Alternative to IEP Program

[Daimler]

In the case of Paddington to Bristol trains, yes but for Swansea trains they would need the engines to run from where the electrification ends to Swansea. Will be interestng to know if the engines will be fueled or not for trains running between Paddington and Bristol. It would save carrying around the weight of the fuel but if you didn't but if they carried fuel all the time it would give flexibility for diagraming and as stated above would allow the trains to run in the event of an OHLE failure.

Of course, but that doesn't alter the fact that dead weight is still being lugged around from London-Bristol Parkway (or wherever). That said, if one attaches a diesel locomotive at the point where electrification ends, then a load of useless traction motors would still be being lugged around if the train was a 'pure' EMU.

This is why I still believe - as does Ian Walmsley in Modern Railways (and even to some extent Roger Ford) - that when a train needs to change power source along its journey, a fixed formation of carriages with a driving cab at either end is the best solution. For the GWML, something like this would be quite neat: electric locomotive at east end of the train, pushing it to wherever electrification ends. Upon arrival at the boundary station, rear loco drops off, diesel loco couples onto front, hauls train to final destination. For the return journey, the reverse applies. This minimises 'dead' weight and offers optimum flexibility.

 

[Zoe]

This is why I still believe - as does Ian Walmsley in Modern Railways (and even to some extent Roger Ford) - that when a train needs to change power source along its journey, a fixed formation of carriages with a driving cab at either end is the best solution. For the GWML, something like this would be quite neat: electric locomotive at east end of the train, pushing it to wherever electrification ends. Upon arrival at the boundary station, rear loco drops off, diesel loco couples onto front, hauls train to final destination. For the return journey, the reverse applies. This minimises 'dead' weight and offers optimum flexibility.

But as we've dicussed countless times, loco and stock just isn't going to happen. Multiple Units are always considered superior.

 

[Hydro]

Maybe you could have an diesel engine of a design that could be easily installed or removed onto an EMU, at the limits of electrification. That way there would be no carting around dead weight or diesel fuel on the IEP, which means the less power consumption, less onboard equipment to go wrong, and quicker acceleration, and simpler and cheaper maintenance regimes. It could be easily portable in case of OHLE failure, so you could get it to site quickly, install it and the train can be powered away back onto the juice.

A powerful diesel engine, that can be installed quickly, and is very portable.

Nope, I can't think of anything either. Maybe the DfT can produce a specification for some kind of mobile diesel engine. They should consult the chaps at the National Physical Laboratory and the scientists at JET Harwell. This truly would be groundbreaking stuff.

 

[MCR247]

^That was what I was thinking

A new diesel loco that is developed along side it, therefore has the same cab etc and can be used just like a Push-pull set, so no running around. This wouldn't work for the GWML, but the ECML I can see...

 

[Daimler]

But as we've dicussed countless times, loco and stock just isn't going to happen. Multiple Units are always considered superior.

By the DafT, clearly.

Me, I'd rather people who know what they're talking about - someone who's actually got rail experience, like Mr. Walmsley or Roger Ford, who's quite clear about the bi-mode.

^That was what I was thinking

A new diesel loco that is developed along side it, therefore has the same cab etc and can be used just like a Push-pull set, so no running around. This wouldn't work for the GWML, but the ECML I can see...

Why not for the GWML - it seems a similar concept to me...

Or have I missed something?

 

[Zoe]

A new diesel loco that is developed along side it, therefore has the same cab etc and can be used just like a Push-pull set, so no running around. This wouldn't work for the GWML, but the ECML I can see...

I'm not sure the above post was referring to a locomotive but actually an underfloor engines that could be installed or removed en route.

 

[Daimler]

Maybe you could have an diesel engine of a design that could be easily installed or removed onto an EMU, at the limits of electrification. That way there would be no carting around dead weight or diesel fuel on the IEP, which means the less power consumption, less onboard equipment to go wrong, and quicker acceleration, and simpler and cheaper maintenance regimes. It could be easily portable in case of OHLE failure, so you could get it to site quickly, install it and the train can be powered away back onto the juice.

A powerful diesel engine, that can be installed quickly, and is very portable.

Nope, I can't think of anything either. Maybe the DfT can produce a specification for some kind of mobile diesel engine. They should consult the chaps at the National Physical Laboratory and the scientists at JET Harwell. This truly would be groundbreaking stuff.

Presumably you'd have to have easily installable fuel tanks too...?

EDIT: I think I originally missed the point of Hydro's post

 

[Hydro]

Just imagine if British Rail had some kind of EMU/Diesel concept. Maybe even some kind of push pull formation. It'd be great for going to the seaside, I quite like those types of places. Bournemouth...Weymouth...


I have heard on the grapevine that the DfT have been rather flushed with success over the IEP plan. Next up they apparently have some kind of one sided curve shape that could potentially have movement capabilities.

 

[Zoe]

You'd just need to have access from underneath the rails when the train is in the station unless you physically jack the train up.

 

[Daimler]

Just imagine if British Rail had some kind of EMU/Diesel concept. Maybe even some kind of push pull formation. It'd be great for going to the seaside, I quite like those types of places. Bournemouth...Weymouth...


I have heard on the grapevine that the DfT have been rather flushed with success over the IEP plan. Next up they apparently have some kind of one sided curve shape that could potentially have movement capabilities.

Oh very good...

 

[Hydro]

You'd just need to have access from underneath the rails when the train is in the station unless you physically jack the train up.

Maybe it could be installed from the front or rear?

 

[Zoe]

Maybe it could be installed from the front or rear?

Well you'd want to have engines under each coach.

 

[Nym]

Maybe it could be installed from the front or rear?

Oh, and to install it from the front or rear, you could mount it on it's own carrage, that will supply traction power to the EMU carrages behind it, or just have this big engine on it's own carrage that pulls or pushes the whole train...

leaving Paddington County End: DVT/DBSO - 8*Mk5/6 - DVT/DBFO - Electric Loco (Or transfomer/loco for distributed traction)

Sat in the platform at Bristol parkway waiting, nice warm Diesel loco ready to run, with a sodding big autocoupler to join to the DBSO and provide distributed traction power

Join up

Detach electric loco from rear when driving off

(This should take 1 minute at most, since theres no door testing or anything to do, the driver is effectivly changing ends fron Leading DBSO to Leading Loco)

DBSO Driver walks back to Electric Loco and moves it into sidings, or the diesel propelled train from Swansea comes in, DBSO First and couples up to the electric loco it's mate just left...

PS: I'm using the term EMU for the idea of powered coaches, they won't contain anything to pickup traction current or transformers, all supplied by busbar

 

[Daimler]

Oh, and to install it from the front or rear, you could mount it on it's own carrage, that will supply traction power to the EMU carrages behind it, or just have this big engine on it's own carrage that pulls or pushes the whole train...

leaving Paddington County End: DVT/DBSO - 8*Mk5/6 - DVT/DBFO - Electric Loco (Or transfomer/loco for distributed traction)

Sat in the platform at Bristol parkway waiting, nice warm Diesel loco ready to run, with a sodding big autocoupler to join to the DBSO and provide distributed traction power

Join up

Detach electric loco from rear when driving off

(This should take 1 minute at most, since theres no door testing or anything to do, the driver is effectivly changing ends fron Leading DBSO to Leading Loco)

DBSO Driver walks back to Electric Loco and moves it into sidings, or the diesel propelled train from Swansea comes in, DBSO First and couples up to the electric loco it's mate just left...

This man speaks sense.

 

[Zoe]

The fact is though that the IEP is going to be a multiple unit so posting loco and stock solutions is not helpful as we know it isn't going to happen. Given that it will be a multiple unit though, does anyone have better ideas than the dft plan?

 

[Daimler]

The fact is though that the IEP is going to be a multiple unit so posting loco and stock solutions is not helpful as we know it isn't going to happen. Given that it will be a multiple unit though, does anyone have better ideas than the dft plan?

It's perhaps true that we're going to be stuck with some half-baked-bi-mode disaster, but that's like saying 'given that we're stuck with crap, has anyone any idea how to polish the crap?', rather than talking about genuine alternatives - the push-pull fixed formation idea is a 'better idea than the dft plan', and as such is still helpful.

I also personally find it extremely helpful to see that there are plenty of people who do recognise that the current IEP idea has significant limitations - it keeps me sane when I read what the DafT has been up to in Modern Railways!

 

[Zoe]

It's not just the dft though, most people on here seem to agree the a multiple unit is the only practical solution. What peopel don't agree with is the dft bi-mode plan.

 

[Daimler]

It's not just the dft though, most people on here seem to agree the a multiple unit is the only practical solution. What peopel don't agree with is the dft bi-mode plan.

But if you aren't going to have a bi-mode, and you're not going to electrify everything, nor replicate the worst limitations of Brunel's broad gauge in the 19th Century and force people to change trains at the limit of electrification, then you're going to need some form of locomotive haulage for at least part of the journey!

That is an eminently practical solution - I'm not defending the idea because I desperately want to see locos everywhere, but because it makes sense.

 

[Zoe]

How about using EMUs on the fully electrified routes and DMUs on other routes? As the electriffication is extended then the DMUs could have pantographs added and enginges removed to become EMUs.

 

[gordonthemoron]

seems like a sensible idea

 

[Daimler]

How about using EMUs on the fully electrified routes and DMUs on other routes? As the electriffication is extended then the DMUs could have pantographs added and enginges removed to become EMUs.

Great...running diesel engines under the wires for long distances again. I'd hoped we would have moved away from that.

What is the massive issue you have with using locos to haul EMUs off the wires? That way there wouldn't be any need for expensive re-engineering following further electrification.

I do concede that it is at least a better idea than the bi-mode though, despite my dislike of DMUs on intercity services!

 

[Zoe]

Great...running diesel engines under the wires for long distances again. I'd hoped we would have moved away from that.

I'm not suggesting that, what I'm saying is you fully electrify the routes where the EMUs will run and order DMUs for the remaining routes. The remaining routes will most likely be electrified in time so then you convert the DMUs to EMUs.

 

[Hydro]

The fact is though that the IEP is going to be a multiple unit so posting loco and stock solutions is not helpful as we know it isn't going to happen. Given that it will be a multiple unit though, does anyone have better ideas than the dft plan?

I'm not suggesting loco and stock, I'm suggesting loco and EMU that can work in push pull mode.

This has been done before, for years and years and years. You must be familiar with the REP concept, which was a result of EXACTLY the same situation; wires only going so far on a route due to financial issues.

 

[TomJ93]

May as well throw my tuppence in here!

The way I see it, the major, major gripe with all MUs is underfloor engine vibration, seat layour, length is all unit specific problems.

I find the 390s is hardly noticeable, even at full power, whereas the 220/1 is not bad whilst cruising but whilst speeding up it's quite a noisy rattle.

There are also plenty of 60s and a few 37s around, unused 47s and 57s are also available. Does anyone see where I am going with this?

We buy Pendolinos (don't ask where I heard this but. . .) tilt would be advantageous on the GWML, at Bristol a Loco gets put on and 100mph running is resumed, the time saved by the tilting stock, faster acceleration and less casualties due to a new fleet means it should be the same times as now, if not faster with the locos.

If BR managed it easily in the 70s onwards surely we can?

It would be great if the cabs of the 390 could be used as DVTs in there circumstances save needing a loco run around.

 

[Daimler]

I'm not suggesting that, what I'm saying is you fully electrify the routes where the EMUs will run and order DMUs for the remaining routes. The remaining routes will most likely be electrified in time so then you convert the DMUs to EMUs.

So you're suggesting making everyone change trains where electrification ends?

 

[Zoe]

tilt would be advantageous on the GWML

I'm not sure it would be, it's relatively straight until west of Newton Abbot.

 

[Daimler]

May as well throw my tuppence in here!

The way I see it, the major, major gripe with all MUs is underfloor engine vibration, seat layour, length is all unit specific problems.

I find the 390s is hardly noticeable, even at full power, whereas the 220/1 is not bad whilst cruising but whilst speeding up it's quite a noisy rattle.

There are also plenty of 60s and a few 37s around, unused 47s and 57s are also available. Does anyone see where I am going with this?

We buy Pendolinos (don't ask where I heard this but. . .) tilt would be advantageous on the GWML, at Bristol a Loco gets put on and 100mph running is resumed, the time saved by the tilting stock, faster acceleration and less casualties due to a new fleet means it should be the same times as now, if not faster with the locos.

If BR managed it easily in the 70s onwards surely we can?

It would be great if the cabs of the 390 could be used as DVTs in there circumstances save needing a loco run around.

Tilt really isn't needed for the GWML, the limitation on speed is the signalling - so we (mercifully) don't need something like the 390s - the 395s would be a better model on which to base the design (or even an electric 222).

 

[Zoe]

395s would be a better model on which to base the design

Considering the 395s were built by Hitachi, maybe the design will be based on them.

 

[Daimler]

Considering the 395s were built by Hitachi, maybe the design will be based on them.

Quite, though hopefully with doors at the end and some significant ride/refinement improvements (no doubt refinement improvements will come courtesy of doors at the end).

 

[Zoe]

As for locomotive haulage of EMUs off the wires, if you read earlier in the post you will see that this was considered but it is believed one reason for rejection is the lack of capability for building domestic locomotives.