Knock-on effect of electrification scheme cancellations on **Rolling Stock**

[43096]

Indeed. How about a fleet of refurbished Mk4s top-and-tailed by 21st-Century diesel locos to create a new-era HST?

Good idea. Could use new build Mark 5s - I can see there being delays with releasing Mark 4s from East Coast. Stadler apparently offer a 125mph option on the 68s.

 

[xotGD]

Good idea. Could use new build Mark 5s - I can see there being delays with releasing Mark 4s from East Coast. Stadler apparently offer a 125mph option on the 68s.

Leave a 91 on one end and put a 68 on the other and you've created a bi-mode.

 

[The Ham]

On a separate train of thought...

If a bimodel unit can be created that allowed the SWT franchise to replace their 159's and 158's, there is the potential for then to then sublease the 159s' and 158's so that there is a near zero cost in having the new units.

Even if the lease costs were the same then the maintenance costs would be lower, as for about 1/3 of the time the WofE line services are running over 3rd rails. That means that the engines would be working for 2/3 of the time they current do. That should then mean that engine maintenance can be done less frequently. Also the bimodel unit would be newer so they should be less prone to faults.

Add in the potential fuel savings (although fairly small) and you could be onto a winner.

Although the big advantage would be that the new units cous be 5 coach sets, meaning a full 10 coach trains running services in the peaks, mix in the extra seats from not having 4 redundant cabs.

Currently the 10 coach 15x's that SWT runs (by my estimation) have maybe 6-12 less seats than the 444's. However if the new units didn't have the buffet then it would be about 30-35 seats different. That's going to mean that in the three hour peak that's an extra 180+ extra seats.

An extra 20 season tickets at £6,000 each would be an extra £120,000, which although it's small fry in railway terms could be enough to cover some extra costs.

The slight downside is that a 5 coach unit would have 346 seats vs the 392 of a 6 coach train fiend of two 159's. However it would mean that there would be no 3 coach units running on their own (which will be good where such services are busy, but more costly to the TOC)

 

[Peter Mugridge]

If a bimodel unit can be created that allowed the SWT franchise to replace their 159's and 158's, there is the potential for then to then sublease the 159s' and 158's so that there is a near zero cost in having the new units.

Well...

There is a bi-mode version of the FLIRT available, and there is now a UK loading gauge version of the FLIRT under development for the Anglian services, so it would appear to be a relatively straightforward thing to do...

 

[The Ham]

Well...

There is a bi-mode version of the FLIRT available, and there is now a UK loading gauge version of the FLIRT under development for the Anglian services, so it would appear to be a relatively straightforward thing to do...

...which means that it should just come down to the costs/benefits of doing so..

 

[Peter Mugridge]

...which means that it should just come down to the costs/benefits of doing so..

Yes - but do bear in mind that the bi-mode FLIRT is designed for overheads, not third rail, so they'll have to fiddle around a little bit with the electrics and probably add an inverter as well.

No reason at all that I can think of why it couldn't be done.

 

[edwin_m]

The bi-mode FLIRT also takes up platform length for the diesel modules. Not much of a problem on the rural Anglia lines but could be on SWT.

 

[Bornin1980s]

Leave a 91 on one end and put a 68 on the other and you've created a bi-mode.

But a very heavy bi-mode. A key feature of bi-mode multiple units is the ability to save weight and complexity by sharing circuits and components between modes whenever possible. As an example, the motor car of a 769 has all the traction motors and the dc powertrain, which can be fed from the third rail, from the transformer and rectifier in the pantograph trailer, or the new diesel generators in the driving cars. This adds weight to the original EMU, but not nearly as much as a permanently attached locomotive, with its own transmission.

That said, the earliest 91 hauled trains were bi-modes, the 91 replacing one power car of an HST, the other power car becoming the DVT (and, famously, being fitted with buffers). However, I imagine those trains were very sluggish when forced to operate on the single diesel engine.

Well...

There is a bi-mode version of the FLIRT available, and there is now a UK loading gauge version of the FLIRT under development for the Anglian services, so it would appear to be a relatively straightforward thing to do...

There is a third rail FLIRT under development for Merseyrail. It would be simple to a power module to that. And, I think dc powered trains are easier to adapt for bi-mode power. This was a factor in selecting the 319s for conversion.

 

[D365]

And, I think dc powered trains are easier to adapt for bi-mode power. This was a factor in selecting the 319s for conversion.

Indeed, DC-capable units are fitted with a 750V power bus for third-rail pickup, that can be adapted easily. Or so is the thinking.

 

[themiller]

That said, the earliest 91 hauled trains were bi-modes, the 91 replacing one power car of an HST, the other power car becoming the DVT (and, famously, being fitted with buffers). However, I imagine those trains were very sluggish when forced to operate on the single diesel engine.

The 91s were working with Mk4s with the Class 43s standing in for the DVTs which were running late in production. That's why they needed buffers fitting. As far as I know, they were not intended to run on just the diesel. In fact, if I remember correctly, the diesel engine was originally shut down except to provide power for its own systems when leading. It was shortly after starting to operate these hybrid sets that someone had the idea to use the diesel as a 'boost'.

 

[Great_Western]

The 91s were working with Mk4s with the Class 43s standing in for the DVTs which were running late in production. That's why they needed buffers fitting. As far as I know, they were not intended to run on just the diesel. In fact, if I remember correctly, the diesel engine was originally shut down except to provide power for its own systems when leading. It was shortly after starting to operate these hybrid sets that someone had the idea to use the diesel as a 'boost'.

The engines were initially left idling, but that caused a buildup of unburnt fuel and they had issues with it causing fires hence the engines being powered up in service. This page makes for interesting reading.. http://www.traintesting.com/ic225_2.htm

 

[43096]

The 91s were working with Mk4s with the Class 43s standing in for the DVTs which were running late in production. That's why they needed buffers fitting. As far as I know, they were not intended to run on just the diesel. In fact, if I remember correctly, the diesel engine was originally shut down except to provide power for its own systems when leading. It was shortly after starting to operate these hybrid sets that someone had the idea to use the diesel as a 'boost'.

Wrong. The stock was HST stock, not Mark 4s and the power cars had to provide ETS to the stock.

The reason for using the power cars for traction was both the prolonged use running but not providing traction power and prevent damage to traction motor commutators.

 

[AndrewE]

They will need a decent battery. Cold in winter (or will they have storage heaters?), decent mileage to Windermere and back and the last bit is a really steep hill going back to the wires.

AS

...so extend the wire a mile or two north of the platform at Oxenholme then. Tram wire might be adequate as trains are going slow (all stop in the platform) and going north they might even recharge the battery after initially pulling away, coming back they are under the wire for the last pull up into the station.

 

[hwl]

The bi-mode FLIRT also takes up platform length for the diesel modules. Not much of a problem on the rural Anglia lines but could be on SWT.

Which completely kills the bi-mode Flirts in their current design on SWT as you would lose capacity not what is needed! Negative benefit so non starter.

 

[AndrewE]

Excellent article highlighted in http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=3068507&postcount=272 about this which hasn't been mentioned in this thread, I think, so if you haven't seen it

thanks to DarloRich for the link.

here
https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/

 

[Darandio]

It was shortly after starting to operate these hybrid sets that someone had the idea to use the diesel as a 'boost'.

Only in an enthusiasts fantasy novel.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

There is a third rail FLIRT under development for Merseyrail.

Oh yes, I completely forgot about the Merseyrail order...!!

On the Tenitalia bi-mode FLIRTs ( class BTR ) the diesel isn't a separate power car; it's fitted into a quarter of one of the otherwise normal carriages. Yes, it's still lost space, but not a lot.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh yes, I completely forgot about the Merseyrail order...!!

On the Tenitalia bi-mode FLIRTs ( class BTR ) the diesel isn't a separate power car; it's fitted into a quarter of one of the otherwise normal carriages. Yes, it's still lost space, but not a lot.

Stadler's big selling point is that it's basically a modular train, it can be made economically using standard components in any length, width, height, body profile, gauge, method of powering etc. Short production runs for the Swiss narrow gauge lines are their bread and butter as well as bigger runs like for SBB. That's what makes it so well suited to the UK - it allows us to choose what is essentially an off the shelf train despite the UK restrictions.

 

[themiller]

Wrong. The stock was HST stock, not Mark 4s and the power cars had to provide ETS to the stock.

The reason for using the power cars for traction was both the prolonged use running but not providing traction power and prevent damage to traction motor commutators.

Sorry, 43096. I agree with all you say! It shows that I should not depend on memory alone when commenting:cry:
I also agree with Great Western's comment regarding the reason for the power car engine being used - I'd just forgotten the reason but thought to put something in about it not being used for traction power initially knowing that someone would elucidate.