Class 159 Bi-mode Hybrids plan dropped

[MatthewRead]

Just read the latest issue of Modern Railways and it says the plan to convert the 159 fleet to third rail bi-mode operation has been dropped despite the plan to eliminate diesel traction out of London termini first despite other lines such as the 165 HyDrive and plans to fit battery packs to turbostars.
The plan was to use the electric traction equipment out of redundant 455's wasn't it?

 

[Mikey C]

Sounds like a technically very tricky project, especially with a 30 year old DMU design. Surely it would make more sense to order replacements and cascade the 159s elsewhere

 

[MatthewRead]

Sounds like a technically very tricky project, especially with a 30 year old DMU design. Surely it would make more sense to order replacements and cascade the 159s elsewhere

Funny you should say that because that was the Stagecoach pledge if they retained the South Western franchise.

 

[swt_passenger]

Just read the latest issue of Modern Railways and it says the plan to convert the 159 fleet to third rail bi-mode operation has been dropped despite the plan to eliminate diesel traction out of London termini first despite other lines such as the 165 HyDrive and plans to fit battery packs to turbostars.
The plan was to use the electric traction equipment out of redundant 455's wasn't it?

Was there ever really an SWR ‘plan’? The franchise agreement only committed SWR to a feasibility study, with a requirement to report to DfT to determine if a “single vehicle trial” was viable.

 

[43096]

Was there ever really an SWR ‘plan’? The franchise agreement only committed SWR to a feasibility study, with a requirement to report to DfT to determine if a “single vehicle trial” was viable.

You are correct, and the outcome we now have always seemed the overwhelming favourite.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The sensible thing to do would be order new bimodes and send the 159s to either Northern or EMT.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I wonder what relation this had to the Rolls Royce/Porterbrook project to fit a hybrid electric-diesel powertrain to Turbostars: https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/porterbrook-offers-hybrid-powertrain-for-turbostar-dmus

As I understand it this was suggested as work that could be done instead of a like-for-like engine replacement at mid-life. It didn't involve the addition of electric power collection systems, but I imagine it could be done. It might be that the system couldn't pay itself back in the expected lifetime of the 158s but it might be viable for Turbostars.

 

[LOL The Irony]

As I understand it this was suggested as work that could be done instead of a like-for-like engine replacement at mid-life.

Every Sprinter has passed the "mid-life" stage though.

 

[MatthewRead]

I wonder what relation this had to the Rolls Royce/Porterbrook project to fit a hybrid electric-diesel powertrain to Turbostars: https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/porterbrook-offers-hybrid-powertrain-for-turbostar-dmus

As I understand it this was suggested as work that could be done instead of a like-for-like engine replacement at mid-life. It didn't involve the addition of electric power collection systems, but I imagine it could be done. It might be that the system couldn't pay itself back in the expected lifetime of the 158s but it might be viable for Turbostars.

This was actually before that plan was thought of!

 

[broadgage]

Adding electric traction to an existing type of DMU does indeed sound very complex, and possibly not worth the added costs and complexities.

A somewhat similar result could be achieved by a new build of high powered EMUs with at least twice the usual HP per ton, these being compatible with 159s
A train could then leave Waterloo with the high powered EMU hauling or propelling the dead DMU, as far as Basingstoke. At Basingstoke the electric unit would be detached, and the 159s run onwards under diesel power as they do now.
This would increase capacity on the inner part of the route, and eliminate regular diesel running in or near London.
The special EMU could be based on standard technology, but with every axle of every vehicle being powered.

A bit like an updated version of the old REP units.

Another option would be to re -form the 159s into 4 car sets by the addition of an extra and high powered electric motored vehicle. This would be simpler operationally, but would reduce performance under diesel power.

 

[Qwerty133]

The sensible thing to do would be order new bimodes and send the 159s to either Northern or EMT.

Disagree the SWT route is about the only one where 158s/159s are maintaining reliability. London doesn't have a monopoly on pollution or new stock so it'd make far more sense to cascade additional 158s into SWR for capacity improvements and replace EMTs 158s with new builds.

 

[Helvellyn]

Adding electric traction to an existing type of DMU does indeed sound very complex, and possibly not worth the added costs and complexities.

A somewhat similar result could be achieved by a new build of high powered EMUs with at least twice the usual HP per ton, these being compatible with 159s
A train could then leave Waterloo with the high powered EMU hauling or propelling the dead DMU, as far as Basingstoke. At Basingstoke the electric unit would be detached, and the 159s run onwards under diesel power as they do now.
This would increase capacity on the inner part of the route, and eliminate regular diesel running in or near London.
The special EMU could be based on standard technology, but with every axle of every vehicle being powered.

A bit like an updated version of the old REP units.

Another option would be to re -form the 159s into 4 car sets by the addition of an extra and high powered electric motored vehicle. This would be simpler operationally, but would reduce performance under diesel power.

But you would end up with a repeat of the REP/TC lifecycle - life-expired vehicles but EMU motor cars/electrical equipment that wasn't. Which is partly why the 442s reused the REP motors and other electrical gubbins because that equipment wasn't life expired. Plus by the time you have designed and built these bespoke EMUs (creating a micro fleet) probably just easier to build a new fleet of bi-modes.

As to building an EMU motor car that would be even worse given that you are adding a new vehicle to approaching thirty year old DMUs. Plus four-car units are no good - five-car units would be better so you can run ten-cars on the busiest services. But again it would be better to just buy new.

 

[rebmcr]

But you would end up with a repeat of the REP/TC lifecycle - life-expired vehicles but EMU motor cars/electrical equipment that wasn't.

Just like the AC 455s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just like the AC 455s.

Wouldn't be surprised if, having done all the 769s, whoever owns those converts them to DMUs for Northern.

 

[Bornin1980s]

But you would end up with a repeat of the REP/TC lifecycle - life-expired vehicles but EMU motor cars/electrical equipment that wasn't. Which is partly why the 442s reused the REP motors and other electrical gubbins because that equipment wasn't life expired. Plus by the time you have designed and built these bespoke EMUs (creating a micro fleet) probably just easier to build a new fleet of bi-modes.

As to building an EMU motor car that would be even worse given that you are adding a new vehicle to approaching thirty year old DMUs. Plus four-car units are no good - five-car units would be better so you can run ten-cars on the busiest services. But again it would be better to just buy new.

Why were the REPs considered life expired when their motors were still viable?

 

[43096]

Why were the REPs considered life expired when their motors were still viable?

Most of the REP and TC vehicles - all but the REP driving motors - were converted from LHCS Mark 1s and most were from mid-1950s builds. Asbestos was presumably also a factor.

 

[randyrippley]

Most of the REP and TC vehicles - all but the REP driving motors - were converted from LHCS Mark 1s and most were from mid-1950s builds. Asbestos was presumably also a factor.

Don't forget there was also an instruction to get rid of all Mk1 stock because of the over-ride problems in crashes

 

[The Ham]

Adding electric traction to an existing type of DMU does indeed sound very complex, and possibly not worth the added costs and complexities.

A somewhat similar result could be achieved by a new build of high powered EMUs with at least twice the usual HP per ton, these being compatible with 159s
A train could then leave Waterloo with the high powered EMU hauling or propelling the dead DMU, as far as Basingstoke. At Basingstoke the electric unit would be detached, and the 159s run onwards under diesel power as they do now.
This would increase capacity on the inner part of the route, and eliminate regular diesel running in or near London.
The special EMU could be based on standard technology, but with every axle of every vehicle being powered.

A bit like an updated version of the old REP units.

Another option would be to re -form the 159s into 4 car sets by the addition of an extra and high powered electric motored vehicle. This would be simpler operationally, but would reduce performance under diesel power.

The problem is that most splits of trains happen at Salisbury, meaning that you'd have a massive loss of capacity between there and Basingstoke.

You'd probably be better off electrifying to Yeovil and running :
- 1 tph Waterloo to Yeovil EMU
- 0.5 tph Waterloo to Yeovil EMU with connection to DMU service to Exeter (cross platform change)
- 0.5 tph Waterloo to Exeter DMU

With the EMU to DMU connection, as the EMU would be faster the extra time required for the change can be gained back over the EMU section.

You could increase frequencies between Basingstoke and Salisbury by extending the Basingstoke stoppers. As although few would use them to get to Waterloo, it could provide a much better local service (as well as freeing up platform capacity at Basingstoke and possibly allowing for the opening of a station near to Oakley where there's a LOT of housing being built over the next 10+ years).

It should be an easy line to wire up; as it's got fairly modern signals, has few junctions and a lot of the bridge works (should easily allow electrification, but was probably to the old standards) have been modified/sorted for freight.

 

[43096]

Don't forget there was also an instruction to get rid of all Mk1 stock because of the over-ride problems in crashes

Not in 1986 there wasn’t, which was when the Class 442 build was authorised to replace the REP/TC stock.

 

[Helvellyn]

Just like the AC 455s.

Not quite. The AC 455s were done as part of the Windsor Lines 10-car scheme to allow Wimbledon to maintain the 707s on top of the 455s/456s/458s. Without the work additional depot facilities would have had to be built. The cost of retractioning was felt to be better value than building a new depot.

Personally a new depot at Feltham (and closing Staines and Strawberry Hill) would have been logical but with the time left on the franchise nobody probably wanted to bite that bullet!

Why were the REPs considered life expired when their motors were still viable?

Most of the REP and TC vehicles - all but the REP driving motors - were converted from LHCS Mark 1s and most were from mid-1950s builds. Asbestos was presumably also a factor.

Exactly. It was how electrification to Bournemouth was justified - rebuild loco-hauled stock and the 33/1+TC solution for the through Weymouth services from Bournemouth.

The Waterloo-Bournemouth route was considered for inclusion in the InterCity sector but discounted due to the REP and TC stock not meeting InterCity standards. If you think about it the route was similar to London to Norwich. NSE either had to massively refurbish the existing stock 4-CEP style or buy new. It did the latter, electrified to Weymouth on the cheap/effeciently (delete as appropriate!) and hence we got the 442s. Re-using equipment from the REPs was part of doing the route upgrade on a budget.

To come back to the topic what the OP suggested is nothing like this because it is either new build bespoke a EMUs to act as tractor units with the 158s/159s or new-build trailers. In both cases your DMUs will likely be gone in a decade (I.e. Next franchise) so you either scrap bespoke trailers less than ten years old or have a small bespoke fleet of tractor EMUs with no home. Hence why I said better to just buy new bi-modes.

 

[dk1]

You think it would make more sense to just buy new rather than mess around with stock approaching it's 30th Birthday.

 

[edwin_m]

Most of the REP and TC vehicles - all but the REP driving motors - were converted from LHCS Mark 1s and most were from mid-1950s builds. Asbestos was presumably also a factor.

Also electrification was being extended to Weymouth, probably there weren't enough EMUs in the existing fleet and Network SouthEast wanted to make an impression with some new (or mostly new) stock. Due to the end of push-pull working there was no longer any need for the higher-powered REP units.

 

[ic31420]

You think it would make more sense to just buy new rather than mess around with stock approaching it's 30th Birthday.

And let's be honest any new bimode stock will be two years off delivery and probably another three off starting in service (given current rates).

Add that to the fact there is hardly a surfeit of quality dmus and I don't think the 159s would be idle long makes new stock a nobrainer..

Hey they could have a bunch of 769s like us northerners....

 

[broadgage]

But you would end up with a repeat of the REP/TC lifecycle - life-expired vehicles but EMU motor cars/electrical equipment that wasn't. Which is partly why the 442s reused the REP motors and other electrical gubbins because that equipment wasn't life expired. Plus by the time you have designed and built these bespoke EMUs (creating a micro fleet) probably just easier to build a new fleet of bi-modes.

As to building an EMU motor car that would be even worse given that you are adding a new vehicle to approaching thirty year old DMUs. Plus four-car units are no good - five-car units would be better so you can run ten-cars on the busiest services. But again it would be better to just buy new.

The different ages of the existing 159s and the "new REPS" could indeed be a problem and could only be overcome if either the new electric units were compatible also with other and newer DMUs, or if the 159s were to be appreciably life extended.
A high powered 4 car EMU should be fine, since in conjunction with a pair of 3 car DMUs it would be 10 car in total.
Coupling and uncoupling at Basingstoke adds complexity and performance risk, but does have the merit of providing maximum capacity for the outer suburban commuter destinations, and reasonable capacity to Exeter.

A "micro fleet" need not be a maintenance problem provided that the equipment thereon was similar to that of standard EMUs at the same depot.

 

[route:oxford]

To come back to the topic what the OP suggested is nothing like this because it is either new build bespoke a EMUs to act as tractor units with the 158s/159s or new-build trailers. In both cases your DMUs will likely be gone in a decade (I.e. Next franchise) so you either scrap bespoke trailers less than ten years old or have a small bespoke fleet of tractor EMUs with no home. Hence why I said better to just buy new bi-modes.

Why a small build?

A powerful AWD 3 coach EMU could be capable of hauling a MK4 or MK5 set.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The ROSCOs are probably the key reason a custom EMU-locomotive won't happen. A unit like that would be very risky because it'd have little use elsewhere, while a future franchise operator could decide to do a Greater Anglia and replace the lot. The primary way to reduce risk is to provide EMUs which are pretty much bog-standard.

For the SWR network a standard regional DEMU design would work fine and have a full design life ahead of them if they were capable of running off electric power (from overhead and third rail). A fleet like that could be as useful across the network as the 158/159 design was, especially if it's capable of 100mph or more when running on overhead line power.