What locos should get the Boris Routemaster treatment?

[RailwaysToday]

The launch of Boris Johnson's Routemaster on Friday got me thinking wouldn't it be great if something similar could be done by the rail industry. Yes we've had a new build steam locomotive and the ongoing work to replicate a Baby Deltic. But what about a new locomotive design for day-to-day revenue earning passenger or freight service that takes its lead from a classic such as a Deltic or a Western. Some of my own ideas can be seen on the following link: Boris Routemaster shows the way for rail design

It's a little bit of fantasy in an industry where cutting costs are on the agenda. But would love to hear what designs other people would like to see resurrected and given a modern twist.

 

[swtandgw]

How about an electro-diesel Class 87? That'll definitely be useful for freight trains and (hopefully, if a change-of-direction happens with the Voyagers) CrossCountry Mk3+DVT sets. Most of the Class 87s are now in Bulgaria, except for a handful, including one (87002) that the ACLG have managed to get up to mainline standards.

 

[Peter Sarf]

A shunter cum switcher to replace the 08. One centre cab, Bo-Bo with a reasonable top speed so it can get to remote yards at a speed of say 50+ mph so greater than the 08/09s (20mph ish ?). Twin engine (maybe one small and one bigger) so it can keep warm or do light duties on one engine but then do the jobs of 20s or better on two engines. Probably use the same engine as latest units (i.e. standard). Could look like a Clayton (class 17 ?).

Unfortunately it has to be able to replace 08s, 09s, 20s (31s and 37s maybe) otherwise it is not going to be a large enough quantity to make a viable order. So important thing to do is to work up more excuses for it. How about IEP bi-mode alternative for very short bits off the wire (diversions or wires down) so maybe 35mph self powered but able to be dragged at 100+ mph. Could drag emus beyond their existing route for a bit (e.g. Walsall to Rugely). Able to connect (I mean interface fully) to as many units as possible.

Thanks "RailwaysToday" I've been itching to get that idea out for ages .

 

[Schnellzug]

A shunter cum switcher to replace the 08. One centre cab, Bo-Bo with a reasonable top speed so it can get to remote yards at a speed of say 50+ mph so greater than the 08/09s (20mph ish ?). Twin engine (maybe one small and one bigger) so it can keep warm or do light duties on one engine but then do the jobs of 20s or better on two engines. Probably use the same engine as latest units (i.e. standard). Could look like a Clayton (class 17 ?).

Unfortunately it has to be able to replace 08s, 09s, 20s (31s and 37s maybe) otherwise it is not going to be a large enough quantity to make a viable order. So important thing to do is to work up more excuses for it. How about IEP bi-mode alternative for very short bits off the wire (diversions or wires down) so maybe 35mph self powered but able to be dragged at 100+ mph. Could drag emus beyond their existing route for a bit (e.g. Walsall to Rugely). Able to connect (I mean interface fully) to as many units as possible.

Thanks "RailwaysToday" I've been itching to get that idea out for ages .

The Vossloh/MaK G1206 range would fit that bill admirably, and avoid needing to use Sheds for duties that don't need that amount of power; they might need to overcome the prejudice against single cabs and long hoods, but once again, would the UK be right in that respect and everyone else in Europe have got it wrong?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
--

Another good idea would be a new generation class 47, since they'd never be able to electrify everywhere, and there'd always be a need for loco haulage for charter trains and perhaps for open Access , since there'd never be enough spare MUs for everyone. Since it really doesn't look its age, they could really use pretty much same design (taking into account crashworthinesss regulations & so on, I really don't believe that you'd have to make something as hideously over-styled as the class 70 to comply with that), with , say, Caterpillar or MTU Engines in the 2500 hp bracket and three-phase drive, etc, and ETS, naturally. Perhaps Brush could se if they could come up with something?

 

[RobShipway]

How about an electro-diesel Class 87? That'll definitely be useful for freight trains and (hopefully, if a change-of-direction happens with the Voyagers) CrossCountry Mk3+DVT sets. Most of the Class 87s are now in Bulgaria, except for a handful, including one (87002) that the ACLG have managed to get up to mainline standards.

I would actually create a hybrid Class 70, which not only has a diesel engine as it does now, but add a pantograph and the capability to use third rail electric as well. But do this in the style of the old BR class 71...

 

[Schnellzug]

I would actually create a hybrid Class 70, which not only has a diesel engine as it does now, but add a pantograph and the capability to use third rail electric as well. But do this in the style of the old BR class 71...

Which is something that GE have done with the P32DM, an electro-diesel version of the Genesis passenger loco that has 3200 hp on diesel and also works off third rail. I'm sure that Modern Technology shouldn't have too much of a problem fitting a pan as well.

 

[RobShipway]

Which is something that GE have done with the P32DM, an electro-diesel version of the Genesis passenger loco that has 3200 hp on diesel and also works off third rail. I'm sure that Modern Technology shouldn't have too much of a problem fitting a pan as well.

Yep, such as (Not my photo) http://www.flickr.com/photos/milantram/3268464130/

 

[swtandgw]

Which is something that GE have done with the P32DM, an electro-diesel version of the Genesis passenger loco that has 3200 hp on diesel and also works off third rail. I'm sure that Modern Technology shouldn't have too much of a problem fitting a pan as well.

I don't know if GE actually made any more AC electrics beyond the E60, but who knows, they may have the facilities to do so, maybe if they one day crack the European market

 

[Schnellzug]

I don't know if GE actually made any more AC electrics beyond the E60, but who knows, they may have the facilities to do so, maybe if they one day crack the European market

they use AC drive in all their latest diesels, though, don't they. Of course, the E60 wasn't perhaps the most promising precedent, but you never know.

 

[colchesterken]

I want someone to rebuild 18000.. class 37 bogies.class 56 alturnator.new low emmioion MTU say 2000hp lump
fit vac and air brakes .latest radio, TPWS, AWS,Black Box. ETH, TDM
Then you have a go anyware do anything loco..in a 70 yr old body
would be fantastic

 

[Bevan Price]

--

Another good idea would be a new generation class 47, since they'd never be able to electrify everywhere, and there'd always be a need for loco haulage for charter trains and perhaps for open Access , since there'd never be enough spare MUs for everyone. Since it really doesn't look its age, they could really use pretty much same design (taking into account crashworthinesss regulations & so on, I really don't believe that you'd have to make something as hideously over-styled as the class 70 to comply with that), with , say, Caterpillar or MTU Engines in the 2500 hp bracket and three-phase drive, etc, and ETS, naturally. Perhaps Brush could se if they could come up with something?

Well, if they were owned by someone other than DBS, they might have considered refurbishing the remaining Class 58 as a Class 58/4 with e.t.h. fitted, and known to be capable of over 95 mph. An ideal loco for charter work......

 

[RichmondCommu]

A shunter cum switcher to replace the 08. One centre cab, Bo-Bo with a reasonable top speed so it can get to remote yards at a speed of say 50+ mph so greater than the 08/09s (20mph ish ?). Twin engine (maybe one small and one bigger) so it can keep warm or do light duties on one engine but then do the jobs of 20s or better on two engines. Probably use the same engine as latest units (i.e. standard). Could look like a Clayton (class 17 ?).

Unfortunately it has to be able to replace 08s, 09s, 20s (31s and 37s maybe) otherwise it is not going to be a large enough quantity to make a viable order. So important thing to do is to work up more excuses for it. How about IEP bi-mode alternative for very short bits off the wire (diversions or wires down) so maybe 35mph self powered but able to be dragged at 100+ mph. Could drag emus beyond their existing route for a bit (e.g. Walsall to Rugely). Able to connect (I mean interface fully) to as many units as possible.

Thanks "RailwaysToday" I've been itching to get that idea out for ages .

Hunslet have developed a brand new shunter to replace class 08's, there was a picture and short article a few months a go in one of the railway magazines (I can't remember which one).

 

[boboloco]

Another good idea would be a new generation class 47, since they'd never be able to electrify everywhere, and there'd always be a need for loco haulage for charter trains and perhaps for open Access , since there'd never be enough spare MUs for everyone. Since it really doesn't look its age, they could really use pretty much same design (taking into account crashworthinesss regulations & so on, I really don't believe that you'd have to make something as hideously over-styled as the class 70 to comply with that), with , say, Caterpillar or MTU Engines in the 2500 hp bracket and three-phase drive, etc, and ETS, naturally. Perhaps Brush could se if they could come up with something?

I think the order placed by DRS for the Vossloh Eurolight fits into this catergory, suitable for both passenger and freight.

 

[ChrisCooper]

I would actually create a hybrid Class 70, which not only has a diesel engine as it does now, but add a pantograph and the capability to use third rail electric as well. But do this in the style of the old BR class 71...

Problem with that is you would struggle to find space on the roof for a pantograph, let alone finding somewhere for a transformer, which would also add to the weight horribly. You'd also need a cooling system for the transformer. Then there would be all the extra control equipment needed, plus any engine driven systems that would be needed on electric would have to be modified to run from electric or be duplicated (although on a modern loco most things probably are electric powered).

 

[starrymarkb]

I think the order placed by DRS for the Vossloh Eurolight fits into this catergory, suitable for both passenger and freight.

Son of 67 (Vossloh took on the Prima factory IIRC)

 

[route:oxford]

I'm not sure if a Loco is the correct comparison for a boris-ification.

The equivalent of the Routemaster in the railway field would have to be the 101.

 

[ChrisCooper]

I'm not sure if a Loco is the correct comparison for a boris-ification.

The equivalent of the Routemaster in the railway field would have to be the 101.

Either that or the VEP. They go on about how great the Routemaster with it's open platform was and how that's some kind of vital thing for London's buses (despite having been long done from the rest of the western world). Surely the same could be said for slam doors on trains, afterall nothing could soak up the crowds like a slammer with a door to every row of seats, and due to the conjestion and the loading gauge or railways do also have different requirements to everyone other western countries. Have central locking that released at say 5mph and it's as safe. I'm sure it's not beyond modern designers to come up with a way to remotly close the doors. and of course you could still have some wide powered doors for disabled access.

 

[LE Greys]

Problem with that is you would struggle to find space on the roof for a pantograph, let alone finding somewhere for a transformer, which would also add to the weight horribly. You'd also need a cooling system for the transformer. Then there would be all the extra control equipment needed, plus any engine driven systems that would be needed on electric would have to be modified to run from electric or be duplicated (although on a modern loco most things probably are electric powered).

For a new electro-diesel, you'd really need to look at something as more of a modernised Class 73, but for 25 kV and a bit bigger. The 73 is basically an electric loco with a backup diesel power unit for shunting. This would be excellent for Freightliner, as it would be able to do the final mile to Felixstowe, avoiding the need to hook off a 90 at Ipswich. Ideally, you would want a.c. and d.c. and diesel, but that is probably a bit too much. If you wanted something with genuine dual-power availability, then that would need at least a 2,000 hp engine along with a big generator and fuel tanks. That's a lot of extra weight, so you might end up with a 1Co-Co1 of Class 40 dimensions. It might also have a bit of a struggle with gradients on diesel power, and probably not be very fast either. On the juice, expect Class 92 performance.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Either that or the VEP. They go on about how great the Routemaster with it's open platform was and how that's some kind of vital thing for London's buses (despite having been long done from the rest of the western world). Surely the same could be said for slam doors on trains, afterall nothing could soak up the crowds like a slammer with a door to every row of seats, and due to the conjestion and the loading gauge or railways do also have different requirements to everyone other western countries. Have central locking that released at say 5mph and it's as safe. I'm sure it's not beyond modern designers to come up with a way to remotly close the doors. and of course you could still have some wide powered doors for disabled access.

I have to agree with this. A wedged VEP could empty itself in 30 seconds, and completely refill before the minute was out. What's more, there were plenty of comfortable seats.

That's something Boris seems to forget, I'd take a modern bus with Routemaster seats over one of his any day.

 

[table38]

Thinking about bendy buses, why not create an articulated loco which would then have enoiugh space and bogies to be a "proper" Electro-Diesel?

 

[LE Greys]

Thinking about bendy buses, why not create an articulated loco which would then have enoiugh space and bogies to be a "proper" Electro-Diesel?

A UK version of the IORE, perhaps. One again, over to Owen Hodgson.

http://www.fictitiousliveries.co.uk/photo.php?54004_llb.jpg

 

[RichmondCommu]

Either that or the VEP. They go on about how great the Routemaster with it's open platform was and how that's some kind of vital thing for London's buses (despite having been long done from the rest of the western world). Surely the same could be said for slam doors on trains, afterall nothing could soak up the crowds like a slammer with a door to every row of seats, and due to the conjestion and the loading gauge or railways do also have different requirements to everyone other western countries. Have central locking that released at say 5mph and it's as safe. I'm sure it's not beyond modern designers to come up with a way to remotly close the doors. and of course you could still have some wide powered doors for disabled access.

Thats a very good point but I would suggest that the doors should not be allowed to open until the train has stopped. However, there is always the risk of failure and the design costs may prove to be prohibitive. Personally I would like to see the class 378 design used on Crossrail given the nature of the journeys that are likely to be made.

 

[RailwaysToday]

Another good idea would be a new generation class 47, since they'd never be able to electrify everywhere, and there'd always be a need for loco haulage for charter trains and perhaps for open Access , since there'd never be enough spare MUs for everyone. Since it really doesn't look its age, they could really use pretty much same design (taking into account crashworthinesss regulations & so on, I really don't believe that you'd have to make something as hideously over-styled as the class 70 to comply with that), with , say, Caterpillar or MTU Engines in the 2500 hp bracket and three-phase drive, etc, and ETS, naturally. Perhaps Brush could se if they could come up with something?

Agree the Class 47 doesn't look its age. Would love to see something like this done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A shunter cum switcher to replace the 08. One centre cab, Bo-Bo with a reasonable top speed so it can get to remote yards at a speed of say 50+ mph so greater than the 08/09s (20mph ish ?). Twin engine (maybe one small and one bigger) so it can keep warm or do light duties on one engine but then do the jobs of 20s or better on two engines. Probably use the same engine as latest units (i.e. standard). Could look like a Clayton (class 17 ?).

Unfortunately it has to be able to replace 08s, 09s, 20s (31s and 37s maybe) otherwise it is not going to be a large enough quantity to make a viable order. So important thing to do is to work up more excuses for it. How about IEP bi-mode alternative for very short bits off the wire (diversions or wires down) so maybe 35mph self powered but able to be dragged at 100+ mph. Could drag emus beyond their existing route for a bit (e.g. Walsall to Rugely). Able to connect (I mean interface fully) to as many units as possible.

Thanks "RailwaysToday" I've been itching to get that idea out for ages .

Some serious thought has gone into this idea!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Either that or the VEP. They go on about how great the Routemaster with it's open platform was and how that's some kind of vital thing for London's buses (despite having been long done from the rest of the western world). Surely the same could be said for slam doors on trains, afterall nothing could soak up the crowds like a slammer with a door to every row of seats, and due to the conjestion and the loading gauge or railways do also have different requirements to everyone other western countries. Have central locking that released at say 5mph and it's as safe. I'm sure it's not beyond modern designers to come up with a way to remotly close the doors. and of course you could still have some wide powered doors for disabled access.

I've often thought this about the number of doors on modern units. With the door density of an old slammer the other thing you'd avoid is crowd clustering around a few door areas. People would naturally be better distributed across the full length of the carriage and you'd wouldn't have commuters shouting at each other to move down so much.

Thought about a DMU comparison. A redesigned 101 could work, or a new take on a 121 to replace 153s.

 

[142]

Problem with that is you would struggle to find space on the roof for a pantograph, let alone finding somewhere for a transformer, which would also add to the weight horribly. You'd also need a cooling system for the transformer. Then there would be all the extra control equipment needed, plus any engine driven systems that would be needed on electric would have to be modified to run from electric or be duplicated (although on a modern loco most things probably are electric powered).

why think conventional, if you were to get a scania 730 v8 (which has more power than a 73, and is much smaller in size!) and via an alternator run it to traction motors then run put the transformer into it, then run the power taken from 3rd rail or overhead wires to the traction motors in the same way as say on a 377 then that could possibly work but be much lighter than a class 73 at the same time? If needed to run on heavier work they could run in pairs to have roughly the same power as a 37 but at a much reduced cost too.

 

[HSTEd]

The weight added by a transformer is not really that much, especially considering the weight of the rest of the locomotive, and weight is not a particularly bad thing on a locomotive (increases tractive effort).

All you need is the pan equipment and the transformer, the weight is at most a few tonnes extra.
As for extra "control equipment" in this era the control equipment fits into a space smaller than the netbook I am typing this on either way and the extras for electrodiesel operation consist primarily of more lines of code in the programming.

I pointed this out last time by noting that EMD diesels like the Class 67 have a higher power to weight ratio than the HST power car does and thus could probably stand additional weight either way. (And this is despite using a slow revving diesel instead of a higher speed design).

Fitting three axle bogies onto a Cl67 derived design would probably produce a design that could accept the electrodiesel equipment and stay at a lower overall weight than the Cl66, let alone the same weight.

The Cl66 design has a frame that is deliberately overbuilt like all American designed heavy haul freight locomotives as this is the accepted way of increasing the design weight to improve tractive effort.

EDIT:
As for the Cl73 analogy, modern Cummins diesels run at ~1900rpm compared to ~900rpm of the 4SRKT and thus can obtain far higher power outputs per unit volume and could thus probably obtain 1250hp on diesel power easily, even without any of the other advances in diesel engine design.

Third rail capability is even easier than overhead capability as if you choose your generator/motor voltage correctly you can simply shunt the pickup shoe to your rectifier output.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Thats a very good point but I would suggest that the doors should not be allowed to open until the train has stopped. However, there is always the risk of failure and the design costs may prove to be prohibitive. Personally I would like to see the class 378 design used on Crossrail given the nature of the journeys that are likely to be made.

Why should the doors not be allowed to open until it's stopped? Part of my point was that if an open platform bus which won't even have a door is considered safe, why do we need to have trains with doors that won't open until the train has come to a total stop and usually not for a few seconds after that. Even sliding doors trains in many other countries release the doors before the train stops. I wonder how many people were actually injured from stepping out of slam door trains whilst moving?

 

[LE Greys]

The weight added by a transformer is not really that much, especially considering the weight of the rest of the locomotive, and weight is not a particularly bad thing on a locomotive (increases tractive effort).

All you need is the pan equipment and the transformer, the weight is at most a few tonnes extra.
As for extra "control equipment" in this era the control equipment fits into a space smaller than the netbook I am typing this on either way and the extras for electrodiesel operation consist primarily of more lines of code in the programming.

I pointed this out last time by noting that EMD diesels like the Class 67 have a higher power to weight ratio than the HST power car does and thus could probably stand additional weight either way. (And this is despite using a slow revving diesel instead of a higher speed design).

Fitting three axle bogies onto a Cl67 derived design would probably produce a design that could accept the electrodiesel equipment and stay at a lower overall weight than the Cl66, let alone the same weight.

The Cl66 design has a frame that is deliberately overbuilt like all American designed heavy haul freight locomotives as this is the accepted way of increasing the design weight to improve tractive effort.

EDIT:
As for the Cl73 analogy, modern Cummins diesels run at ~1900rpm compared to ~900rpm of the 4SRKT and thus can obtain far higher power outputs per unit volume and could thus probably obtain 1250hp on diesel power easily, even without any of the other advances in diesel engine design.

Third rail capability is even easier than overhead capability as if you choose your generator/motor voltage correctly you can simply shunt the pickup shoe to your rectifier output.

Some interesting thoughts here. Imagine, for instance a UK-gauge TRAXX as your starting point (mainly because there are already a.c., d.c., dual-system and diesel versions of it, with a planned electro-diesel). The diesel version uses an MTU 16V 4000 R41L (the same as most HSTs) and weighs 79 tons. That's quite light for what is effectively a Type 4 - about the same as a Warship. I don't know much about the E-D version, but I think it's a.c. overhead with a fairly small diesel engine. Now upgrade that a bit, shrink the body and mount it on Co-Co bogies. I'm not sure about the weight limits, but assuming a target of 100 tons, you would probably have enough for an MTU 12V 4000, which gives 2,012 horsepower. 120 tons might be enough for the full 16V 4000, but there would be space issues. It's not anywhere near the Class 70 (which probably ought to be a Type 6) but I reckon it's enough to get a fully-loaded Freightliner to 45 mph on a reasonably flat line. Is that good enough?

 

[DXMachina]

I used to mess around with electronics, build radios and stuff. Something I remember (its been a while..) is that you can use silicon thyristors as a one-stop AC-DC rectification and control system.

Further checking on wiki suggests they've been used for control of traction motors for a long time... one can assume the technology has evolved and become more resilient and longer-lasting as a result, semiconductor tech tends to do this (as the rising power of personal computers demonstrates)

So when thinking about future transport decisions maybe tenders should be put out to supply future technology to enable better design

Like a single sealed-unit module with enough switching power to feed traction motors seamlessly from DC, from a generator (3-phase AC?) strapped to as large a diesel engine as can reasonably be fitted.... or direct from an 18-30KV AC live feed. Forget transformers altogether, they're brilliant 1920s technology and have lasted the test of time but maybe they're heavier, cruder and less useful than well-implemented cutting-edge technology?

Make the whole thing removable through a ceiling hatch that also acts as a pantograph platform so a traction package issue can be resolved by switching in a spare control module and moving the old one to a lab for clean-up and fixing

then build your locomotive around whatever frame and wheelsets best support the intended weight, haulage oomph, speed ability and compatibility with current routes???

 

[HSTEd]

If we had DC OLE this would be so much easier, especially as IGBTs have advanced enough to allow even 3kV power lines to be fed directly to motor control systems.
You might be able to yank the DC link voltage up to 3kV if you wanted, the AGV has developed entirely sealed traction motors that can be driven using Onyx traction packages from said voltage.
If you had a 25kV-~3kV transformer it would be rather lighter than a conventional 25kV-<1kV one and you could use it when running on DC power as part of a push pull converter, although that wuold give you rather less power when running on DC.

 

[Boothby97]

Hunslet have developed a brand new shunter to replace class 08's, there was a picture and short article a few months a go in one of the railway magazines (I can't remember which one).

The Railway Magazine I believe.
Thanks, Sam.

 

[whitworth37]

You can never replace the 08s, there an iconic class! :P