squizzler
Established Member
This is hoisted from the Voyager future discussion threads, where it was perhaps a bit too speculative for the core topic. Perhaps the voyagers are not the only fleet that this suggestion might be worth considering?
Problems with the Voyagers include their cramped tilt profile, large ares of dead space for the crash regs of the time, heavy construction and multiple huge (but smelly) toilets. The accommodation is pretty tired and needs replacing on some fleets. Discussion of reforming the Voyagers into more practical lengths hits problems of the existent mix of middle and end cars of the existing fleet, and technical issues relating to packaging of components throughout each set.
Given that everything below the sole bar seems to work well and is only halfway through its service life, why not scrap the Voyagers and recover the key technical parts such as driving and running gear. We could then create a new body shell which can accept voyager underfloor parts and use the old fleets as donor vehicles? Further new pantograph and trailer cars can be built to lengthen the trains and give bi-mode capability (a-la Project Thor). Re-shelling means you would not be restrained by the mix of middle and end cars of the existing fleet.
My suggestion emulates the approach taken to create the mighty Class 442 EMU which used motors and control gear from a previous class 432. Or certain types of kit-car which were designed to use a specific brand and model of mainstream car as the donor. Now I have thought about this a little further and see a few stars aligning to favour this approach. Namely Hitachi and Bombardier collaborating on the Italian ETR1000 and putting in a joint bid for various UK stock.
Hitachi are masters of the lightweight alloy body shell. They also have experience of intensive bi-modal operation. Bombardier for their part know their Voyagers and could act as system integrators. A win-win situation for both constructors and good practice for HS2. With over 100 Voyagers in use the design work can be amortised over a large number of trains. The opportunity can be taken to make the new trains fully homogenous rather than three separate fleets, one of which is incompatible with the others.
People still discuss Project Thor but Thor might have been okay if they did it when first mooted. The XC routes have seen massive growth and fuel efficiency is even higher up the agenda than it was a decade ago. The resulting train would still basically remain a voyager with all its flaws. It would also suffer all the disadvantages of trying to integrate with Voyager systems en situ, which might lead to integration problems such as those on the class 769.
My proposal by contrast is effectively a brand new train; only one that happens to reuse the engines, generators, traction packages, bogies and other suitable parts from the voyagers, whilst adding lots of usable passenger space and bi-mode capability. In my fantasy Bombardier/Hitachi collaboration the replacement body shell might be derived from the AT300, or perhaps the speculative Aventra bi-mode if Bombardier went it alone. Of course the project need not be a 125 mph express. With suitable re-gearing and appropriate body shell we could be looking at 100mph end-gangwayed regional bi-modes or whatever else the market requires.
What would the operator get out of such a rebuild? The resulting trains ought to be cheaper than equivalent totally new would be because the expansive technical parts have been salvaged. Does anybody know what proportion of the overall cost of a new rail vehicle the technical parts represent? If a new passenger rail vehicle costs one or two million each, how much of that is in the bodyshell and accommodation versus running and driving gear? Also they could presumably continue to use the rugged (but emissions non-compliant) Cummins engines from the Voyagers under grandfather rights, at least till battery or other new generation power sources come along.
Problems with the Voyagers include their cramped tilt profile, large ares of dead space for the crash regs of the time, heavy construction and multiple huge (but smelly) toilets. The accommodation is pretty tired and needs replacing on some fleets. Discussion of reforming the Voyagers into more practical lengths hits problems of the existent mix of middle and end cars of the existing fleet, and technical issues relating to packaging of components throughout each set.
Given that everything below the sole bar seems to work well and is only halfway through its service life, why not scrap the Voyagers and recover the key technical parts such as driving and running gear. We could then create a new body shell which can accept voyager underfloor parts and use the old fleets as donor vehicles? Further new pantograph and trailer cars can be built to lengthen the trains and give bi-mode capability (a-la Project Thor). Re-shelling means you would not be restrained by the mix of middle and end cars of the existing fleet.
My suggestion emulates the approach taken to create the mighty Class 442 EMU which used motors and control gear from a previous class 432. Or certain types of kit-car which were designed to use a specific brand and model of mainstream car as the donor. Now I have thought about this a little further and see a few stars aligning to favour this approach. Namely Hitachi and Bombardier collaborating on the Italian ETR1000 and putting in a joint bid for various UK stock.
Hitachi are masters of the lightweight alloy body shell. They also have experience of intensive bi-modal operation. Bombardier for their part know their Voyagers and could act as system integrators. A win-win situation for both constructors and good practice for HS2. With over 100 Voyagers in use the design work can be amortised over a large number of trains. The opportunity can be taken to make the new trains fully homogenous rather than three separate fleets, one of which is incompatible with the others.
People still discuss Project Thor but Thor might have been okay if they did it when first mooted. The XC routes have seen massive growth and fuel efficiency is even higher up the agenda than it was a decade ago. The resulting train would still basically remain a voyager with all its flaws. It would also suffer all the disadvantages of trying to integrate with Voyager systems en situ, which might lead to integration problems such as those on the class 769.
My proposal by contrast is effectively a brand new train; only one that happens to reuse the engines, generators, traction packages, bogies and other suitable parts from the voyagers, whilst adding lots of usable passenger space and bi-mode capability. In my fantasy Bombardier/Hitachi collaboration the replacement body shell might be derived from the AT300, or perhaps the speculative Aventra bi-mode if Bombardier went it alone. Of course the project need not be a 125 mph express. With suitable re-gearing and appropriate body shell we could be looking at 100mph end-gangwayed regional bi-modes or whatever else the market requires.
What would the operator get out of such a rebuild? The resulting trains ought to be cheaper than equivalent totally new would be because the expansive technical parts have been salvaged. Does anybody know what proportion of the overall cost of a new rail vehicle the technical parts represent? If a new passenger rail vehicle costs one or two million each, how much of that is in the bodyshell and accommodation versus running and driving gear? Also they could presumably continue to use the rugged (but emissions non-compliant) Cummins engines from the Voyagers under grandfather rights, at least till battery or other new generation power sources come along.
