Using diesel locomotives to rescue stranded electric trains

[L401CJF]

I remember watching this video a while back showing a 37 rescuing a failed Stadler.

Well worth a watch for those interested! Video credit to "Charlie Riches".

Embedded video shows a class 37 loco coupling to a failed Stadler class 755

Edit- I realise this is not an electric train, but the same principal applies!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

A big issue here is having a loco to rescue available with compatible couplers!

Indeed, back in February 1991 you would find the service being maintained with 56s and 47/3s in push-pull mode with EPBs and CEPs all day long.

See 56 032 here at the back end of a pair of EPBs for example ( from which I had just got off and done a subway dash to get the picture! )... Of course in those days the drivers had a wider range of both traction and route knowledge as well - the latter point having already been touched on in another post in this thread.

 

[matchmaker]

And if an EMU needs to be transported between depots over a non-electrified route (or with a different electrification type), how would it happen?

When the Cathcart Circle in Glasgow was electrified in the early 1960s the only EMU depot was at Hyndland on the North Clyde lines. The connection between the Cathcart Circle and the North Clyde lines is by way of the City Union line which was (and still is) non electrified. There were at that time very few air braked diesel locos so if EMU stock had to be taken from the Circle to Hyndland for repair/servicing ex-Caledonian steam locos which still retained their Westinghouse brake were used. In due course Class 20s were fitted with air brakes for this purpose.

 

[Craig1122]

When the Cathcart Circle in Glasgow was electrified in the early 1960s the only EMU depot was at Hyndland on the North Clyde lines. The connection between the Cathcart Circle and the North Clyde lines is by way of the City Union line which was (and still is) non electrified. There were at that time very few air braked diesel locos so if EMU stock had to be taken from the Circle to Hyndland for repair/servicing ex-Caledonian steam locos which still retained their Westinghouse brake were used. In due course Class 20s were fitted with air brakes for this purpose.

Similar situation in London with tube stock from the Northern City line being diesel hauled to depot through Crouch End until the Northern City became part of BR.

 

[Falcon1200]

The real big issue is why Network Rail and immediate predecessors even allowed trains on the network without universally compatible couplers of the previous 150 years.

Coupling issues certainly go back to BR days, who for example ordered two incompatible fleets for use on much the same routes; Classes 312 and 313 for the Great Northern electrification.

 

[ComUtoR]

South Eastern have invited expressions of interest for fleet replacement, this is one of the options they are considering:

https://www.railjournal.com/fleet/southeastern-tenders-new-rolling-stock-fleet/#:~:text=The new fleet must be,up to 70 additional cars.

"Bidders must also provide options for supplying the new trains with traction batteries for operation in depots and sidings, on the main line during power failures and on non-electrified routes for a distance of up to 32km."

Note that it's only an option they're exploring as subject to cost benefit analysis.

There's a big clue here.

The real big issue is why Network Rail and immediate predecessors even allowed trains on the network without universally compatible couplers of the previous 150 years.

Probably because the new couplers are better. It's the same reason why I'm sitting here replying on an Intel i7 laptop and not by carrier pigeon.

 

[Craig1122]

There's a big clue here.

I presume Hoo, however Steve White (SE MD) is quite active on Twitter and was talking up the possible uses on the existing network for failures, depots etc. He also made it clear it's far from decided and that batteries would need to be justified.

 

[Irascible]

The thing is that nowadays it's usually faster, and simpler to rescue a unit with another unit. Not least because on most lines the nearest thing is probably the unit stuck behind!

Having been sat on a train ( circa 1980 ) somewhere near Taplow for about an hour, had a period of maneuvering and then once the trundle into Paddington was complete had to walk down not just my train but the one in front as well - complete with literally steaming class 50 - not a new idea! ( this was before the concourse extension ate a lot of platform length ). Given the state of the 50s at the time it's a wonder there wasn't a double length failure to cope with...

But yes, you don't have to rescue a unit with a locomotive specifically, you just need something that'll move it. A unit can go about it's business moving passengers around when it's not needed for rescues. If the power's down, I think just getting to trains to move them is going to be a logistical nightmare... the more we wire up the bigger the attraction of some bi-mode capability becomes.

 

[Meerkat]

I suspect massively and quickly. The holy grail in the automotive world is a 400-500 mile actual range on an EV, roughly the same as an average petrol car. The desire to achieve this quickly to drive EV adoption is going to make battery tech develop very quickly as huge amounts of money are poured into it.

You cannae break the laws of physics (chemistry)!
I thought they had hit a bit of a wall with the chemistry and there wasn’t anything particularly promising on the horizon?
How heavy would a limp mode/depot battery actually be anyway? It would have to be fairly big to be significant compared to the normal train weight.

 

[zwk500]

You cannae break the laws of physics (chemistry)!
I thought they had hit a bit of a wall with the chemistry and there wasn’t anything particularly promising on the horizon?
How heavy would a limp mode/depot battery actually be anyway? It would have to be fairly big to be significant compared to the normal train weight.

I believe @Bald Rick has provides figures before. The short answer is that they wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Too complicated these days. Back in the old days when it was just a hook and air pipe you could connect anything to anything. These days, even if the couplers are compatible, the software on the computer probably won't be. Then there's driver traction knowledge

 

[Bald Rick]

Their weight, and the expense of maintaining and periodically replacing said batteries will count against this, of course. As they get smaller and lighter that will improve over time

You cannae break the laws of physics (chemistry)!
I thought they had hit a bit of a wall with the chemistry and there wasn’t anything particularly promising on the horizon?
How heavy would a limp mode/depot battery actually be anyway? It would have to be fairly big to be significant compared to the normal train weight.

I believe @Bald Rick has provides figures before. The short answer is that they wouldn't be a problem.

Depends what you want to use the battery for.

If it is only going to be a couple of times a day for depot shunting and a ‘limp’ mode for occasional use when the power is off, or some (very, very unlikely) problem with the tractors system between the pan / shoe and the battery, then an automotive spec Lithium ion battery pack of about 200kWh would be good enough to move a 4car emu for around 30 miles. That will weigh a bit more than a tonne or so, which is essentially negligible on a 4 car unit weighing 150tonnes+. As the full battery capacity would rarely be used, this would be good for 10-15 years or more, ie replacement at midlife refurbs.

If it is going to be used repeatedly every day, then you want Lithium Titanate (LTO) batteries. About twice the price, and a little less battery capacity per unit of weight, but has the benefit of much less degradation, and thus many more ’charge cycles’ before needing to be replaced. It can also be charged more quickly. An LTO battery of 200kWh would be nearer 2 tonnes, again essentially negligible on a 4 car unit, and be about the size of a double fridge / freezer.

The ROG 93s have LTO batteries, albeit only 80kWh IIRC.

As @zwk500 says, none of this is a problem. I fully expect that all future orders of electric rolling stock, and probably any diesel-electric stock too, have some form of traction battery on board.

 

[01d-and]

Back in the day , I was on a train out of Euston when the 86 expired somewhere near Watford. The guard informed us that a spare diesel was available at Willesdon and a spare driver was available at Rugby - or was that the other way around ??

 

[43066]

Depends what you want to use the battery for.

If it is only going to be a couple of times a day for depot shunting and a ‘limp’ mode for occasional use when the power is off, or some (very, very unlikely) problem with the tractors system between the pan / shoe and the battery, then an automotive spec Lithium ion battery pack of about 200kWh would be good enough to move a 4car emu for around 30 miles. That will weigh a bit more than a tonne or so, which is essentially negligible on a 4 car unit weighing 150tonnes+. As the full battery capacity would rarely be used, this would be good for 10-15 years or more, ie replacement at midlife refurbs.

If it is going to be used repetedly every day, then you want Lithium Titanate (LTO) batteries. About twice the price, and a little less battery capacity per unit of weight, but has the benefit of much less degradation, and thus many more ’charge cycles’ before needing to be replaced. It can also be charged more quickly. An LTO battery of 200kWh would be nearer 2 tonnes, again essentially negligible on a 4 car unit, and be about the size of a double fridge / freezer.

The ROG 93s have LTO batteries, albeit only 80kWh IIRC.

As @zwk500 says, none of this is a problem. I fully expect that all future orders of electric rolling stock, and probably any diesel-electric stock too, have some form of traction battery on board.

Thanks - it’s amazing how quickly battery tech seems to have improved of late.

 

[bahnause]

This problem can actually only be solved on a network-wide basis. The rail TOC are not likely to be suitable for this. The SBB and BLS solve this with the rescue trains. These have the appropriate adapters on board, are available around the clock and the staff is trained for these towing services:

Intervention | SBB

Ready for emergencies, round the clock.

company.sbb.ch

Throughout Switzerland, 330 SBB Intervention employees ensure that unexpected events impact rail traffic as little as possible and that operations quickly return to normal. To do so, they have 16 special fire-fighting and rescue trains at their disposal along with a range of other rail and road vehicles.

 

[BoroAndy]

Plus finding a Driver with sufficient spare time to carry out the rescue, and route knowledge, the latter often an issue when an electric train is stranded on a line with little or no freight traffic.

As regards route knowledge, wouldn't you take a regular driver for that route as a pilot to assist the diesel loco driver?

 

[Clarence Yard]

If you had one spare, yes!

The problem these days isn’t incompatible couplers - it’s that there are relatively few locos about and if you get a traction failure that needs assistance, the probability is that you have other trains all around it, not locos. And on todays railway you can get a load of stuck trains in a very short time, such is the density of traffic on some lines. The infrastructure on most lines just isn’t provided for diverting round either. This lack of infrastructure makes the idea of having dedicated rescue trains a fairly useless one.

You can have a unit with as many batteries as you want but if it’s stuck in the knitting or that’s down around it, it’s not going anywhere. If it has no air because it has hit something, it isn’t going anywhere in a hurry either. Meanwhile other trains will start to pile up around it.

Having rescued a fair few trains in my career, it was much easier in the days when we had plenty of spare locos and crews to do it. Nowadays even if a loco (belonging to someone else) is sitting there in a siding, it won’t be much good for an afternoon rescue if it isn’t going to be crewed until 22.00 at the earliest.

 

[Taunton]

Thanks - it’s amazing how quickly battery tech seems to have improved of late.

Or not ... because I recall 50 years ago, 1973, at university in Edinburgh, we were all grandly shown the new Battery Bus, which was going to take over from diesel. Except it had only about 20 seats, did a nippy 30mph out of the depot (journalists present) and a not-so-nippy 15mph a couple of hours later - but would be "better next year", as "battery technology is advancing so quickly". And I've been hearing that from the battery industry's PR team it seems every year since (including possibly nowadays from the grandson of the chap who did so all those years ago).

There's a photo of the bus on that trial in Princes Street here on the web :

Crompton Demonstrator Leyland FG900 CWO516K at Edinburgh in 1973 - Jun - Roy Marshall

thetransportlibrary.co.uk

 

[FGW_DID]

Surprised it’s not been mentioned already, that’s why there is a Dellner coupler fitted Class 57 (currently 57312) at Reading TCD, it’s the London & Thames Valley rescue loco. If that’s not available, any of the GWR 57/6 can be used with an emergency coupler as happened last week when the OLE was damaged in the Ealing Broadway / Acton area.

 

[43066]

Or not ... because I recall 50 years ago, 1973, at university in Edinburgh, we were all grandly shown the new Battery Bus, which was going to take over from diesel. Except it had only about 20 seats, did a nippy 30mph out of the depot (journalists present) and a not-so-nippy 15mph a couple of hours later - but would be "better next year", as "battery technology is advancing so quickly". And I've been hearing that from the battery industry's PR team it seems every year since (including possibly nowadays from the grandson of the chap who did so all those years ago).

There's a photo of the bus on that trial Princes Street here on the web :

It looks like a glorified milk float!

 

[12LDA28C]

As regards route knowledge, wouldn't you take a regular driver for that route as a pilot to assist the diesel loco driver?

Like the driver of the train being rescued, you mean?

 

[zwk500]

Like the driver of the train being rescued, you mean?

Bit difficult to take him with you if he's on the failed train halfway down the line!

 

[12LDA28C]

Bit difficult to take him with you if he's on the failed train halfway down the line!

Indeed, although these days any crew on a standby loco would most likely sign the route - not much point having a loco and crew available if they don't sign the road. A case in point is the West Coast driver who assisted the LNER train from York to Doncaster a week ago.

 

[zwk500]

Indeed, although these days any crew on a standby loco would most likely sign the route - not much point having a loco and crew available if they don't sign the road. A case in point is the West Coast driver who assisted the LNER train from York to Doncaster a week ago.

West Coast have national route notice though, because of their charter business, so it's not a reasonable comparison to e.g. A FOC being purloined to rescue somthing.

 

[D365]

Sorry I should have been a bit clearer. Yes EMUs (or whatever train) have airbrakes. But its how those brakes are controlled that is different. It's my understanding that EMUs and the like control the airbrakes by electrical signals where as freight locos is done through air pipes and valves etc. That's why passenger stock is usually hauled with translator vehicles that effectively translates the braking input from the loco into something the train can understand...or hauled unbraked....at least that is how I understand things.

Yes you're right. I'm not sure about the very latest units, but definitely second-generation multiple units use Westcode braking which needs 'translation' as you say.

 

[Doomotron]

It isn't a locomotive but it is in the same vein; during the beast from the east there was at least one instance of a Class 171 pulling a 377 when it couldn't get any power, if discussions on RailUK are anything to go by.

 

[Deepgreen]

Indeed, back in February 1991 you would find the service being maintained with 56s and 47/3s in push-pull mode with EPBs and CEPs all day long.

See 56 032 here at the back end of a pair of EPBs for example ( from which I had just got off and done a subway dash to get the picture! )... Of course in those days the drivers had a wider range of both traction and route knowledge as well - the latter point having already been touched on in another post in this thread.

A great shot, and I wonder how the 56 was controlled - presumably from its rear/front cab but with what communiction with the EPB driver, or were the 56s compatible with EPB stock and could be controlled from the driving cab?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

A great shot, and I wonder how the 56 was controlled - presumably from its rear/front cab but with what communiction with the EPB driver, or were the 56s compatible with EPB stock and could be controlled from the driving cab?

Sorry, I have no idea how the controlling was done. I believe it wasn't the only 56 active that day, although it's certainly the only one I managed to bash but I did also ride a 47/3 with a pair of CEPs from Waterloo East to Cannon Street so that was clearly working on a push-pull basis as well.

Further discussion would be a bit off topic for this thread, but it does underline the point of the thread: in those days just about anything could rescue and fully work with just about anything else with the exception of control system differences ( red circle, blue diamond, something triangle... that sort of thing )

 

[Falcon1200]

in those days just about anything could rescue and fully work with just about anything else with the exception of control system differences ( red circle, blue diamond, something triangle... that sort of thing )

Not really, by that time there already scores of sets with automatic couplers, eg Tightlock and BSI, which could not, without the use of adapters, be hauled by anything other than compatible types.

 

[Deepgreen]

Sorry, I have no idea how the controlling was done. I believe it wasn't the only 56 active that day, although it's certainly the only one I managed to bash but I did also ride a 47/3 with a pair of CEPs from Waterloo East to Cannon Street so that was clearly working on a push-pull basis as well.

Further discussion would be a bit off topic for this thread, but it does underline the point of the thread: in those days just about anything could rescue and fully work with just about anything else with the exception of control system differences ( red circle, blue diamond, something triangle... that sort of thing )

I have this rather grainy shot of 33034 hauling a 4EPB plus 4CIG rake at Ashtead in February 1985, but as the loco is leading, 'remote control' wasn't an issue. I imagine it may have run round at Dorking but it's possible it returned in push mode.