Electric Loco, Diesel Loco, both DVTs....

[mrcheek]

OK, so it seems that IEP is going to be cancelled.

But its also obvious that Britain is going to need lots of new long distance trains in the next few years.

And its also clear that one of the major problems that needs to be solved is that of diesel vs electric traction. Too many diesels are running long distances under the wires already. Yet on the other hand, too many electric locos come to a halt whenever a diversion is needed, or extension to a new destination.

So, heres an idea I have never come across. (which suggests there is some obvious reason why it wont work. hopefully someone can tell me)

Class 90s and 91s run with an electric loco at one end, and a DVT at the other. WSMR use a diesel loco and a DVT.

So, would it be possible to build a train that would have a diesel loco at one end, and an electric at the other, but with both units being fitted with DVT type capability, so that they could be driven from either end, but also powered from either end. Thus alleviating the need for a single loco to be bi-mode, eliminating the need to ever swap locos, and enabling the train to travel anywhere on the UK network.

Tell me why this cant happen.

 

[37401]

hmm intresting idea, how about something like DVT+ Stock + AC//DC power coach + stock + Loco

 

[matt]

Well the before the arrival of the 225 Dvts the class 91s worked with class 43 power cars. Im not sure if they could be driven with only one end working i.e. driving the 43 from the 91 cab with pan down etc.

 

[mrcheek]

Well the before the arrival of the 225 Dvts the class 91s worked with class 43 power cars. Im not sure if they could be driven with only one end working i.e. driving the 43 from the 91 cab with pan down etc.

I assume that a single 43 wouldnt have enough power to do a diesel only run.
But theres enough locos out there that do have enough power to do the job.

There seems no reason why this simple idea cant work.

 

[Crossforth]

The HST Cab was used as a DVT only and I think provided ETH to the MK3s

 

[matt]

The HST Cab was used as a DVT only and I think provided ETH to the MK3s

It was initially I believe but due to some reason or another it worked in multi with the 91.

 

[Daimler]

It's eminently possible, but one of the problems with IEP bi-mode - which would be a problem here - is the wasted energy of lugging around a massive diesel engine under the wires/a massive electric loco on non-electrified lines.

I still say a swift change of engines will afford the greatest efficiency!

 

[royaloak]

The HST Cab was used as a DVT only and I think provided ETH to the MK3s

It was initially I believe but due to some reason or another it worked in multi with the 91.

Originally the HST was left idling to provide the ETS to the coaches, but it was found that the engine suffered oil dilution problems so they were wired up so they could be controlled by the 91 to provide traction power. Needless to say acceleration was swift to put it mildly

 

[Donny Dave]

Originally the HST was left idling to provide the ETS to the coaches, but it was found that the engine suffered oil dilution problems so they were wired up so they could be controlled by the 91 to provide traction power. Needless to say acceleration was swift to put it mildly

Not just swift ....

More like the proverbial of a shovel hock:

 

[LE Greys]

It's eminently possible, but one of the problems with IEP bi-mode - which would be a problem here - is the wasted energy of lugging around a massive diesel engine under the wires/a massive electric loco on non-electrified lines.

I still say a swift change of engines will afford the greatest efficiency!

You're quite right, the big problem is dead weight. It's not too bad under electric power, even if you don't run the diesel. Under diesel power, dragging the electric around would cause a serious loss of performance, especially if the non-electrified section is a bit hilly (say the Aberdeen Road). Really, they should either change engines at the changeover point (the LNER could do it in under five minutes with screw couplings and vacuum brakes - what can we do with Dellners?) or get on with it and electrify all the non-electric sections.

 

[Sir_Clagalot]

HST power cars have a nice big area at the coach end... fit a panto well and associated electrical gubbins in there (O, so you lose most if not all the luggage space), hey presto, one bi-mode 'loco' at a fraction of the cost...

 

[jopsuk]

They're already nearly 18 tonne per axle though. Given the 67's axle loading (22 tonnes) supposedly causes problems with high speed running due to track wear/damage, you've bascially got 18 tonnes total to play with.

 

[Royston Vasey]

HST power cars have a nice big area at the coach end... fit a panto well and associated electrical gubbins in there (O, so you lose most if not all the luggage space), hey presto, one bi-mode 'loco' at a fraction of the cost...

That would have been a much more interesting experiment than Project Hayabusa on the NR power car. I wonder if it could be done to hybridise the diesel-electric to bimode-electric. Few spare PCs for a trial these days however...

 

[Sir_Clagalot]

Where there is a will there is a way! HSTs already have a rectifier on board, so adding a panto might not add too much weight. With the extra fuel economoy of the MTUs, shedding a few gallons of fuel could free up some spare axle capacity...

 

[GearJammer]

Really what you really want is a big modern version of a class 73 with a pantograph and bigger diesel engine!
Thinking about it, why is it that 73's are a relatively small loco that has a diesel engine plus the electrical gear to run off the third rail yet a 92 is a bloody great big thing that just runs off the overhead lines?

 

[LE Greys]

Really what you really want is a big modern version of a class 73 with a pantograph and bigger diesel engine!
Thinking about it, why is it that 73's are a relatively small loco that has a diesel engine plus the electrical gear to run off the third rail yet a 92 is a bloody great big thing that just runs off the overhead lines?

That would have been much better for Freightliner than the diesel Class 70. Base it on the Bombardier TRAXX (already diesel or electric, how about both?) but a Co-Co version. Power unit would be an MTU 12V 4000, giving about 2,500 hp. You might be able to use it as a 'booster' under the wires, but normally just run off the pantograph. After all, you only really need 4,000 hp on the WCML, to accelerate fast out of loops. A Type 4 can manage fine on most diesel-worked sections. For the Southern, you could use an MTU 8V 4000 on top of a Bo-Bo version, almost a replacement for Classes 33 and 73. Worth thinking about?

By the way, the 92 is quad-voltage for running in Europe (1.5 or 3 kV d.c.) and on the third rail. That means a lot of extra equipment, which weighs quite a bit. However, there is still a lot of space inside (although nowhere near as much as an 84).

 

[TDK]

I assume that a single 43 wouldnt have enough power to do a diesel only run.
But theres enough locos out there that do have enough power to do the job.

There seems no reason why this simple idea cant work.

The only loco's are 57's and 67's nothing else would be any good so there are not many Diesel loco's available, to compare a class 90 to a 67, class 90 5000bhp 67 3000bhp

 

[Wyvern]

Where there is a will there is a way! HSTs already have a rectifier on board, so adding a panto might not add too much weight. With the extra fuel economoy of the MTUs, shedding a few gallons of fuel could free up some spare axle capacity...

I think you would stilll need a transformer which is the weighty bit. I'm not sure there are chopper converters capable of working straight off the 25kV.

 

[TDK]

Really what you really want is a big modern version of a class 73 with a pantograph and bigger diesel engine!
Thinking about it, why is it that 73's are a relatively small loco that has a diesel engine plus the electrical gear to run off the third rail yet a 92 is a bloody great big thing that just runs off the overhead lines?

The class 73 Diesel engine is only 800hp wouldn't pull much the class 92 is the most powerfullest loco on the infrastructure, I think everyone is forgetting the weight of the fuel as well, it isn't practical to produce a loco for both. The idea of having an electric power car, diesel Loco and DVT with controls at both ends is probably the best option as mentioned I think in the first post.

 

[GearJammer]

The class 73 Diesel engine is only 800hp wouldn't pull much the class 92 is the most powerfullest loco on the infrastructure, I think everyone is forgetting the weight of the fuel as well, it isn't practical to produce a loco for both.

Yeah i know the 73 has'nt got a big diesel engine TDK, what i was getting at is if you had a loco as big as a 92, with similar electrical gear as a 73 in it (but took its power from overhead as opposed to third rail) then (in theory) you should be able to fit a bigger diesel engine it with more horse power, i don't think you would need huge amounts of horse power if the loco was built for passenger work

Im no engineer, i don't expect its possible, but like i said, in theory............

 

[LE Greys]

Yeah i know the 73 has'nt got a big diesel engine TDK, what i was getting at is if you had a loco as big as a 92, with similar electrical gear as a 73 in it (but took its power from overhead as opposed to third rail) then (in theory) you should be able to fit a bigger diesel engine it with more horse power, i don't think you would need huge amounts of horse power if the loco was built for passenger work

Im no engineer, i don't expect its possible, but like i said, in theory............

You're almost certainly right. If 73s are anything like most third rail locos, they have a massive motor-generator inside with a big flywheel. AC locos don't need that, and even the transformer is a lot smaller than it used to be. The old 84s had masses of space inside. Weight would be the problem rather than size, although diesel engines are a lot smaller than they used to be. That's why I suggested an MTU V12. If they can fit a V16 into an HST, surely a V12 can go into an electro-diesel along with the transformer. The 12V 4000 can put out 2,500 hp, which is more than good enough for most purposes. Bombardier's TRAXX locos already use MTUs, so they seem like the best starting point.

Anyone know the procurement manager for Freightliner?

 

[Moog_1984]

The dutch have being doing this already with 58s and some sparky.

Before it was availability of motive power, top speeds of diesel locos and ETH which were the limiting factors: otherwise there is no real problem in dragging what is less than two coaches of loco about with a 5000hp + sparky loco.

I am surprised the "diesel under the wires" issue did not get taken further to encourage the development of dual mode trains and swapping DE to AC locos.

It is frankly odd that Virgin have never made a move to have dual mode Voyagers as this would make the trains actually perform long distance getting the most out of tilting while on 25kv!

 

[TDK]

Yeah i know the 73 has'nt got a big diesel engine TDK, what i was getting at is if you had a loco as big as a 92, with similar electrical gear as a 73 in it (but took its power from overhead as opposed to third rail) then (in theory) you should be able to fit a bigger diesel engine it with more horse power, i don't think you would need huge amounts of horse power if the loco was built for passenger work

Im no engineer, i don't expect its possible, but like i said, in theory............

When you look at a class 67 with it's 300BHP there isn't much room in there for anything else and a 67 is a large loco, it already has an RA8 rating, I really can't see it being an option even in theory

 

[GearJammer]

When you look at a class 67 with it's 300BHP there isn't much room in there for anything else and a 67 is a large loco, it already has an RA8 rating, I really can't see it being an option even in theory

Erm, yeah, good point........... this will be why i shall never become a locomotive designer, lol

 

[Drsatan]

The class 73 Diesel engine is only 800hp wouldn't pull much the class 92 is the most powerfullest loco on the infrastructure,

To the best of my knowledge, the class 92 is cleared for only a few third rail routes such as Dollands Moor - Tonbridge because of current restrictions.

 

[Moog_1984]

When you look at a class 67 with it's 300BHP there isn't much room in there for anything else and a 67 is a large loco, it already has an RA8 rating, I really can't see it being an option even in theory

The 67s use the GM 645 derived lump which is heavy and they are a Prima design which could (should?) be fitted with Co-Co . So heavy in fact that this is the only loco listed with an incorrect weight: if you fuel one completely up it goes over the axel load limit!

Either the MTU 12 or the MAN (rustons) VP 185 8 pot could be put into an AIA or Co Co loco with AC capacity, but the challenges are most likely in the equipment to handle two very different voltage-amp supplies.

In terms of multiple units it is crazy that dual mode ( DE; 25kv or 3rd rail) has not been made in the latest generation.

Routes suitable?


as extensions to electified routes:

ECML:
Lincoln- Hull trains
Leeds
Sunderland/ M'boro
Glasgow QS
Dundee
Perth
Aberdeen

Midland / GE::

Ely, Cambs/norwich- Pbrg
Derby
Nottingham

WCML:
bristol
n wales / chester/shrews, mid wales
Barrow
Dumfries
Hexham
Manch-bolton
Anywhere just about in Scotland without wires

to name a few....which could be economic for dual mode locos/ MUs

 

[Pumbaa]

To the best of my knowledge, the class 92 is cleared for only a few third rail routes such as Dollands Moor - Tonbridge because of current restrictions.

92 is only cleared on routes it needs to be. It's not cleared on other 3rd rail routes because there's been no need to clear them!

 

[TDK]

92 is only cleared on routes it needs to be. It's not cleared on other 3rd rail routes because there's been no need to clear them!

There is a Current Limit index on all 3rd rail routes, I think most have been upgraded but when I was on the Southern you could not have any more 4 power (EMU) cars CLI of 16 in one TP hut section at one time, the slammers had a CLI of 4 so did the 455's, a 456 had a CLI of 2 and an ED a cli of 12. I think that has been upgraded due to the 375/7's and the Eurostars on the network but if it has it was after my time

 

[tbtc]

To put it into layman's terms, for the weight of a diesel loco carting a "dead" electric loco around, how many additional coaches could be carried for the same weight?

 

[LE Greys]

To put it into layman's terms, for the weight of a diesel loco carting a "dead" electric loco around, how many additional coaches could be carried for the same weight?

[Digs out Platform 5 book]

One Class 90 weighs 84.5t
One Mark IIIa TSO weighs 34.3t
One Class 90 = 2.5 Mark IIIa's

So, two or three coaches in weight, but only one coach in length. Length is probably more important than weight in this country. We cut back to shorter lengths partly for weight at speed and partly to fit into platforms. SDO can help that, but the length of a dead loco does cause problems.