Alternative to IEP Program

[Hydro]

that'd be just under 4000 tonnes of fuel.

You'd need definitely need a loco

 

[Daimler]

Yes, no-one wants loco hauled stock. Not the dft or the TOCs or Network Rail.

I thought we'd already established that the DafT were clueless? As for the TOCs, they don't want IEP either! And as for Network Rail...well, I think the glaring inadequacies of their wheel-rail interface model (which unfairly penalises locomotives and, according to experts in the UK and abroad is, frankly, wrong) are the topic of another thread.

It also provides a good opportunity to change drivers/crews. At Waverley, for instance, the Scottish crew would be operating the diesel while the English crew would be in the electric (either one might be in a DVT at a certain time). Some adjustments to the timetable could enable the loco from an up Aberdeen train to run directly off that, wait a bit, then couple to a down train just coming in.

Indeed it would - the same would to a great extent be true of Hydro's REP Mk2 idea.

Many locations don't have faclities for loco changes though these days and lack shunters. There would also be a time penalty with a loco change.

Not with the system described above, and shunters aren't needed either. Come to that, nor are specific facilities, apart from at the depots (but then, they're needed for all trains there!).

 

[Zoe]

well, I think the glaring inadequacies of their wheel-rail interface model (which unfairly penalises locomotives

How is it unfair? Loco hauled stock wears out the track more than multiple units do. Remember also that no matter how much people on here like loco hauled stock, it can't ever offer what a multiple unit can.

 

[asylumxl]

I think you mean 4 tonnes of fuel? 4000kg?

You'd need definitely need a loco

Post amended

 

[Daimler]

I found people saying it's about 0.85kg per litre. So, a total capacity the same as a Class 43 tank, that'd be just under 4 tonnes of fuel.

So even taking into account dead engines and fuel+tanks, it'd still be more than half the weight of a MK4 trailer.

Thanks for that! Now all we need to know is to what extent an extra half-carriage impacts fuel consumption.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How is it unfair? Loco hauled stock wears out the track more than multiple units do. Remember also that no matter how much people on here like loco hauled stock, it can't ever offer what a multiple unit can.

No, NR's wheel-rail interface model suggests that this happens. According to Roger Ford (I think - I should really have kept all these articles now!), the model NR use is waaaaay off the mark, implying that locos damage the track far more than they actually do.

And I don't agree with what you say. When it comes to changing power source midway through a journey, I believe that at least an element of locomotive haulage is not only desirable but practical. This has nothing to do with liking locos - if we could electrify the whole route, you'd find me advocating EMUs!

 

[Woody]

As discussed in another thread, Voyagers would be the other option if Crewe to Chester was electrified. Don't forget that if linespeeds are improved between Paddington and Bristol and then between Bristol and Exeter this could remove the need to run West of England services via the Berks and Hants. Then electrifty Bristol to Plymouth as this would also benefit CrossCountry services. Plymouth though is likely to be as far as the wires are ever going to go so some DMUs would be needed for through services from London to Penzance.

Totally agree with you Zoe longer term send all West of England services via Bristol with further electrication eventually from Bristol on to Exeter/Plymouth and concentrate these services and future investment where possible on the core Great Western route equiped with European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS).With say mostly 140mph running Paddington to Bristol and 125mph Bristol to Bridgewater and limited stop say Reading/Bristol/Taunton/Exeter journey times should be at least as good as todays Berks and Hants timings using a standard fleet of trains and not this frankenstein bi-mode/Meridian proposal by the Daft.

 

[Zoe]

This has nothing to do with liking locos - if we could electrify the whole route, you'd find me advocating EMUs!

It's likely the wires will eventually reach Swansea and if we went for a loco and stock solution then we'd be stuck with the inconvenience of having to use loco and stock on a fully electrified line. At least with the current plan, once the route is electrified then the diesel engines can be removed and you have EMUs.

 

[ainsworth74]

It's likely the wires will eventually reach Swansea and if we went for a loco and stock solution then we'd be stuck with the inconvenience of having to use loco and stock on a fully electrified line. At least with the current plan, once the route is electrified then the diesel engines can be removed and you have EMUs.

Why? Once the line is electrified we could just re-task the loco away to other duties. For instance doing similar work to 67s (for which there seems to be ample demand) or acting as a thunderbird for the GWML.

 

[Zoe]

Why? Once the line is electrified we could just re-task the loco away to other duties. For instance doing similar work to 67s (for which there seems to be ample demand) or acting as a thunderbird for the GWML.

The above posts talk about using a diesel and electric locomotives with stock. Once electrification is complete you will be stuck with an electric loco and stock and don't get any of the benefits an EMU would offer.

 

[ainsworth74]

The above posts talk about using a diesel and electric locomotives with stock. Once electrification is complete you will be stuck with an electric loco and stock and don't get any of the benefits an EMU would offer.

Ahhh I get your point now! Sorry

Yes I agree that would be a bad solution, my current favourite is the EMU and loco solution.

 

[Daimler]

The above posts talk about using a diesel and electric locomotives with stock. Once electrification is complete you will be stuck with an electric loco and stock and don't get any of the benefits an EMU would offer.

I think the benefits aren't so great that it's worth compromising the suitability of stock for - what - 10 years, 15 years - so that we can have slightly faster acceleration by the time the train is halfway through its life. After all, it's not as though the 91s are rubbish at the job they do, is it? And, as ainsworth74 points out, the diesels would find work elsewhere.

That said, if you're determined to have units, then Hydro's REP Mk2 idea isn't half bad - the only weakness being the lugging around of traction motors away from the wires. But better that than great big diesel engines under every carriage needing to be lugged around under the wires!

 

[Zoe]

my current favourite is the EMU and loco solution.

Well as discussed above it seems that Hitachi don't offer a locomotive for the GB network. The question is though, how difficult is it to get out of a deal once you have named a preferred bidder? Hitachi were selected as preferred bidders for the IEP and retendering has been suggested but I'm not sure how easy that would be now.

 

[Daimler]

Yes I agree that would be a bad solution, my current favourite is the EMU and loco solution.

I'm coming round to that myself, though I'm still not all that keen on lugging idle traction equipment around. I suppose traction motors don't add *that* much weight to a carriage...

 

[Zoe]

After all, it's not as though the 91s are rubbish at the job they do, is it?

See comments elsewhere about 91s and Mark 4s vs 390s.

 

[Daimler]

Well as discussed above it seems that Hitachi don't offer a locomotive for the GB network. The question is though, how difficult is it to get out of a deal once you have named a preferred bidder? Hitachi were selected as preferred bidders for the IEP and retendering has been suggested but I'm not sure how easy that would be now.

As has been suggested on various occasions, Bombardier & Siemens' lawyers will be all over the deal if the train that is ordered from Hitachi is what it looks like it will be - so one would hope that retendering may become an option (however much DafT and Hitachi might protest!).

 

[Zoe]

As has been suggested on various occasions, Bombardier & Siemens' lawyers will be all over the deal if the train that is ordered from Hitachi is what it looks like it will be - so one would hope that retendering may become an option (however much DafT and Hitachi might protest!).

As far as I know, a multiple unit matched the orignal specification. More so than any loco hauled solution due to the requirment to be able to split en route.

 

[Daimler]

See comments elsewhere about 91s and Mark 4s vs 390s.

Don't get me started on 390s...

But I do get your point - 390s offer higher acceleration, less chance of complete failure, and (if they weren't so awfully designed!) more seats in relation to the length of the train. That said, when it comes to acceleration, the 91s are 20 years older than the 390s - just look at the Siemens Taurus to see what a properly modern locomotive can do.

But I still wouldn't say the 91s & Mk4s are *bad* at the job - certainly not so bad as to be unfeasible!

As far as I know, a multiple unit matched the orignal specification. More so than any loco hauled solution due to the requirment to be able to split en route.

It's not so simple - once more, I don't have Mr Ford's articles before me to quote from, but there are various significant differences between the train being offered now and the original specification - as starrymarkb has intimated.

 

[Zoe]

For the record, I don't have anything against loco hauled stock. I personally don't like the noise of underfloor engines but I realize the this isn't an issue for moest people and the railways are not run for me, they are run to simply get people from A to B in the easiest way possible and multiple unit is the best way of doing this.

 

[asylumxl]

A lot of people think that a bi-mode train is stupid, and that it's cutting of corners (e.g. Partial electrification) that has created the problem, but unfortunately, irrelevant of what or who is to blame, it is where we are now.

As such we must make the most of what technology and engineering is available to us, and a bimode MU makes the most sense. Especially considering they can later be converted in to pure EMUs.

 

[Zoe]

As such we must make the most of what technology and engineering is available to us, and a bimode MU makes the most sense. Especially considering they can later be converted in to pure EMUs.

Exactly, once electrification is complete there will be no reason to retain the diesel engines unless of course you want to retain some for emergency use in the event of OHLE failure. Once removed the trains will simply by EMUs.

 

[Nym]

Did anyone actually read in full what I posted before?

I'm NOT sudgesting diesel haulage of an EMU set away from wires.

It would be an EMU with a BUSBAR that can be fed from EITHER an electric locomotive/transformer that pushes into the set (possibly intergrated into the carrages)

Away from wires a GENERATOR coach would connect to the county end and supply power to this BUSBAR, and be able to supply say 2MW through the autocoupler to the carrages, and 3MW to it's own traction motors. So faster accelation by having more traction packs is available, by an AUTOCOUPLER, NOT NEEDING A SHUNTER.

And with Diesel - Electric Locomotives it isn't too hard to re-gear them as needed at the design stage, I don't think GE would object to seeing if they can do somthing with teh 70s, or Seimens with tra TRAXX.

And coming from somone with quite a deep knowlage of traction package systems and HV transmission, it would be possible to supply a full 7MW to the 'Multiple Unit' coaches, also possible to have them run as a basic EMU elsewhere with cabs, and have a locomotive designed with an invertor transformer to provide HV to the EMU behind it, or when that fails, have enough traction packaged on it's own, but primeraly designed as a GENERATOR!

However, I don't know how much power would be needed to be provided, to my knowlage the highest generated power from a diesel electric locomotive (at prime mover!) is the class 70, is 2.75kw, that enough power for an EMU away from the wires?

I know the 67s eventually pull 11 coaches of VSOE fast enough, but with MU accelatation rates etc. Anyone know more about this?

OK, back of fag packet maths, say it needs to get to 125mph, and it's based on the class 70 with 3690hp, the voyager/mederans get to that OK with 750hp/carrage. So it can deal with 5 carrages and accelarate as fast as a 222. If it only needs to get upto 100mph, to be able to keep time with a 172 at 485hp/carrage 7.6 carrages can keep time with it.

The EMD SD90MAC might be able to be scaled down slightly, 6,250hp, 10 carrages = 625/carrage, can do 110mph easy. Eitherwitchway, it's entirely possibly to build a sufficent generator, and if we build smaller ones, ie, two class66 sized generators for faster routes, one for slower routes, on the other upside, it's entirely possibly to convert current locomotives, and convert these types into standard locomotives.

That is of course if everyone is continuing to obsess over distributed traction... And generators (if designed to only move themselves or the coaching stock) would be lighter than locomotives, as it would have very small traction packs.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Until one vehicle develops a fault, then the whole set is out of service. With loco hauled stock, into the depot it goes, the pilot knocks the defective coach out, and the remainder can be back in service inside an hour.

Unless the loco developes a problem and then you're stuffed.

 

[Nym]

Unless the loco developes a problem and then you're stuffed.

Then you swap the loco...

 

[Zoe]

Then you swap the loco...

Isolating the engine and running on the remaining engines is much easier.

 

[O L Leigh]

A lot of people think that a bi-mode train is stupid, and that it's cutting of corners (e.g. Partial electrification) that has created the problem, but unfortunately, irrelevant of what or who is to blame, it is where we are now.

As such we must make the most of what technology and engineering is available to us, and a bimode MU makes the most sense. Especially considering they can later be converted in to pure EMUs.

Gah...!!!! No it doesn't.

Every tightening emissions legislation is making it increasingly hard for manufacturers to produce compliant local DMU's, let alone a credible replacement for the HST. By the time the Government has finished fannying about with IEP the legislation is going to be so tight that meeting the specification is going to be virtually impossible.

And in any case, who say's a bi-mode train can easily be converted to a straight EMU? You have the choice of a single generator set taking up most/all of at least one car (e.g. the Hastings DEMU's) or lots of generator sets under each car (e.g. Voyagers). Whichever option you take you're going to be looking at a major re-engineering of the train to convert it to straight electric.

But the real problem is that bi-mode IEP will simply be used to postpone rail electrification by another 30 years. There will simply be no incentive to electrify further when there are already shiny new trains running along the existing infrastructure.

However, we currently have a breathing space in which electrification can be carried out, whereupon the existing rolling stock can be replaced. Given that the HST's will go before the Voyagers, priority should be given to the MML and GWML so that when the HST's are finally considered life-expired they can be replaced with electrics. Likewise the Voyagers in perhaps 15-20 years time by electrifying key sections of the Cross Country network. It may be that certain direct services will require to be cut back (e.g. London-Aberdeen/Inverness) in order to avoid diesel services running under the wires, but there should be no reason why connecting services using high-quality diesel trains of more modest length on a limited stop timetable can't pick up the slack.

I really strongly believe that bi-mode trains are the worst option that can be pursued for so many reasons. I have never been sold on the idea of bi-mode and it's supposed green credentials, but I have since refined my view to include the problems bi-mode will cause in the long term. I'm sorry if I sound like a stuck record, but the real answer to this country's rolling stock issues is to use this time to electrify.

O L Leigh

 

[Zoe]

Bi-mode is at least better than an extensive new DMU order and that's what we'd have got to repalce the HSTs had it not been for electrification and bi-mode. The trains would be expected to have at least 30 or 40 years life in them and emissions standards are likely to get much stricter before then.

 

[Nym]

So electrification of the MML and XC would release enough diesel stock, actually, yeah.

Ordering more Class 390s would release a significant amount of 221s from Virgin West Coast, replacing the 221s on Birmingham - Scotland, for Manchester - Scotland the 185s would be needed elsewhere in TPE anyway.

Midland Mainline would release all of the stock from it if done completly, 27 sets released.

Birmingham - Oxford would release all the Manchester - Reading sets. I think thats 8 or 9 sets.

Birmingham - Bristol Parkway, another load of ex. Manchester - Bristol sets. another 9 or 10 if I'm thinking right

So, order more trains and free 12 units, throw some wires up and free up upto another 50, use these to run 'off wires' services on the GWML, if theres a need for direct services and it's not a significant amount of the services, diesel under wires isn't THAT bad. And we could always let bombardier play with them to stop them using as much Diesel.

To be honest, the Chiltern and TP North aren't too far off needing a basic formation of 6 - 9 carrages.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bi-mode is at least better than an extensive new DMU order and that's what we'd have got to repalce the HSTs had it not been for electrification and bi-mode. The trains would be expected to have at least 30 or 40 years life in them and emissions standards are likely to get much stricter before then.

As above, ordering some more 390s would free up some very nice Diesel stock to replace HSTs on routes where diesel is needed. As with wiring the MML...

PS: If Oxford - Birmingham was wired, how much would it hurt to run a Cross Country Paddington - Manchester Piccadilly or Victoria service again?

 

[O L Leigh]

But given that the HST's can soldier on for a good few years, there's still plenty of time to electrify.

And this is my point. If we opt for bi-mode (at what cost...?), what incentive is there to electrify? I know that electrification isn't always popular, but it is vital for the long-term viability of the railways. Diesel fuel is only going to get more scarce and expensive, but an electrified rail network can run on whatever fuel is available to generate power.

All bi-mode deals with is diesels running under the wires and, except for a few notable exceptions, this is a problem that could easily be dealt with through better timetabling and rolling stock diagramming. Where there are notable exceptions (e.g. VT's Brum-Edinburgh service), additional rolling stock procurement could deal with these issues. For example, there's no reason at all why VT couldn't acquire down-rated 6 car Cl390's for these services.

O L Leigh

 

[Zoe]

As above, ordering some more 390s would free up some very nice Diesel stock to replace HSTs on routes where diesel is needed. As with wiring the MML...

There's no guarantee you'd end up with 390s on all the routes you suggested. Remember orders for new trains have to go to tender throughout the EU. Alstom would not be guaranteed to win.

 

[O L Leigh]

That's hair-splitting. It doesn't particularly matter if it's Cl390's or something else, as long as it's electric, fast enough and long enough.

But then Alstom could easily make the case that the Cl390 is the best option. It tilts so is able to run at EPS speeds, is already a known quantity with the operator and can be produced quickly and cheaply. Anything else would be a completely new train that would require type approval and so on, and therefore be a more expensive option.

O L Leigh