Class 185 Extension

[YorkshireBear]

First of all a 6 car what now?

TPE Hull route can't take 6 cars, especially on a Sunday where they have to stop at South Milford which is limited at 3 x 23m carriages, The rest of the stops can take them
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But the original post stated if there wasn't going to be further electrification, so a EMU Leeds to York would be useless unless it went via Doncaster

170, didnt notice my finger slipped to the 6 instead of 7 And i saw a 6 car on it today, it could of been ECS though. infact i only saw it leave leeds and presumed hull it may not be heading that way.

I was referring to only the bottom line of the post i quoted, should of cut it down will do now

 

[Anvil1984]

Wasnt sure if you meant 150 or 170 either can be seen on the Hull line on a Sunday just depends where abouts along the line. Possibly either going to Crofton or at least 1 unit locked out, as I mentionned due to no Northern Leeds - Selby locals on a Sunday TPE have to call at South Milford which only just takes 1 (3 car) 158

 

[YorkshireBear]

Wasnt sure if you meant 150 or 170 either can be seen on the Hull line on a Sunday just depends where abouts along the line. Possibly either going to Crofton or at least 1 unit locked out, as I mentionned due to no Northern Leeds - Selby locals on a Sunday TPE have to call at South Milford which only just takes 1 (3 car) 158

Ah right, thank you

 

[Kingfisher200262]

I understand that when the 185s were ordered, an option was left to build an extra centre-car for each train (and an additional 9 complete 4-car 185s possibly). This option expired, not least since the engines are no longer in production.

My question is, what's to stop Siemens building a compatible centre-car using a different engine? The body shell is essentially similar to other Desiros is it not?

The Cummins QSK19 may not currently be in production, but it was promoted at Innotrans in Euro3b form and is almost Hitachi's only option (despite the face of "procurement competition") by Agility for the underfloor engines on IEP (assuming IEP get's to close, which is still far from certain IMHO).

That said, I believe that the 185 options have now lapsed and even if it hadn't, I would personally build unpowered trailers.

 

[junglejames]

I did mean DEMU, if your talking to me, I've never heard of a EDMU

Basically anything that can be powered by diesel, or electricity. So like a 73. Although thats obviously not an MU, it is an ED.

 

[Class172]

Basically anything that can be powered by diesel, or electricity. So like a 73. Although thats obviously not an MU, it is an ED.

Now I get it

 

[Peter Sarf]

The Cummins QSK19 may not currently be in production, but it was promoted at Innotrans in Euro3b form and is almost Hitachi's only option (despite the face of "procurement competition") by Agility for the underfloor engines on IEP (assuming IEP get's to close, which is still far from certain IMHO).

That said, I believe that the 185 options have now lapsed and even if it hadn't, I would personally build unpowered trailers.

IMO I would avoid unpowered trailers in DMUs. An alternative is the eco option on 185s which provides spare power for the times when an engine fails or the train is late. Its called overengineering but, I admit, there are downsides lugging round dead engines and fuel but also the purchase cost of underused equipment. Its a trade off between reliability and paring costs to the bone (I wont mention efficiency as everything comes down to how tight fisted the supplyers of money are).

I would sugggest a pantograph (+transformer etc) coach added to units. Though probably only to longer diesel units (Meridians are longer than 3-car 185s). Longer because then the extra, non-diesel, weight wil be a smaller proportion of the overall unit. But unfortunately the IEP abberation will swallow up all need for EDMUs.

One can only hope that the result of IEP will be more electrification of parts of, otherwise diesel, routes :roll: (for example the steeper gradients on the Midland main line or the Devon banks). Done just to justify these pointless things (rant alert). Then in a few decades time the infill electrification to the core of the route will occur and we will arive where we should be already :-x.

My point is we should not build/extend anything diesel. We should only build electric trains and electrify routes to use them on. In the cases where the extremities of a route are not electrified we should turn EXISTING DMUs into EDMUs. IEP should be the best available straight ELECTRIC train not a complexity. Tinkering wth 185s just adds to the confusion. If transpennine needs longer trains is it not time to electrfy it ?.

 

[Nym]

Peter, one big problem with that...

There are currently only three classes of DMU that can be readily converted to EDMU operation, and guess what, the're all from Derby...

The Voyager, Super Voyager and Mediran are the only DMU units that can be converted because they run a DEMU configuration where the generators are NOT operated in the same way as the HSTs or DE Locomotives.

Without going too much into the complexities and algorythms of the operating systems of the units, the generator units are transparent to the traction systems, the produce the power demaned by the whole system, and the traction system demands power.

Therefore, conversion of these systems only requires additional power production systems to be added into the system mix, ie, Pantograph and Transformer cars.

For example, for the ED Requirements of the GWML, if electrification was completed as is now, would require the fleet of the Midland Mainline and parts of the WCML to complete their demand for DMU/EDMU services.

Take a 7 car class 222, this could be converted to a 9 car 222 ED unit, with the addition of two pantograph/transformer carrages with a busbar accross the top of the central 5 carrages, or reform them in conjunction with the 5 car units to make a more uniform fleet of 8 car units.

This would be formed of the current units plus two extras to form...

Driving Motor First (As is)
Motor First (As is)
Pantograph Transformer Combined Buffet/Shop (New unit, with 2.5KW transformer)
Motor Second HT Passthrough (As is, plus HT cable across the roof)
Motor Second HT Passthrough (As is, plus HT cable across the roof)
Pantograph Transformer Second (New unit, with 2.5KW transformer)
Motor Second (As is)
Driving Motor Second (As is)

6 car formations available by dropping the Motor 2nd and Motor 1st units, by my rough reconing this would provide about 100 first and 300 standard class seated accomadation on an 8 car set, and 50 first / 220 standard on a 6 car set. Perfectly fine IMO for the ED Requirements of the UK.

The HT Cable is present so the power delivery can be split between the transformers and reduce the amount of power being put though the MV busbars between the units.

The release of a lot of these units to ICGW would need two lines electrifying, Midland Mainline, all of it, and Crewe - Chester, with more 390s ordered for the WCML routes, no point of non-EPS stock. And either new EMUs or Cascades 91+Mk4 for the MML.

This would remove the need for a Bi-Mode IEP aswell.

Electrifcation of suburban routes would be needed to get rid of pacers, not nessesarally the routes run by pacers, but those that will release Inter-Urban stock. Such as, East Mancs Lines, Lostock - Wigan, Transpennine (Both routes & via Brighouse).

Alternativly, further mainline electrification could have the same effect, Glasgow / Edinburgh - Aberdeen would release numerous turbostars and sprinters from Scotrail, and reduce the need for EDMUs. Chiltern Mainline (allong with some linespeed increases, again) would also be reasonable helpful, including 3rd R or OHL to Alyesbury.

TPE might benifit greatly from loosing the route to Scarbrough and diverting it to Hull Paragon instead. As the Hull and Middlesborugh routes are a higher priority for electrification than Scarbough. Or the design of a proper locomotive that can pull a new EMU away from the wires, provide proper hotel power and be compatable with the MU working systems of said EMU would be idea, Seimens, I'm looking at you...

Anyway, rant over, for now

 

[starrymarkb]

Problem with converting existing is the drive train. Most DMUs use a Hydro-mechanical drive

BTW - the Voyagers are Bombardier but predate the takeover of Adtranz at Derby. They were built in Brugge and Wakefield

 

[Peter Sarf]

Thanks Nym. Thats what I pray for - enough electrification means only electric trains are built new and any surplus (did I say surplus) diesel trains become Electro diesel where possible. I knew the Voyager/Meridian fleets were suitable but I did not know that there were no other DEMUs suitable.

Other points. Electrifying Cardiff-Swansea would reduce the number of IEP abberations required. Class 91+Mk4s+DVT are a gift for other diesel beyond the wires requirements. A 67 (powerfull enough ?) could wait at Edinburgh to lead the set on to Aberdeen etc. It was done at Bournemouth with 4-TCs buffering up to the waiting 33 (and dropping off the 4REP at the London end of the train) before going on to Weymouth.

Am I right in thinking you are saying 185s are not suitable technically for a pantograph car btw ?.

 

[Nym]

Yes, no point even attempting to convert a 185, or anything that starts with a 1...

I did a very long rant about what we should have happen in an IEP thread somwhere, I'm not typing it all again.

Didn't know it predated the AdTranz takeover, but the new carrages as needed could be assembled at Derby.

 

[ainsworth74]

I knew the Voyager/Meridian fleets were suitable but I did not know that there were no other DEMUs suitable.

That would be because there are no other DEMUs in service on NR metals!

Seriously though as Nym says anything that is 1xx cannot be converted owing to be being either diesel mechanical or hydraulic rather than diesel electric.

 

[Andrew Nelson]

An ideal train for TPE would be somthing like a 4 car 185 with end gangway connectors, you know, how they wanted to order in the first place.

If I where ordering somthing new for TPE and moving the 185s on elsewhere, NT for example, ie. Blank Slate for TPE.

I'd be ordering...

If there isn't going to be any further electrification, 4 car EDMUs.

TPE North
Class 610 formed of:

Driving Motor Generator Combined Buffet
Generator Motor Standard
Transformer & Pantograph Motor Standard
Driving Motor Generator Standard

All with end gangways, 100mph stock, 1/3 + 2/3 doors.

Basically looks like a turbostar, but with ED Traction packagaes.

Alternativley, Electrify all of it, all of TPE, possibly to scarbrough, or loco haul to scarbrough with DVT compatabilty at the end cabs. And have end gangwayed 4 carrage 350s or 380s.

"An ideal train for TPE would be somthing like a 4 car 185 with end gangway connectors, you know, how they wanted to order in the first place."

I beg to differ, when I asked Moir Lockhead about the lack of gangways on 185s, He said, and I quote "We don't want our Drivers, to be made to work in Broom-Cupboards".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That would be because there are no other DEMUs in service on NR metals!

Seriously though as Nym says anything that is 1xx cannot be converted owing to be being either diesel mechanical or hydraulic rather than diesel electric.

Sorry, was that no DEMUs in NI?

I thought there was little else.

 

[Nym]

On NR Metals, ie. the former BR Metals, last time I checked, it was British Rail, not UK Rail...

 

[ainsworth74]

Sorry, was that no DEMUs in NI?

I thought there was little else.

Yeah there are still some DEMUs in NI (hence why I said NR metals as in Network Rail) but they are being rapidly phased out of service now and I think are due to be gone by the end of the year.

 

[MCR247]

Although a UK TOC has expressed an interest in the 450s

 

[ainsworth74]

Although a UK TOC has expressed an interest in the 450s

Which one is that? Also I thought the 450s were a straight DMU or are they also DEMUs?

 

[Crossforth]

Which one is that? Also I thought the 450s were a straight DMU or are they also DEMUs?

I assume there is a typo somewhere as 450s are the 4th rail EMUs with SWT

 

[cj_1985]

think the 450s they are meaning are the irish class 450 DEMUs

 

[ainsworth74]

I assume there is a typo somewhere as 450s are the 4th rail EMUs with SWT

I'm referring to the 450s in service with NIR (which I take it are also DEMUs) rather than the EMUs in service on 3rd rail land. I assume that MCR247 means the same units as well.

 

[Class172]

think the 450s they are meaning are the irish class 450 DEMUs

It's based on the sprinter (mk3) bodyshell
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIR_Class_450

 

[cj_1985]

It's based on the sprinter (mk3) bodyshell
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIR_Class_450

on mk.1 underframes AIUI... (not checked your wiki link yet)

 

[Class172]

on mk.1 underframes AIUI... (not checked your wiki link yet)

What a fail :roll: I hadn't read the page yet, I only got the link. Now I've read it, yes, you're right but it does say it was modified; this made it look like a MK3 based train, namely Class 210

 

[cj_1985]

sounds rather like the ADTRANZ mk.1/electrostar hybrid that was quietly shuffled away having failed to attract enough interest... probably due to cost of conversion vs build complete new carraiges

obviously these mk1/mk3/Thumper/class 150 hybrids have been successfull... even though they (like the UK class 442) have relied on parts from redundant rail vehicles...

 

[Class172]

sounds rather like the ADTRANZ mk.1/electrostar hybrid that was quietly shuffled away having failed to attract enough interest... probably due to cost of conversion vs build complete new carriages

Never heard of that, what was it? (apart from what you just said of course )

 

[starrymarkb]

Never heard of that, what was it? (apart fro what you just said of course )

http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/class424_exp.html

 

[MCR247]

Which one is that? Also I thought the 450s were a straight DMU or are they also DEMUs?

It doesn't say. They are DEMUs IIRC

 

[Class172]

http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/class424_exp.html

I quite like it myself

 

[Peter Sarf]

http://www.semgonline.com/gallery/class424_exp.html

Well done for remembering that. I had completely forgotten about it. It was in those dark days last century when the railways were panicking about replacing 35-40 year old slam door stock in time. Compare that to the current atmosphere surrounding far newer pacers !.

On the 185 subject (dont know whats come over me). That photo showed what can be done to old stock. So it should be straight forward to make something from scratch to lengthen 185s with even if I dont think its worth it. Electrify and cascade.

 

[Waverley125]

i think the ideal unit for TPE, if you had infill electrification, would be a 444 but wired for 25kV AC overhead. 3 Standard, 1 buffet standard, 1 first.