Alternative to IEP Program

[ainsworth74]

I expect that most of the travelling public have little preference.

Which is an important point. I would suspect that the travelling public would like a train which gets them from A to B as fast as possible, on time, has enough seats for everyone (apart from peaks) and offers decent legroom. Beyond that I doubt they really care if the windows are a bit smaller than Mk3s or if there is some noise from the engines under the floor. In which case for the railway MUs make the most operational sense as they can meet the main requirements that the passengers have and are also the best solution for the TOCs themselves.

But rather than guessing what the public want perhaps someone should ask them what they think?

 

[Daimler]

As someone who travels regularly on Intercity DEMUs (Meridians), I find that the engine noise doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's no louder than the noise from a Cl43 when you are in either of the end carriages and low-pitched enough that it isn't annoying. I've also never heard any of the rattles that seem to plauge DHMUs on a Meridian (or Voyager for that matter).

I beg to differ. Travelling, as I said, twice a week in both a Voyager and a HST, I always choose to sit in the quiet carriage on the latter. The noise is considerably less in the Mk3 trailer than in the Voyager.

Personally, I find that the "hiss" of a Mk3 or Mk4 carriage at speed is more annoying. I expect that most of the travelling public have little preference.

I don't know if they have 'little preference'. If you ask them whether they'd prefer a quieter or noisier train, they're certain to go for the quieter one. Of course, whether they are that bothered full stop is another matter - the fact that XC Voyagers almost invariably packed would suggest not, so I guess that I am, alas, in a minority.

I don't think that this in the slightest respect alters the fact that LHCS has the ability to be 'more refined' than a diesel multiple unit though.

 

[387star]

The main problem with the voyagers is the seats are rock hard which can be changed!

 

[junglejames]

Earlier in the thread I replied this to one of your comments:



Again, you say that DMUs aren't as comfortable as loco hauled, but fail to explain why. You can get poor seats/ bad legroom in any type of train. The "DMU = Bad, Loco Hauled = Good" stuff is a dead end argument

Wait a minute. When did i say Loco is good, DMU is bad?? Never. Absolutely never. They both have their purposes. Right. When i say comfort, i mean everything put together. This includes engine noise, and vibrations. So sorry, but nothing is a dead end argument. DMUs are not suitable for long distance services.
Looks like im being chucked into the category of enthusiast that knows nowt and hates new things. Couldnt be further from the truth. Ive already stated what DMUs are good for, and what Loco hauled (or HSTs) are good for. For long distance services with high numbers of coaches, DMUs are both an unpleasant travelling experience, and not as efficient as loco hauled.
9 small engines use more fuel than 1 or 2 large engines.

If i was so badly against DMUs, then id be calling for the Far North line to go over to loco haulage (4hrs plus is a long journey). However i dont, because there is not the requirement for it.

I know the pros and cons of both, and I have clearly stated it.
For the long journeys that HSTs do, DMUs should not be considered. As most people seem to agree, DMUs offer a much worse travelling experience. So I find it highly unfair that when i say this, I get chucked into the 'thick enthusiast who hates DMUs' category. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As for EMUs, well admittedly there is little in it noise wise. Im pretty sure that the horrible rattles you get on the pendos is down to the crappy cheap build quality, and not down to the fact its an EMU.

 

[Zoe]

Most passengers just want to get from A to B is quickly as possible and don't care if the train is locomotive hauled or not. If the line is not electrified then a DMU is the most efficient way of doing this. You may be interested in this thread: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=41261&page=10 where it was concluded that a 7 car DMU consumed less fuel than a 67 hauling 5 coaches. I used to think loco hauled stock was better but in reality the horse and cart had its day and so has locomotive haled stock.

 

[junglejames]

Oh, and I can also accept that most passengers (whilst surely would prefer the quieter atmosphere of LHCS) are happy enough to put up with the noise of underfloor engines.
This however doesnt mean we should use this as an excuse to just go with the norm (as it is now) and stick with DMUs. Lets find out what people want, and lets go for the best.
Of course, this isnt going to happen.
Oh, and heres me accused of being blinkered. By somebody that obviously hates locos. (scrap Virgins loco hauled set, melt the locos) Could be a case of somebody else being blinkered??

 

[Zoe]

Oh, and heres me accused of being blinkered. By somebody that obviously hates locos. (scrap Virgins loco hauled set, melt the locos) Could be a case of somebody else being blinkered??

I don't hate locos, personally I'd prefer to travel on a loco hauled set but I also realize the railways are not run for me personally. As I said, the railways are run to get people from A to B and there is no more reason to use locomotive hauled stock than there is to use steam locomotives. Times have changed and multiple units are the best trains for the job.

 

[junglejames]

I don't hate locos, personally I'd prefer to travel on a loco hauled set but I also realize the railways are not run for me personally. As I said, the railways are run to get people from A to B and there is no more reason to use locomotive hauled stock than there is to use steam locomotives. Times have changed and multiple units are the best trains for the job.

Hi Zoe. I wasnt aiming that comment at you.

As for what is best and more efficient.
I looked at that thread. TDK claimed outright that a 7 car DMU uses less fuel, then asdks what a 5 car uses. Funny. Surely he already has a very good idea?
Anyway, having used TDKs figures for the 67 (1MPG approx seems quite low, as a HST with 2 engines is about the same), and using figures i have seen for 222s (they seem to use less fuel than 220s or 221s), I have worked out that a 5 car 222 uses about the same as the 67. Add more coaches to the 222, and its a lot worse.
Also, every study/ article I have seen has stated quite clearly that a 2+8 HST has a lower fuel consumption per passenger seat than a similar sized 222.

Sorry Zoe. That thread never gave a definitive answer to anything. However everything i have seen, and everything i know, points at the opposite.

As for track access charges. Figures ive seen suggest that an 8 car 220 is slightly less than a 2+8 HST. However make that a 9 car 220 (as they carry less than a HST), and the HST is now slightly cheaper. To be honest there is very little in it.

Sorry Zoe, Not trying to be nasty, but everything i have seen, and everything i know, suggests that for 7/8/9 coach trains, loco haulage or HSTs are more efficient. It all makes sense as well.
The only benefit to DMUs are their easy coupling, and better acceleration. Well when it comes to the long distance services anyway.
Its for journeys not requiring many coaches that DMUs come into their own.

 

[jopsuk]

You get slightly more capacity with a MU for the same train length- comparisons of seating between mrk3s and Voyagers are pointless as any new hauled stock would have the same big loos, big vestibules that the modern intercity MUs have.

 

[tbtc]

7 car DMU consumed less fuel than a 67 hauling 5 coaches

Also worth pointing out that if anything goes wrong on the seven coach DMU then it can still proceed with six engines or even five. If the 67 fails then the train fails...

 

[starrymarkb]

Also worth pointing out that if anything goes wrong on the seven coach DMU then it can still proceed with six engines or even five. If the 67 fails then the train fails...

Which is one reason why the Class 159s offer a superior service on the Waterloo to Exeter run then the locomotives and ropey coaches they replaced. Delays of 2-3 hours were not uncommon especially if a locomotive decided to expire on one of the long single track sections* (up to 18 miles between loops IIRC). While a 159 may have engine noise, if it loses an engine it can at least get itself to the next passing loop (and usually continue to Exeter/Salisbury for a unit swap)

The Class 50s were known as 50/50s because that was the odds of making it!

 

[Nym]

Of course if they build some decent eletrodiesels, they won't be uncomfortable under the wires between say KX and Edinburgh, all on the electric except for the last half hour where the diesels warm up, then you only have the vibrations, that should be deadened better in the IC stock, better engine mounts etc. onwards to Aberdeen or Inverness, the same for KX - Doncaster Diesels on at Retford, panto down at Doncaster, onto Hull Paragon or Huddersfeild/Bradford. But no, I don't support the jap bid, it's just too complicated to work properly on UK rails, there'll be massive teathing problems as everything the're using is untested on UK Rails. As apposed to if Bombardier did a class 225/0 Electrodiesel and new carrages for the current 220, 221, 222. A new bodyshell for the 225/0 would be very similar to the Mk4/Mk3 bodyshell, it would also be possible to have semi fixed formations of MU, 3 carrage unit with no driving cabs, Transformer and 2 generator coaches, and 2 carrage driving ends, although in use re-formation would be way too complicated it would proberbly better to stick with semi-fixed, as they can still be reformed in length from day to day.
The reason I'm choosing Bombardier is because all their tracktion and generator packages work on all the UK network, tested for interfrence with signalling systems etc.

 

[starrymarkb]

The reason I'm choosing Bombardier is because all their tracktion and generator packages work

haha - Bombardier products working???

IIRC the 220/221's acutally have Alstom Onyx traction packs. Do 222s use Bombardier MITRAC?

 

[Zoe]

Another advantage of the current IEP plan is that should there be a fault with the OHLE then you can simply switch on the underfloor engines and the train can continue. You wouldn't get this benefit if it was just an EMU.

 

[Pumbaa]

haha - Bombardier products working???

IIRC the 220/221's acutally have Alstom Onyx traction packs. Do 222s use Bombardier MITRAC?

A mishmash of both systems. The 220/221s use the Onyx system through and through; the 222s use Onyx with their own MITRAC system laid over the top for control.

 

[starrymarkb]

Another advantage of the current IEP plan is that should there be a fault with the OHLE then you can simply switch on the underfloor engines and the train can continue. You wouldn't get this benefit if it was just an EMU.

That was part of the original spec, the EMU had to be able to move 30 miles at 30mph with the wires out, and the 'Self Powered' needed the same facility in case of total engine failure :roll:

 

[Zoe]

That was part of the original spec, the EMU had to be able to move 30 miles at 30mph with the wires out, and the 'Self Powered' needed the same facility in case of total engine failure :roll:

Yes but under this plan you will be able to run at full DMU speed (which will be at least 90 mph if not the full 125) so there won't be a need to run at 30 mph to the next station and terminate the train.

 

[sprinterguy]

I’m against the Bi-mode idea, due to the inefficiencies involved with carting around extra traction equipment where it is not needed, and I don’t see that the arrangement could redeem itself through its’ usefulness during the very few times when it would really prove it’s worth, which would be during periods of engineering work and OHLE failures.

All I want to see is London-Bristol-Cardiff-Swansea electrified, with a fleet of off the shelf ten carriage EMUs built for the Intercity services to Bristol and South Wales, followed immediately after (or possibly even immediately before) by the electrification of the MML with a follow on order of identical ten carriage EMUs. The MML Meridians could then be cascaded to the London-Exeter, Plymouth & Penzance services. Without further electrification of the Berks & Hants beyond Newbury, I see little need to add pantograph cars to the 222s, so this would give a fleet of six 7 carriage trains, and ten 9/10 carriage trains using four and five carriage 222s in pairs. Thought could be given to electrification of the South West main line once the 222s become life expired.

 

[Zoe]

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.

 

[starrymarkb]

Yes but under this plan you will be able to run at full DMU speed (which will be at least 90 mph if not the full 125) so there won't be a need to run at 30 mph to the next station and terminate the train.

I know - the rolling eyes was aimed at the DfT for requiring such a thing! The tender document was a very interesting read! (though I think it's now been removed from the DfT site)

Edit: Found it on the National Archives
http://webarchive.nationalarchives....vitationtotender/ieptraintechnicalspecifi.pdf

Good bedtime reading

 

[Zoe]

I know - the rolling eyes was aimed at the DfT for requiring such a thing! The tender document was a very interesting read! (though I think it's now been removed from the DfT site)

It's not as silly as you may think though, if the train was to just be an EMU then an emergency diesel engine would be quite useful to at least get the train to a station in the event of an OHLE failure.

 

[Nym]

But by the time this standby engine has warmed up enough to work properly, a rescue loco could be half way there...

 

[Daimler]

But by the time this standby engine has warmed up enough to work properly, a rescue loco could be half way there...

Not to mention the extra weight of lugging around a 'dead' diesel engine (or several) under the wires - hardly environmentally friendly...

 

[gordonthemoron]

plus diesel fuel

 

[Zoe]

Not to mention the extra weight of lugging around a 'dead' diesel engine (or several) under the wires - hardly environmentally friendly...

It would only have been an emergnecy engine so nothing on scale of what we will have now with the IEP. By having an emergency engine it removes the need for rescue locotmotives. If Virgin had emergency engines in their pendolini then there wouldn't be a need for "Thunderbird" locomotives.

 

[Daimler]

It would only have been an emergnecy engine so nothing on scale of what we will have now with the IEP. By having an emergency engine it removes the need for rescue locotmotives. If Virgin had emergency engines in their pendolini then there wouldn't be a need for "Thunderbird" locomotives.

I think that's a lot of extra complexity and cost for very little extra gain - the 'rescue' engine would only be useful in certain types of failure, and even then - by what you're describing - would only be able to get the train to the next station. This would make it completely useless for any sort of extended period of time, and equally useless if the train is to be used on a diversionary route.

Far better to have diesel locomotives capable of hauling the train at a reasonable speed when such an eventuality requires it.

 

[Zoe]

Far better to have diesel locomotives capable of hauling the train at a reasonable speed when such an eventuality requires it.

Well as I say, under the current plan the driver can just start up the underfloor engines and run at least at 90 mph.

 

[Daimler]

Well as I say, under the current plan the driver can just start up the underfloor engines and run at least at 90 mph.

Indeed, which means even more dead weight is being carried around under the wires.

 

[Zoe]

Indeed, which means even more dead weight is being carried around under the wires.

In the case of Paddington to Bristol trains, yes but for Swansea trains they would need the engines to run from where the electrification ends to Swansea. Will be interestng to know if the engines will be fueled or not for trains running between Paddington and Bristol. It would save carrying around the weight of the fuel but if you didn't but if they carried fuel all the time it would give flexibility for diagraming and as stated above would allow the trains to run in the event of an OHLE failure.

 

[Solaris]

Announcement tomorrow....?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...south-wales-expected-tomorrow-91466-28251462/