225s upgrade

[Pumbaa]

I suspect this is enthusiast-talk from a parallel universe:roll:

Try industry talk that is now desperately trying to get its voice heard now Laidlaw is in the scene. Previously all concerns have been swept under the carpet with those pushing for IEP ie Baker (another person of the same name produces a popular track atlas here in Britain) walking off whistling loudly and putting fingers in ears.

 

[Pumbaa]

Not everyone is clued up on the in crowd's in jokes...

Yes sorry - case of brain not engaging. The nickname was derived in another forum and stuck. And I'd just come from said forum and forgotten I had! My mistake - I apologise!

 

[junglejames]

Try industry talk that is now desperately trying to get its voice heard now Laidlaw is in the scene. Previously all concerns have been swept under the carpet with those pushing for IEP ie Baker (another person of the same name produces a popular track atlas here in Britain) walking off whistling loudly and putting fingers in ears.

I believe the map maker is the same person. Hence the name Map Boy for the guy pushing the poo tube through!
Hence the reason any talk of said Atlas' being frowned upon on said forum!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes sorry - case of brain not engaging. The nickname was derived in another forum and stuck. And I'd just come from said forum and forgotten I had! My mistake - I apologise!

God knows what the full name for the IEP is now!! Im sure it has vibrating railbus in there somewhere
Japanese bionic duckweed vibrating pootube railbus!! Or something along similar lines!

 

[starrymarkb]

I believe the map maker is the same person. Hence the name Map Boy for the guy pushing the poo tube through!
Hence the reason any talk of said Atlas' being frowned upon on said forum!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


God knows what the full name for the IEP is now!! Im sure it has vibrating railbus in there somewhere
Japanese bionic duckweed vibrating pootube railbus!! Or something along similar lines!

In English/Francais/Deutsch/Espanol?

 

[junglejames]

In English/Francais/Deutsch/Espanol?

Basically any sort of offensive sounding words you can form to mean 'narrow Japanese DMU'. Its been doing the rounds for a while now. I believe even Roger Ford used part of the name in MR at one stage.

 

[ainsworth74]

Can I ask that we stick to using recognisable names for people and trains. Many thanks.

 

[LE Greys]

I believe the map maker is the same person. Hence the name Map Boy for the guy pushing the poo tube through!
Hence the reason any talk of said Atlas' being frowned upon on said forum!

I can confirm that, I've met him. He's not so bad when you meet him in person. This was during the period when he was pushing for a 'generator van' to move the EMU version under diesel power. I pointed out as politely as I could that an engine in a van that could not move on its own might keep the country's fleet of 08s busy for some decades. Not sure whether that had any effect in dropping the idea.

However, not all ideas from one person are bad (even I will admit that the B1s were good engines despite hating almost everything Edward Thompson did to Gresley's designs). He also wanted to push Freightliner into buying electro-diesels instead of the 70s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As for 91s on the GEML. It's possible, but unlikely. MkIVs on the GEML hauled by 90s are somewhat more likely, though.

 

[shedman]

Hi all, just to let you know 91114 is sat at Neville Hill with its 2 pantographs. They are placed virtually next to each other. It is dark so I can't describe it in detail. Both are down at the minute and it was hauled up by another 91 (I think 125 but can't remember!). Hope it is of help to someone

 

[AndyLandy]

As for 91s on the GEML. It's possible, but unlikely. MkIVs on the GEML hauled by 90s are somewhat more likely, though.

That possibility is also one that crossed my mind. If the 90s are more suited than the 91s for GEML duties, but we need to do something about the coaching stock, it's conceivable that the 90s might haul Mk4 rakes. How likely it is is an entirely different matter though.

 

[sprinterguy]

Haha, OK, yes, you can have that. I guess you can even argue plural, since there's the Pretendolino set as well as the sleepers. Not to mention any freight there might be (Assuming any of it's hauled by 90s. I believe it's mostly 86s?)

Freightliner have quite a lot of container trains that are regularly worked by class 90s on the WCML, and DB Schenker also use 90s on West Coast freight flows to a lesser extent.

 

[junglejames]

I can confirm that, I've met him. He's not so bad when you meet him in person. This was during the period when he was pushing for a 'generator van' to move the EMU version under diesel power. I pointed out as politely as I could that an engine in a van that could not move on its own might keep the country's fleet of 08s busy for some decades. Not sure whether that had any effect in dropping the idea.

Loads of vehicles cant move 'on their own'. Split a lot of EMUs and DMUs up into single vehicles and they cant move on their own. This gennie van would have no doubt been inserted into the train, and so would have moved around no problem.
Anyway. The idea hasnt been dropped. We now have an engine under every one of these funny Japanese EMUs. The only possible difference now is the location of the engine.

He also wanted to push Freightliner into buying electro-diesels instead of the 70s.

I thought you said not all his ideas were bad? FL wanted a heavy haul loco for areas away from the wires. Something that could out pull a 60, and still manage 75mph at least. On top of that, using as little a fuel as possible. If you had an electro diesel, youd never have fitted the required size diesel engine inside. On top of that, youd have needed an even larger engine than noiw anyway, as youd be dragging all that electrical gubbins around.

So he was also responsible for wanting to hold FL back?
Time he realised that EDs are rarely the answer.

 

[starrymarkb]

Is this the guy at the DfT that didn't understand the laws of physics as regards IEP?

 

[captainbigun]

Is this the guy at the DfT that didn't understand the laws of physics as regards IEP?

Correct.

 

[HSTEd]

I thought you said not all his ideas were bad? FL wanted a heavy haul loco for areas away from the wires. Something that could out pull a 60, and still manage 75mph at least. On top of that, using as little a fuel as possible. If you had an electro diesel, youd never have fitted the required size diesel engine inside. On top of that, youd have needed an even larger engine than noiw anyway, as youd be dragging all that electrical gubbins around.

So he was also responsible for wanting to hold FL back?
Time he realised that EDs are rarely the answer.

Well the Class 70 doesn't really seem to be hurting for internal volume seeing a it throws a way a tonne providing two side walkways outside the vehicle (it only needs one if any).

And we have some very interesting work in lightweight 15/25kV medium frequency traction packages going on in Switzerland now (there is apparently a shunter running around with one experimentally) which will potentially cut the weight of the transformer package by an order of magnitude.....

25kV EDs will be arriving soon (hell they are already around in America)

 

[LE Greys]

Loads of vehicles cant move 'on their own'. Split a lot of EMUs and DMUs up into single vehicles and they cant move on their own. This gennie van would have no doubt been inserted into the train, and so would have moved around no problem.
Anyway. The idea hasnt been dropped. We now have an engine under every one of these funny Japanese EMUs. The only possible difference now is the location of the engine.

What I meant was that the van would have to be separated from the set whenever the power unit needed attention, otherwise the whole set would be out of commission. If it can't move itself (as a result of having no traction motors), then an 08 would be needed to shove it around the depot, which seems a bit pointless. There are ways to work around that, such as having the set drop off its van at a specific point, then move away and collect another one, but that's a complex shunting move that would have to be done from the other end under electric power. Also, woe betide you if the van fails in service and you can't swap it with another one at a station (as sometimes happens with HST power cars).

I thought you said not all his ideas were bad? FL wanted a heavy haul loco for areas away from the wires. Something that could out pull a 60, and still manage 75mph at least. On top of that, using as little a fuel as possible. If you had an electro diesel, youd never have fitted the required size diesel engine inside. On top of that, youd have needed an even larger engine than noiw anyway, as youd be dragging all that electrical gubbins around.

So he was also responsible for wanting to hold FL back?
Time he realised that EDs are rarely the answer.

I think he was thinking along the lines of the 'last mile' TRAXX locos, primarily as a replacement for pairs of 86s, but about 1,000 hp for short runs such as Ipswich-Felixstowe (plodding along at 30-45). This would free up some 66s for additional non-electrified routes. Sounds like a different sort of compromise than the one we ended up with. I pass no judgement as to whether it was better or not.

<EDIT> I'll change that slightly. It would give Freightliner a practical, modern, electric freight loco that doesn't require a shunter to use container terminals (where wires get in the way somewhat) although whether that is the ideal solution for their needs is another matter.

 

[TGV]

The 91s are planned for a long future on ECML. The plan can always change, but that's the current plan.

The pantograph on a 91 is a single point failure. The idea being to build in some redundancy. Running it either way aerodynamically is not a problem.

 

[D365]

Has 91114 been given East Coast Silver yet while up in Doncaster?

 

[starrymarkb]

I think he was thinking along the lines of the 'last mile' TRAXX locos, primarily as a replacement for pairs of 86s, but about 1,000 hp for short runs such as Ipswich-Felixstowe (plodding along at 30-45). This would free up some 66s for additional non-electrified routes. Sounds like a different sort of compromise than the one we ended up with. I pass no judgement as to whether it was better or not.

<EDIT> I'll change that slightly. It would give Freightliner a practical, modern, electric freight loco that doesn't require a shunter to use container terminals (where wires get in the way somewhat) although whether that is the ideal solution for their needs is another matter.

Also wasn't TfL making a lot of noise about wanting less freight on the NLL so it would have to take the unwired route via Bury?

 

[dubscottie]

looking back at my old RAIL mags, some of the ideas are amazing! And never happen.

My crystal ball says 91's on the London/Scotland sleepers and 90's and Mk4's on the GE...

Loco hauled Mk4's north of Inverkeithing cant happen by the way...

Burntisland and a curve on the Dunfermline route would stop them going further north...

 

[junglejames]

My crystal ball says 91's on the London/Scotland sleepers and 90's and Mk4's on the GE

So you pair 110mph locos with 125/ 140mph coaches, and put them on a 100/ 110mph railway. At the same time you pair 125/ 140mph locos and chuck them onto a 100mph sleeper?
What do you do with the rest of the 91s? What do you do with the rest of the Mk4s?

A 91 is perfect with the Mk4s. A 90 is perfect with the Mk3s. Why change for the sake of it?
If anything, you Chilternise the Mk3s, and if absolutely necessary, replace the 90s with a new build loco. Everything else stays as is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Correct.

Wasnt that the reason Alstom pulled out of the running? Because they realised the train wasnt actually possible?
Hitachi design something that they claimed could do exactly what the DfT wanted. Until it was later pointed out to them they were talking rubbish.
I lost interest in the project around then. It seemed to be a lost cause!! Only started paying more attention recently.

Would look like Hitachi and the DfT are a good match though. Both dont know what they are talking about.
Id be no good at designing trains either. Difference between myself, and Hitachi/ DfT, is I dont claim to be anygood, and I dont attempt it.

 

[starrymarkb]

Wasnt that the reason Alstom pulled out of the running? Because they realised the train wasnt actually possible?

IIRC the Bombardier/Siemens joint bid did work out it was possible to comply with the DfTs spec but the cost per vehicle would be immense! Hitachi came in cheaper but was not fully compliant with the original spec...

Given how much the spec has changed since the winner was announced I suspect Herr Siemens and Monsieur Bombardier would have a good case to challenge proceedings. But suspect they've had enough of the whole thing!

 

[sprinterguy]

This gennie van would have no doubt been inserted into the train, and so would have moved around no problem.

So you would have a large diesel generator included in the formation while the train was running under the wires in order to avoid the need for shunting manoeuvres where the wires end? This variant of the generator van idea sounds exactly the same as IEP to me.

Time he realised that EDs are rarely the answer.

They will be far more relevant to Freightliner once/if the "Electric Spine" has been electrified and, as LE Greys says, they would be aimed at replacing the class 86s which are quite an age now. Although admittedly they seem like they will go on running reliably forever, and at this rate they will end up rivalling the GWR's "Deans Goods" locos in their longevity.

I can appreciate that the application of Bi-mode designs such as IEP, where even the electric sets will have a back-up diesel generator, and the TRAXX UK loco with it's "last mile" diesel engine will do much to further reduce the supporting infrastructure required for the trains as regards shunting and rescue locos, compared to straight electric designs. However adopting this approach, more so for IEP than in the case of "last mile" hybrid locos, does seem to be taking this drive for efficiency to extremes.

 

[ainsworth74]

Loco hauled Mk4's north of Inverkeithing cant happen by the way...

Burntisland and a curve on the Dunfermline route would stop them going further north...

It can't be worse than curve they negotiate daily at Carstairs surely?

 

[captainbigun]

The 91s are planned for a long future on ECML. The plan can always change, but that's the current plan.

The pantograph on a 91 is a single point failure. The idea being to build in some redundancy. Running it either way aerodynamically is not a problem.

As I understand it there isn't really a long term plan. It's rather ROSCO vs DfT vs EC with a lot of cards on the table.

Re the pan, that is the design aim but the aerodynamics will change as the shape of the roof is changing so setting the aerofoils for the right uplift is going to take some work. All doable, but there are some unknowns.

 

[TGV]

As I understand it there isn't really a long term plan. It's rather ROSCO vs DfT vs EC with a lot of cards on the table.

Re the pan, that is the design aim but the aerodynamics will change as the shape of the roof is changing so setting the aerofoils for the right uplift is going to take some work. All doable, but there are some unknowns.

It has been indicated to me that EC and whoever follows will have to live with the 91s for "quite a while". Of course, the plan which that information was given on can always change! A week is a long time on the railways...

The BW pan is not too aero sensitive in my experience. The aerofoils are mounted on the apex frame which, even when under low catenary, is still in the free stream away from skin friction effects. Like you say, the effect of the new roof geometry may have a slight impact (from what I've seen of it, it will improve the pan well turbulence), but I'd imagine that can be adjusted if needed. It benefits from the new lower arms as fitted to the 390s as well.

 

[captainbigun]

91 does carry more angle on its aerofoils than other loco classes. It's going to be all new for one of the pans as it'll have never been tested in that orientation. Have to get it right, too much uplift and there will be a spaghetti mess not enough and you'll wreck the carbons and the infrastructure.

 

[tbtc]

So you pair 110mph locos with 125/ 140mph coaches, and put them on a 100/ 110mph railway. At the same time you pair 125/ 140mph locos and chuck them onto a 100mph sleeper?

Yup, perish the thought that these 140mph locos/ coaches are used at slower speeds - that'd be silly.

So you would have a large diesel generator included in the formation while the train was running under the wires in order to avoid the need for shunting manoeuvres where the wires end? This variant of the generator van idea sounds exactly the same as IEP to me

True, but then some enthusiasts manage to be anti-bi-mode and yet loving the idea of "last mile" diesels like TRAXX. I don't understand it myself, but there you go...

 

[TGV]

91 does carry more angle on its aerofoils than other loco classes. It's going to be all new for one of the pans as it'll have never been tested in that orientation. Have to get it right, too much uplift and there will be a spaghetti mess not enough and you'll wreck the carbons and the infrastructure.

What angle of attack are they set at? The orientation of the aeros shouldn't be a problem in itself - they operate in both directions already. Effectively it would be like turning the loco around and the pan isn't a limiting factor there. Like you said, the only effect likeley is some interaction with the modified roof.

 

[junglejames]

Yup, perish the thought that these 140mph locos/ coaches are used at slower speeds - that'd be silly.

It is if its not necessary.

True, but then some enthusiasts manage to be anti-bi-mode and yet loving the idea of "last mile" diesels like TRAXX. I don't understand it myself, but there you go...

Has anybody been anti bi mode? Ive seen people anti IEP, and ive said bimode is rarely the answer. No anti bimode right across the board though.
Remember IEP is so much more than just 'a bimode'.

Also, there are certain situations where bimode wont work, and highspeed Intercity trains is one of them. The only reason people on the whole agree with the bimoding of voyagers, is because we already have the stupid DMUs in the first place.
As a newbuild, it shouldnt be happening. With IEP we have 900hp engines underneath the floors. We are carrying all that extra weight around for short non electrified sections. Thats on to of all the other problems associated with IEP as a whole. Namely the cost.

 

[ryan125hst]

It has been indicated to me that EC and whoever follows will have to live with the 91s for "quite a while".

Live with the 91's? I know they have been having a few problems with them, but in my opinion, they are one of the best trains on the network. The Mark 4's are very smooth and quite- a pleasure to ride on.