Future rolling stock and upgrades for the WoE line.

[DB]

Why wouldn't it be allowed? How's it any different from a Stadler 755 - they've effectively got a cabless loco in the middle.

I thought there was some rule about locos? But even if not, it's not a good situation having a loco right in the middle of a train for other reasons - e.g. loading passengers (the engine unit on the 755 is much shorter than a loco, and passenger access through it).

 

[43096]

I thought there was some rule about locos? But even if not, it's not a good situation having a loco right in the middle of a train for other reasons - e.g. loading passengers (the engine unit on the 755 is much shorter than a loco, and passenger access through it).

How's it any different to a pair of 80x units with the wasted space of cabs and unused kitchen areas? None of the supposed issues with loco haulage are unsolvable, unless, of course, you haven't a "can't do" mentality (which is an affliction of much of the MDTR, unfortunately).

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I thought there was some rule about locos? But even if not, it's not a good situation having a loco right in the middle of a train for other reasons - e.g. loading passengers (the engine unit on the 755 is much shorter than a loco, and passenger access through it).

my rule was about old locos which didn’t have automatic fire bottles but relied on a driver being in the cab to operate them on hearing the alarm

 

[Aictos]

Gouing to get messy if locos end up in the middle of a train - is a powering loco even allowed in the middle of passenger trains?

Maybe you could ask the Austrian Federal Railways (OBB) that because they certainly do operate their RailJet services with locos in the middle of the formation with the driving trailer at the ends as you can clearly see in this Youtube video:

So I don't think it's a issue at all.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

HSTs are old and knackered, basically. Reliability is dropping, corrosion is a serious problem and performance is inferior to modern trains with slow acceleration, which causes big problems on lines with a lot of traffic. They're also serious gas-guzzlers, which creates a lot of pollution, and makes them expensive to run. Track access charges are high too.

That'll do.

Ok, I will give you that. They are old and knackered and corrosion is an issue, but so are all old trains. A new build HST type train wouldn’t have any of those issues.

The HST’s aren’t slow accelerators at all. While not as fast as the 22x classes, they are still capable of giving a brand new 80x a run for its money. The fuel consumption issue would be solved in a new build by having a modern engine, just like the one in the 93, but with more power. A 4+4 Voyager has 8 engines, and I don’t think that 8 smaller engines is cheaper to run than 2 larger ones.

 

[Energy]

and I don’t think that 8 smaller engines is cheaper to run than 2 larger ones.

Yes and no, HSTs are not great with fuel still and although maintanence will be easier you can have 1 engine not be working on a voyager while you can't really on a HST. Loco hauled trains also have high track access charges.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Ok, I will give you that. They are old and knackered and corrosion is an issue, but so are all old trains. A new build HST type train wouldn’t have any of those issues.

The HST’s aren’t slow accelerators at all. While not as fast as the 22x classes, they are still capable of giving a brand new 80x a run for its money. The fuel consumption issue would be solved in a new build by having a modern engine, just like the one in the 93, but with more power. A 4+4 Voyager has 8 engines, and I don’t think that 8 smaller engines is cheaper to run than 2 larger ones.

Trust me an 80x will severely out pace an HST

 

[pompeyfan]

What has this got to do with replacing 159s?

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Yes and no, HSTs are not great with fuel still and although maintanence will be easier you can have 1 engine not be working on a voyager while you can't really on a HST. Loco hauled trains also have high track access charges.

That is true regarding the engine failure, however ku point was more that a HST can self recover, rather than operate one engine like a Voyager can. A HST can bring itself to the next station and likely complete the journey on one engine, but loco hauled can’t.

HST’s aren’t great with fuel because the engines are over a decade old. A modern engine would use far less fuel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2021 ==

Trust me an 80x will severely out pace an HST

If that is true then it is to be expected. 200hp more and has modern electronics. Make a modern version of the HST and it will be just as fast.

 

[TXMISTA]

People really need to let go of their nostalgia for the HSTs. We all love them but it’s simply a fact that they’re outdated and only going to deteriorate further. I’m not even sure why HSTs are being suggested in this thread. They’re so unsuitable for the WoE services. As has been mentioned previously, 159s are perfect. What’s needed is a modern MU of similar specification and ideally bi or tri mode.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

People really need to let go of their nostalgia for the HSTs. We all love them but it’s simply a fact that they’re outdated and only going to deteriorate further. I’m not even sure why HSTs are being suggested in this thread. They’re so unsuitable for the WoE services. As has been mentioned previously, 159s are perfect. What’s needed is a modern MU of similar specification and ideally bi or tri mode.

While I admit that it’s the wrong thread for the current discussion, but were not suggesting them for the WoE, but rather a similar new build design as a replacement for XC’s 22x fleet.

The WoE needs a train (ignore the loco vs HST vs MU thing for a minute) that is capable of operating on 750V DC Third Rail and diesel. It needs to have plenty of power to keep to time over Honiton Bank especially, but also the other banks on the route. OHLE capability is currently not needed, but a pantograph well should be built in even if a pantograph is not installed from the get go to allow an addition of one should the Exeter St David’s or Salisbury are ever be wired up.

I am unaware of what the speeds are west of Salisbury, but I believe that 100mph (correct me if I am wrong) is the limit west of Salisbury and therefore would be adequate for the route.

Diesel power needs to be fairly high as these train will be heavy, especially if they’re both third rail and OHLE capable along side the diesel engines. Adding a small battery to allow low emission departures from non electrified stations is an option, but again, this adds weight and would need go be considered when deciding on installed diesel power.

Back to MU vs LHCS/HST type setups. Personally, while the reliability has been sub optimal, I think that the format of the Stadler 755’s is a game changer. The have the advantages of MU and LHCS.

• They can be split and joined as the TOC pleases
• They have redundancy thanks to multiple engines
• They have distributed traction
• They can be reversed easily
• They don’t have engines under the floor so are comfortable and quiet.
• They have the performance of MU’s due to their high power
• TA charges are low
• Fuel consumption should be lower, depending on how you’re measuring it

The only disadvantage that Stadler 755’s have over normal MU’s is the power car that wastes space, however it is only 7m which isn’t all that much on an 80m train. I have previously suggested a 2 x 6 formation out of Waterloo, but in reality, a mixture of 6 and 4 car sets would be better.

 

[Energy]

HST’s aren’t great with fuel because the engines are over a decade old. A modern engine would use far less fuel.

Would it? 10 years old is pretty young, I doubt it will have come on that far in such a short time, plus the smaller engines have improved.

 

[DB]

Maybe you could ask the Austrian Federal Railways (OBB) that because they certainly do operate their RailJet services with locos in the middle of the formation with the driving trailer at the ends as you can clearly see in this Youtube video:

So I don't think it's a issue at all.

Not really relevant - different country so rules might well be completely different. The joining there also clearly requires men in orange to connect everything up - that wouldn't be considered viable in this country these days.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Not really relevant - different country so rules might well be completely different. The joining there also clearly requires men in orange to connect everything up - that wouldn't be considered viable in this country these days.

Can you not have 68’s with auto couplers like the 80x have or similar? If the locos were bought specifically for this role, there’s no reason why they couldn’t have autocouplers.

 

[pompeyfan]

Can you not have 68’s with auto couplers like the 80x have or similar? If the locos were bought specifically for this role, there’s no reason why they couldn’t have autocouplers.

I don’t think auto couplers can carry hotel power or main res. I don’t think units can cross feed main res and their compressors look after their own units. Happy to be proven wrong

 

[D6130]

The fuel consumption is enormous on the 185’s which probably isn’t what SWR want.

True.....but they do have the GPS cut-out facility which knocks out the engine on the centre car when going downgrade. Nice and quiet for the passengers too!

Slightly tongue-in-cheek here.....but how about third rail electrification all the way from Worting Junction to Exeter and use the refurbished 442s (if anyone can eventually make them work!).

 

[DB]

True.....but they do have the GPS cut-out facility which knocks out the engine on the centre car when going downgrade. Nice and quiet for the passengers too!

That seems to behave rather eratically sometimes - they can be sitting in a station for a few minutes and the engine under the floor shuts down, then it starts again a minute or two later (before the train leaves the station). Noticed this a few times and not sure why they do it.

 

[43096]

I don’t think auto couplers can carry hotel power or main res. I don’t think units can cross feed main res and their compressors look after their own units. Happy to be proven wrong

We've been through this already. If you're coupling two loco formations you don't need to cross feed ETS as each part already has a loco.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

I don’t think auto couplers can carry hotel power or main res. I don’t think units can cross feed main res and their compressors look after their own units. Happy to be proven wrong

This isn’t an issue. As long as the front 68/the front DT can control both locos then it’s fine. There needs to be long ETH transfer as each 68+mk5 set works individually in that set.

The only thing that would need to work is the multiple working through up to 5 coaches (depending on whether the loco is leading and the orientation of both sets etc.) which we know is possible because HST’s have been doing it for years.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2021 ==

Slightly tongue-in-cheek here.....but how about third rail electrification all the way from Worting Junction to Exeter and use the refurbished 442s (if anyone can eventually make them work!).

The 442’s are quite old and if Woking Jn to Exeter was electrified it would be with 25Kv OHLE, like the rest of the electrification schemes.

The 442’2 are excellent, however the route is not currently equipped for them. Unless you drag them with a 73 or 93 west of Woking Jn...

 

[MatthewRead]

This isn’t an issue. As long as the front 68/the front DT can control both locos then it’s fine. There needs to be long ETH transfer as each 68+mk5 set works individually in that set.

The only thing that would need to work is the multiple working through up to 5 coaches (depending on whether the loco is leading and the orientation of both sets etc.) which we know is possible because HST’s have been doing it for years.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2021 ==


The 442’s are quite old and if Woking Jn to Exeter was electrified it would be with 25Kv OHLE, like the rest of the electrification schemes.

The 442’2 are excellent, however the route is not currently equipped for them. Unless you drag them with a 73 or 93 west of Woking Jn...

It's Worting Junction actually and its funny you should mention 442's because there were plans back in the 1980's to electrify the line with third rail and order another batch of 442's but that was deemed to expensive as was buying new loco hauled stock and shortened HST's was deemed unfeasible

 

[Aictos]

Not really relevant - different country so rules might well be completely different. The joining there also clearly requires men in orange to connect everything up - that wouldn't be considered viable in this country these days.

Is actually relevant, your post stated that a loco in the middle of the train wasn't allowed and I just proved you wrong.

Remember a lot of the EU rules and regulations will now become UK legislation due to Brexit.

And as to your point about the shunter, that is invalid because I'm sure when the Southern region operated 4REPS, 4TCs and Class 33s it wasn't that much time taken to join or split a train. I believe in the region of 5 mins or so and that can be done in a station stop. I'm sure others with experience of those trains can verify, I'm too young to remember them.

 

[pompeyfan]

We've been through this already. If you're coupling two loco formations you don't need to cross feed ETS as each part already has a loco.

This isn’t an issue. As long as the front 68/the front DT can control both locos then it’s fine. There needs to be long ETH transfer as each 68+mk5 set works individually in that set.

The only thing that would need to work is the multiple working through up to 5 coaches (depending on whether the loco is leading and the orientation of both sets etc.) which we know is possible because HST’s have been doing it for years.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Feb 2021 ==


The 442’s are quite old and if Woking Jn to Exeter was electrified it would be with 25Kv OHLE, like the rest of the electrification schemes.

The 442’2 are excellent, however the route is not currently equipped for them. Unless you drag them with a 73 or 93 west of Woking Jn...

so hang on, you’re proposing running a 68+mk5+68+mk5 formation out of Waterloo in the evening peak with no possibility to walk through portions?

not in a million years because of the lack of gangways and wasted space.

If we do see new stock I’m now thinking it’ll be like for like but probably a DEMU that can pick up 750v and provision to adapt to 25kv if needed.

In my opinion the 159s do their job well

 

[43096]

In my opinion the 159s do their job well

Agreed. The 158/159 design is perfect for the Waterloo-Exeter route, offering a suitable interior, whilst maximising usable train length at the London end.

 

[Energy]

so hang on, you’re proposing running a 68+mk5+68+mk5 formation out of Waterloo in the evening peak with no possibility to walk through portions?

Its like the RUK class 442 joke, but actually serious. People need to stop fixating on the claim Stagecoach were looking into loco hauled for SWT, because I highly doubt they were and there is no evidence to prove they did.

If we do see new stock I’m now thinking it’ll be like for like but probably a DEMU that can pick up 750v and provision to adapt to 25kv if needed.

Probably, whether it is a 6 car FLIRT with 750v capability or Bombardier Aventra or Hitachi AT200 I'm sure somebody will make something, just not yet.

In my opinion the 159s do their job well

Definitely, they work well with only two problems, getting older (but still have 10 years left) and not being able to use the electrified bit. Hopefully in a few years time when they will be up for replacement the government decide to electrify.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Its like the RUK class 442 joke, but actually serious. People need to stop fixating on the claim Stagecoach were looking into loco hauled for SWT, because I highly doubt they were and there is no evidence to prove they did.

Probably, whether it is a 6 car FLIRT with 750v capability or Bombardier Aventra or Hitachi AT200 I'm sure somebody will make something, just not yet.

Definitely, they work well with only two problems, getting older (but still have 10 years left) and not being able to use the electrified bit. Hopefully in a few years time when they will be up for replacement the government decide to electrify.

The electrified bit is a red-herring currently anyway, it wouldn’t be available for West of England trains until a power upgrade is funded and delivered, the areas between Pirbright and Basingstoke regularly rely on trains operating on power reduction to run all the existing electric services.

 

[MarkyT]

The electrified bit is a red-herring currently anyway, it wouldn’t be available for West of England trains until a power upgrade is funded and delivered, the areas between Pirbright and Basingstoke regularly rely on trains operating on power reduction to run all the existing electric services.

An intelligent management system onboard might plausibly blend power from the 3rd rail with onboard storage and diesel power to limit peak load, charge batteries at Waterloo while laying over, and harvest braking energy. Some more capacity in the supply is definitely justified as well though.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

so hang on, you’re proposing running a 68+mk5+68+mk5 formation out of Waterloo in the evening peak with no possibility to walk through portions?

not in a million years because of the lack of gangways and wasted space.

If we do see new stock I’m now thinking it’ll be like for like but probably a DEMU that can pick up 750v and provision to adapt to 25kv if needed.

In my opinion the 159s do their job well

No no, not out of Waterloo. It was more an idea for XC, same with the HST type setup.

For SWR, I still maintain that 6 car Stadler 755's is the best option.

 

[DB]

Is actually relevant, your post stated that a loco in the middle of the train wasn't allowed and I just proved you wrong.

Remember a lot of the EU rules and regulations will now become UK legislation due to Brexit.

And as to your point about the shunter, that is invalid because I'm sure when the Southern region operated 4REPS, 4TCs and Class 33s it wasn't that much time taken to join or split a train. I believe in the region of 5 mins or so and that can be done in a station stop. I'm sure others with experience of those trains can verify, I'm too young to remember them.

No you did not 'prove me wrong' - I was quite clearly referring to this country. What other countries do is irrelvant - perhaps you would also like to claim that people holding onto the outside is fine because it happens in some countries?

The point about a shunter is not 'invalid'. I am perfectly well aware that it happened a lot in the past, but that was then, and this is now, and it's quite clear (from the fact that other than the Caledonian sleepers, in the middle of the night, it doesn't happen at all in this country) that it's no longer considered viable. Do you reckon it would be considered perfectly OK to lengthen station stops and close adjacent lines while cables were plugged in? Surely the fact that it hasn't happened in the time you can remember rather makes the point...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Feb 2021 ==

Agreed. The 158/159 design is perfect for the Waterloo-Exeter route, offering a suitable interior, whilst maximising usable train length at the London end.

Well, quite - and when they are eventually replaced it will probably be with something which is similar apart from not being diesel-only.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

If DMU's can couple without a "shunter" as can IET's other units like them, why can't locos with the same coupling do the same? If a loco had a dellner couple why couldn't it couple to another loco/unit with a delner coupler just like a unit?

Why do we even need a shunter, can drivers not walk? This is an example of H&S impeeding operations needlessly.

 

[Neptune]

Why do we even need a shunter, can drivers not walk? This is an example of H&S impeeding operations needlessly.

So you want it to take even longer now? It would take forever and a day if the driver had to position the loco, jump off, connect up, jump back on, check brake continuity....... Need I go on?