the 172s and 185s in service. While I don't doubt the 185s have been built well enough to last 35 or more years they are expensive DMUs to operate so I imagine finances could dictate an earlier withdrawal and while in recent years we've kept trains in service until they've fallen to pieces, trains with life left in them could be sold to other countries. I imagine the 172s could remain in service for another 10 years at that stage given they are cheap to operate in comparison to other trains.

If the CAF units are used on the 20% of the network with least usage how far would they stretch?

 

[deltic08]

It was one civil servant who said replacement of the Northern Pacers didn't provide a good business case but even he admitted he hadn't taken in to account whether newer trains would attract more passengers. He also hadn't allowed for the cost of bringing up Pacers to post-2019 standards, so his argument was weak and it wasn't surprising Mr McLoughlin overruled him.

What a buffoon. I hope he has been sacked for lack of judgement and reasoning. How many more incompetents are there at the DfT like him?

 

[snowball]

It was Philip Rutnam, the topmost civil servant (Permanent Secretary) in the Department for Transport:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...-ubLSFOs8uSlAQ&bvm=bv.112454388,d.ZWU&cad=rja

 

[northwichcat]

It was Philip Rutnam, the topmost civil servant (Permanent Secretary) in the Department for Transport:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...-ubLSFOs8uSlAQ&bvm=bv.112454388,d.ZWU&cad=rja

Correction to my earlier post on re-reading that he did allow for Pacers being refurbished but was presumed to have used the Porterbrook 143/144 figure for all Pacers.

He did however say new trains wouldn't bring journey time improvements or more services. I would hope the new 100mph CAF trains can provide better journey times than 75mph DMUs and there will be less pathing constraints than by using Pacers.

 

[coppercapped]

What a buffoon. I hope he has been sacked for lack of judgement and reasoning. How many more incompetents are there at the DfT like him?

You've missed the point by about a million miles.

The Permanent Secretary is the person who is legally responsible for the expenditure of his Department. As such, if there is a requirement for the Department to spend more than the minimum amount deemed to be necessary to achieve the result needed, the Permanent Secretary is required to write to his Minister to explain the position. The Minister then has to reply in writing. Any overspend then becomes a political decision rather than being due to the incompetence of the Civil Servants.

This being the case the Permanent Secretary would have been breaking the rules if he had not written to the Minister.

 

[edwin_m]

You've missed the point by about a million miles.

The Permanent Secretary is the person who is legally responsible for the expenditure of his Department. As such, if there is a requirement for the Department to spend more than the minimum amount deemed to be necessary to achieve the result needed, the Permanent Secretary is required to write to his Minister to explain the position. The Minister then has to reply in writing. Any overspend then becomes a political decision rather than being due to the incompetence of the Civil Servants.

This being the case the Permanent Secretary would have been breaking the rules if he had not written to the Minister.

No doubt also the calculations and the drafting were done by unidentified junior minions, and Rutnam merely put his signature on the resulting letter.

 

[Wolfie]

It was one civil servant who said replacement of the Northern Pacers didn't provide a good business case but even he admitted he hadn't taken in to account whether newer trains would attract more passengers. He also hadn't allowed for the cost of bringing up Pacers to post-2019 standards, so his argument was weak and it wasn't surprising Mr McLoughlin overruled him.

Patronising drivel betraying your complete absence of understanding of how the executive actually works in this country!

That "one civil servant" that you write of so disparagingly was the Permanent Under Secretary (ie the most senior civil servant!) in DfT who also happens to be the principal accounting officer for the department. That means he has a personal obligation to account for all departmental spending to Parliament.

If he believes, based on the advice of the departmental civil servants (ie not his personal idiosyncratic view as you try to suggest), that proposed expenditure is out of line with established norms he is obliged to write to the Secretary of State on the matter which is exactly what he did.

The Secretary of Stae is entitled to overrule him.... and take all of the political criticism arising should that overrul prove to be erroneous.

What a buffoon. I hope he has been sacked for lack of judgement and reasoning. How many more incompetents are there at the DfT like him?

He is NOT a buffoon. You however have just betrayed your own complete ignorance with a truly pathetic statement! I suggest you actually try learning how things work before posting complete rubbish!

And yes, as a civil servant (never in DfT) of 30 years standing I do have the expertise to make the above statement. What qualification or experienec informed your post?

You've missed the point by about a million miles.

The Permanent Secretary is the person who is legally responsible for the expenditure of his Department. As such, if there is a requirement for the Department to spend more than the minimum amount deemed to be necessary to achieve the result needed, the Permanent Secretary is required to write to his Minister to explain the position. The Minister then has to reply in writing. Any overspend then becomes a political decision rather than being due to the incompetence of the Civil Servants.

This being the case the Permanent Secretary would have been breaking the rules if he had not written to the Minister.

Hurrah, someone who has bothered to be informed rather than let their well-balanced, chip on each shoulder bile, spill out yet again!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

No doubt also the calculations and the drafting were done by unidentified junior minions, and Rutnam merely put his signature on the resulting letter.

Still missing the point - it doesn't matter who did the calculations, or if the theory behind the calculations is flawed, the civil servants at the DfT did the calculations in the way expected of them by the National Audit Office, and to then ignore that advice needs the Secretary of State to take responsibility.

Whether the National Audit Office needs to be ejected into space, on the other hand, is a valid and potentially interesting question. They really do know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

 

[Wolfie]

Still missing the point - it doesn't matter who did the calculations, or if the theory behind the calculations is flawed, the civil servants at the DfT did the calculations in the way expected of them by the National Audit Office, and to then ignore that advice needs the Secretary of State to take responsibility.

Whether the National Audit Office needs to be ejected into space, on the other hand, is a valid and potentially interesting question. They really do know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

There is also a rather powerful parliamentary committee, the Public Accounts Committee, whihc covers the same ground and is VERY definitely advised by the NAO....

 

[northwichcat]

Wolfie if you read my later post you'll see that I admitted that I misrembered something when writing that post and if you click through to the letter you'll see he admits the poor business case doesn't allow for newer trains attracting more passengers or providing journey time improvements. What ever his position those two claims are political nosense. I seem to recall you were one of the posters who kept insisting Pacer replacement was a pre-election bribe and the Conservatives wouldn't keep their promise, so you're probably disappointed that the CAF order has been placed.

 

[M7R]

Silly question, but for buses, coaches etc - is there any reason why they can't switch to petrol? Aren't modern turbo/supercharged engines now quite efficient.

Maybe not as efficient as diesel, but if it reduces the harmful emissions markedly then wouldn't it make sense to switch to petrol/electric hybrids instead of diesel/electric?

Power per unit of fuel for diesel vs petrol is far higher, (I could bore you with why but you will get the glazed look in your eyes my wife does all the time as I'm an automotive engineer so always brining my work home so to speak).

With petrol you get less Nox emissions as the combustion temps are lower and there is less free oxygen in the combustion chamber, however the CO2 is higher from petroleum due to having to burn more fuel for the same amount of power out. A turbo helps a petrol however it also helps a diesel so the same gain can be applied to both and is offset if you see what I mean.

The larger amount of particles from a diesel can be felt with via a DPF and the higher Nox can be delt with via either and Lean Nox Trap (LNT) or via Selective Cat Reduction (SCR) depending how high the Nox levels are (SCR is better than LNT but is more complicated and requires the use of AdBlue so an extra tank is needed to hold that as well),

The other benefit will be when cylinder deactivation starts to filter into the heavy duty engines as that can help reduce fuel costs and emissions but only works when the engine is under light loads.

(there are some hybrid busses but they are in their infancy at the moment and packaging is still the issue, my money would be on hydrogen as the next big technology which will start to find its way into things like busses),

 

[talltim]

There is a certain DfT official who was intent on foisting plastic pigs and D stock on the north that deserves censure. Luckily his ideas were ignored by the bidders. However much of the responsibility for the Inordinately Expensive Passenger train lies with him...

 

[Domh245]

There is a certain DfT official who was intent on foisting plastic pigs and D stock on the north that deserves censure. Luckily his ideas were ignored by the bidders. However much of the responsibility for the Inordinately Expensive Passenger train lies with him...

I didn't know that RailUK personified worked at the DfT!

 

[Nym]

Placing artificial restrictions on this is inefficient.
The AAR model of a specific MU jumper format is the optimum really. [As far as I can tell the standard is still holding up after sixty years].

Especially as it wouldn't be very expensive at all to put Sprinter compatible couplings on them - but we all know that is never going to happen.

Wedgelock? (Although the auto-coupler contact blocks are different)

And actually, with the advances in train control over the last 20 years, I think it would be a mistake to effectively restrict yourself to the BR 42 wire control system that is used on 140s - 172s. When I was up in the cab of a 378 Capitalstar the other month, it felt so old fashioned having a notched traction brake controller, when stocks dating back as 1986 have been using PWM traction brake encoders / decoders.

This is especially so if these are to be delivered as EDMU or DEMU type units, using the old BR type notched control (the only -real- way to maintain compatibility with sprinters) would very much restrict what the units will be capable of in the coming years.

What would be better is if we are insistent on using a BSI + 42 wire control for the new fleet to ensure compatibility, it should be done using a 'compatibility mode' so the control system would function as if it had notches on the other units. The auto-couplers would get very busy though, and it would become more of a maintenance nightmare.

 

[HSTEd]

What would be better is if we are insistent on using a BSI + 42 wire control for the new fleet to ensure compatibility, it should be done using a 'compatibility mode' so the control system would function as if it had notches on the other units. The auto-couplers would get very busy though, and it would become more of a maintenance nightmare.

Well trainwires 32 and 33 on the BSI coupler are registered as spare or used for minor PIS related tasks on the RSSB diagram for the Sprinter coupler (they are apparently not connected through on the 165/66 but they are on the Sprinters?).

You could use those trainwires to carry a US industry standard ECP-type control signal [using only two conductors] that, thanks to the short length of the train, would easily have the bandwidth to handle brake and train control duties to those vehicles equipped with the new coupler standard.

Meanwhile the old vehicles ignore the new style signal and use the duplicate old style signals generated by the controlling vehicle. The cab controller would have to match the continuous throttle/brake signals to notches but this should not cause too much issue I would think.
If the train is being controlled from an ECP equipped cab the train would simply act as if it is a collection of sprinters on the old style controls.

The train wire is certain to also have the bandwidth for low bandwidth applications like updating the PIS.

 

[Goldfish62]

Just a rash thought - could the 333s go to Heathrow Connect thus releasing the 360s for C2C ?.

Heathrow Connect is disappearing when Crossrail reaches Heathrow.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Silly question, but for buses, coaches etc - is there any reason why they can't switch to petrol? Aren't modern turbo/supercharged engines now quite efficient.

Maybe not as efficient as diesel, but if it reduces the harmful emissions markedly then wouldn't it make sense to switch to petrol/electric hybrids instead of diesel/electric?

Petrol engines don't have sufficient torque and durability.

 

[Haydn1971]

Heathrow Connect is disappearing when Crossrail reaches Heathrow.

Where are the 332's going ?

 

[D365]

Where are the 332's going ?

Staying on HEx until (provisionally) 2023.

 

[jon0844]

(detailed explanation)

Thanks so much for that, which answers my question perfectly.

 

[HSTEd]

Petrol engines don't have sufficient torque and durability.

Well a series hybrid doesn't care about torque because all that matters is the amount of power available.
And the horrendous power cycling of a bus can to be a certain extent flattened out using the battery bank.

 

[coppercapped]

Even if you spent an extra hundred thousand pounds per end on these gangwayed cabs the cost on a three car unit is not going to be a large fraction of the units cost which could easily reach £5m.

How many extra passengers will the gangwayed train attract above those who will use the the non-gangwayed version? Unless you can quantify the increase - as the extra construction and maintenance costs have to be paid for - then all this wishful thinking is just that - wishful.

 

[Grumpy]

He is NOT a buffoon.

Well what do you call someone who gets contractually committed to buying a fleet of new electric trains for GWML before he knows what it's going to cost to electrify the line, and how long it will take ?

 

[HSTEd]

How many extra passengers will the gangwayed train attract above those who will use the the non-gangwayed version? Unless you can quantify the increase - as the extra construction and maintenance costs have to be paid for - then all this wishful thinking is just that - wishful.

How many extra staff will your new unit have to carry to ensure good revenue control, practical trolley operation and the like? Over 30+ years.

A couple of hundred grand is peanuts to the railway and the operational savings alone are enormous.
Gangwayed sets also improve the usefulness of SDO when we get train lengths long enough to need it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Petrol engines don't have sufficient torque and durability.

They probably do if the petrol engine spends its entire service life running at optimum load.

OTOH, I'm not sure I would want a large petrol tank under my MU if I can have far less volatile diesel.

OTOOH (!) would gas turbines be worth revisiting if they could run at optimum speed to charge a battery?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How many extra passengers will the gangwayed train attract above those who will use the the non-gangwayed version? Unless you can quantify the increase - as the extra construction and maintenance costs have to be paid for - then all this wishful thinking is just that - wishful.

The cost savings are more likely to be operational, safety[1] and revenue protection related than a passenger benefit per-se.

[1] Some TOCs seem happy to have non-gangwayed units with no staff on board a given unit whatsoever, some don't. Those that don't can't have guards check tickets in the half the driver is in. Fare dodgers soon get to know this.

 

[Haydn1971]

Some TOCs seem happy to have non-gangwayed units with no staff on board a given unit whatsoever, some don't. Those that don't can't have guards check tickets in the half the driver is in. Fare dodgers soon get to know this.

I'm also expecting a gradual change to revenue protection over the next decade as guards become less important to the safety of the railway, meaning that the gangway becomes less important to revenue and safety - sad reality of life.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

There does seem to be a bit of a trend with new builds now for units to not have corridor connections at the ends. Is it a PITA for "revenue" guards when two units are coupled and they don't have corridor connections?

 

[coppercapped]

How many extra staff will your new unit have to carry to ensure good revenue control, practical trolley operation and the like? Over 30+ years.

A couple of hundred grand is peanuts to the railway and the operational savings alone are enormous.
Gangwayed sets also improve the usefulness of SDO when we get train lengths long enough to need it.

Pure guesswork. What is necessary is a calculation which shows on the one hand the extra cost, both capital and running, of a front end with a gangway compared to one without. These extra costs then have to be compared with the additional revenue that will be generated by the number of extra passengers who will travel only because the train has a through gangway and the additional revenue generated by better revenue control when, and only when, the train is running in multiple (less the cost of collecting it) and the extra revenue generated by a trolley which can reach the 'other' part of the train, when the train is running in multiple.

The argument about SDO is valid - but if it takes some years before train lengths reach a point where SDO is needed, then money has been spent which will show no benefit until that time comes. A Net Present Value calculation would seem to be required.

 

[Mikey C]

There does seem to be a bit of a trend with new builds now for units to not have corridor connections at the ends. Is it a PITA for "revenue" guards when two units are coupled and they don't have corridor connections?

London commuter stock never had corridor connections. With the infamous compartment stock, they never had corridors either!