New Build Mk3s - £750k each.

[route:oxford]

Was flicking through a copy of "RAIL" in the newsagents and in the editorial concerning IEP, it was suggested that a brand new batch of MKIII coaches could be built for around £750K each.

This seems quite reasonable really, and would guess that the £750K includes power doors, disabled friendly and current crash-worthiness standards.

I couldn't help wondering though - why bother?

It would take time and effort to re-design to updated standards. If someone was really desperate for new rolling stock, surely it would be easier and cheaper just to go Alstom and ask them to build LHCS based on the far more recent 180. Without the engines and traction motors, each coach would be significantly cheaper. Perhaps Traction motors on all axles in the DVT to distribute power and add sensible weight to the lead unit, with a high-voltage power bus running the length of the stock.

If you disagree with my choice of the 180 coach as LHCS, which multiple unit coach introduced to the network since privatisation would you choose to be used as a base for LHCS?

Would, say, the 67 (or any electric loco) have the ability to supply power to "external" traction motors and would it make any significant difference in the case of the 67 to wear & tear on the track?

(Of course, there isn't much money in the coffers for any of !)

 

[Lampshade]

I actually think the 180 is a good starting point, they have by far the best interior of any modern intercity train.

 

[37401]

Can't see it happening myself

 

[Scotrail84]

I think LH stock is better than some of the newer dmu/emus we have today.

 

[sprinterguy]

I think LH stock is better than some of the newer dmu/emus we have today.

Good quality loco hauled stock is markedly preferable to MOST of the current DMU/EMUs.

Constructing new mark 3s, even with upgraded features such as plug doors would be a retrograde step back. Constructing a new fleet of carriages that are based primarily around 1970s principles, even if they are the best rolling stock in operation in the UK, would be a poor idea. Even in the car industry, where successful models have lives of 30 years or more, the latest offerings have little or no resemblance to the original product, and classic car designs that have recently made a comeback (e.g. the Mini and VW Beetle) similarly are completely different from the cars they take there inspiration from.

So I definitely think that a build of loco hauled "Adelante" coaches has merit! As an unpowered carriage, I think that type of coach would be able to offer a good level of comfort and ride quality. Shame that it wouldn't happen, I'd be chuffed to bits with an 8 coach rake of Adelante based carriages behind a class 57 or 67 on Crosscountry

 

[b0b]

So I definitely think that a build of loco hauled "Adelante" coaches has merit! As an unpowered carriage, I think that type of coach would be able to offer a good level of comfort and ride quality. Shame that it wouldn't happen, I'd be chuffed to bits with an 8 coach rake of Adelante based carriages behind a class 57 or 67 on Crosscountry

So every time you're on a 180, you're hoping it fails so they have to send out a thunderbird to go pick it up?

 

[sprinterguy]

So every time you're on a 180, you're hoping it fails so they have to send out a thunderbird to go pick it up?

Given their current reliability (or lack of it) with GC, which is the main operator of 180s I have dealings with, that's not such a far fetched wish!

(Except for coupling compatibility, but never mind)

 

[starrymarkb]

Isn't there such a thing in the form of the CAF Mk4s for IE - Am I right in thinking Ireland uses UK size stock with broad gauge bogies?

 

[LE Greys]

Isn't there such a thing in the form of the CAF Mk4s for IE - Am I right in thinking Ireland uses UK size stock with broad gauge bogies?

Bit confusing that, a MkIV that isn't a MkIV. Would have to be a MkV over here. Still, they look like a good design, and I've heard good things about them.

 

[jamesontheroad]

Isn't there such a thing in the form of the CAF Mk4s for IE - Am I right in thinking Ireland uses UK size stock with broad gauge bogies?

I'm not sure about general dimensions, but since the CAF-designed IE Mk. 4 carriages replaced Mk. 3 based stock, I'm guessing that their clearances would work over here as well.

IE ordered (IIRC) 67 carriages for €117m, or about €1.75m per carriage. I don't know what the exchange rate was at the time of the purchase, but that would be about £1.5m per carriage at today's rates!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bit confusing that, a MkIV that isn't a MkIV. Would have to be a MkV over here. Still, they look like a good design, and I've heard good things about them.

Not so, I'm afraid. They're about to get a whole lot more expensive...

http://railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=464879#post464879

 

[generalvegitable]

I'm not sure about general dimensions, but since the CAF-designed IE Mk. 4 carriages replaced Mk. 3 based stock, I'm guessing that their clearances would work over here as well.

they wouldn't, they were designed to fully utilise the given loading gauge (at least according to wikipedia)

 

[The Planner]

Unless you can get a LHCS set to match the dwell time of a power door multiple unit then dont bother.

 

[devon_metro]

Given their current reliability (or lack of it) with GC, which is the main operator of 180s I have dealings with, that's not such a far fetched wish!

(Except for coupling compatibility, but never mind)

Hull Trains 180 reliability is very high as far as I know!

 

[87015]

Unless you can get a LHCS set to match the dwell time of a power door multiple unit then dont bother.

No reason why a LHCS coach with power doors wouldn't be identical to a MU with the same surely?

 

[WatcherZero]

I thought they would base the new build on the refurbished units so no real major redesign needed.

 

[starrymarkb]

Thinking CAF might do a better deal if the order was for more then 8 8car rakes. Order more and the cost per unit would fall

 

[The Planner]

No reason why a LHCS coach with power doors wouldn't be identical to a MU with the same surely?

You'd hope so.

 

[swt_passenger]

Unless you can get a LHCS set to match the dwell time of a power door multiple unit then dont bother.

The comparison should surely be with an end doored intercity layout such as a Mk4? People don't want the suburban layout on IC routes - look at the 185.

The 442 is basically a power door fitted Mk3. Now in their current role on the BML they get criticised as the dwell times are not as good as a 1/3 2/3 Electrostar, but I bet they are still far better than HSTs, and similar to an EC Mk4?

 

[rail-britain]

Given that so many projects have been abandoned by the DfT any such proposal for "Mark 3" coaches is just more pie in the sky
Anyway, aren't we up to Mark 5 now, with the Class 390

 

[TDK]

I think LH stock is better than some of the newer dmu/emus we have today.

But you only have one engine if that fails you have had it, with an MU you have more than one power car generally.LHCS is better for comfort especially with Mk3 coaching stock however 90% of passengers would hardly know the difference!

 

[route:oxford]

Cheers for all the replies so far.

There hasn't been any response to a query in my original post though, wonder if anyone has any thoughts...

Would, say, the 67 (or any electric loco) have the ability to supply power to "external" traction motors and would it make any significant difference in the case of the 67 to wear & tear on the track?

(Meaning, would a 67 be able to supply power to powered axles on a DVT via a high voltage bus and would it be beneficial)

 

[rail-britain]

Would, say, the 67 (or any electric loco) have the ability to supply power to "external" traction motors and would it make any significant difference in the case of the 67 to wear & tear on the track?

It would be possible
However extremely expensive and there would be little or no benefit
The locos are already designed to use the optimum supply from the power source
Equally, the power would need to be fed either for the entire length of the train or to the coach adjacent to the loco
It would therefore make more sense to make it the coach next to the loco (and permanently coupled)

 

[Kingfisher200262]

It would be possible
However extremely expensive and there would be little or no benefit
The locos are already designed to use the optimum supply from the power source
Equally, the power would need to be fed either for the entire length of the train or to the coach adjacent to the loco
It would therefore make more sense to make it the coach next to the loco (and permanently coupled)

rail-britain is quite right, because the traction motors on the Class 67 (and all locos) are rated to make use of all of the power supplied by the engine / alternator (or in the case of an electric loco, the traction system). The only possible benefit that could be gained from powering additional axles with Class 67 motive power would be better acceleration, but this would not be that much improved because of the mass of the loco.

The Polaris product works on the principle of the power car and first trailer car at each end of the train set having powered axles, as shown here, in much the same way as TGV and Eurostar. The main benefit of this is that the weight of the power car (in the case of Polaris, 64 tonnes) can be reduced on the basis of it having smaller traction motors, with the power being distributed to more axles, helping to improve acceleration.

In the example shown, which has six trailers, 50% of axles are powered. Additional trailers can be added, up to eleven, before the available power is insufficient to achieve 125 mph running under the wires and 100 mph running off the wires on the UK network.

 

[rail-britain]

A similar arrangement exists in the Class 390
There is just enough power for the current nine car sets
With the additional two cars the sets will be split into two, resulting in the trains operating with two pantographs, each powering its own half

http://www.theiet.org/events/2007/presentations/rs-john-evans.cfm

 

[ukrob]

A similar arrangement exists in the Class 390
There is just enough power for the current nine car sets
With the additional two cars the sets will be split into two, resulting in the trains operating with two pantographs, each powering its own half

http://www.theiet.org/events/2007/presentations/rs-john-evans.cfm

I don't think anyone has heard that before, and it isn't supported by the link you provided. All it states is additional motor car and additional transformer car - which is illustrated without a pantograph. Does anyone have another source?

 

[rail-britain]

If you read through the other documents from Alstom, it clearly states that the unit has to be split into two separate power units, thus two pantographs in use
See page 17 of the file on that link for details of the two vehicles being inserted (11-car train configuration)

 

[ukrob]

If you read through the other documents from Alstom, it clearly states that the unit has to be split into two separate power units, thus two pantographs in use
See page 17 of the file on that link for details of the two vehicles being inserted (11-car train configuration)

I have - hence me talking about it in the post you just replied to.

Do you have a link to these other documents?

 

[Pumbaa]

First I'd heard with it running two Pantos up together. I knew it was a TMS and TRS, but not with the requirement for it to run as 2 separate units with the additional panto raised. They've heard of a bus surely? The diagrams in there even confirm they have!!

 

[RobShipway]

From my reading of articles in Rail Magazine, my understanding was that the Pendo 390 lengthing would be done on the basis of just the rear pantograph being used on the trains as Virgin are started to do now using the bus as previously mentioned to power the front section of the train and enable the driver to have control in the front DVT.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

First I'd heard with it running two Pantos up together. I knew it was a TMS and TRS, but not with the requirement for it to run as 2 separate units with the additional panto raised. They've heard of a bus surely? The diagrams in there even confirm they have!!

I presume that the issue here is how much current can be taken by one pantograph. In the original configuration, I believe that two pantographs were provided to offer redundancy in the event of panto defect / failure. There is indeed an HV bus that runs the length of the train set as the Alstom slides clearly show.

Adding the extra vehicles increases the power demand, probably past the point that one pantograph can support, hence the need to split the train set (electrically) in two. On the face of it, the previously provided redundancy will be lost, or at least reduced, as with the new configuration, if a panto fails and needs to be lowered, either one half set will need to haul the other half "dead", or the supply will need to be fed down the length of the train set via the HV bus, at reduced power and, therefore reduced speed.

This analysis may be flawed and somebody that knows more about the project is welcome to pick holes in it, but that's the way I see it.