Bombardier EDMU

[Drsatan]

or we could just electrify it to leicster and corby cant cost that much, /QUOTE]

I read somewhere that the bill for wiring the MML to Nottingham, Sheffield and Corby would be around £300 million. The bill for wiring the GWML as far as Bristol is a bit less but extensive in-fill electrification would be necessary to avoid too much running 'under the wires'. For instance, electrification to Cardiff (including the Valley Lines), Plymouth (via Bristol and Berks & Hants) and the Thames Valley branches would become essential to maximise value. On the other hand the MML is largely self-contained. Electrification of the GWML and surrounding lines needs to happen but can be delayed until the economy improves.

Converting all Meridians to EDMUs doesn't seem realistic in that they'd only use the OHL as far as Bedford and as others have suggested, every Meridian would block the line by changing from electric to diesel and vice versa. Instead, the MML should be electrified in its entirety, and 222s should be cascaded to XC replacing their 170s, which would be cascaded to Northern, FGW or any TOC with a shortage of trains.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I read somewhere that the bill for wiring the MML to Nottingham, Sheffield and Corby would be around £300 million. The bill for wiring the GWML as far as Bristol is a bit less but extensive in-fill electrification would be necessary to avoid too much running 'under the wires'. For instance, electrification to Cardiff (including the Valley Lines), Plymouth (via Bristol and Berks & Hants) and the Thames Valley branches would become essential to maximise value. On the other hand the MML is largely self-contained. Electrification of the GWML and surrounding lines needs to happen but can be delayed until the economy improves.

Converting all Meridians to EDMUs doesn't seem realistic in that they'd only use the OHL as far as Bedford and as others have suggested, every Meridian would block the line by changing from electric to diesel and vice versa. Instead, the MML should be electrified in its entirety, and 222s should be cascaded to XC replacing their 170s, which would be cascaded to Northern, FGW or any TOC with a shortage of trains.

it sounds fantastic but the sudden appeal of the MML is that you dont need new units... without that it loses its appeal and were just waiting to afford GWML electrification.

i was thinking yesterday could XC take on 222's and have an almost uniform fleet but there will be no new units for the MML for a while so ....

But why electrify to Leicester? By the time the gov have decided to do it, why not do the rest otherwise it will never get done

fair point well i think it should all be electrified anyway i was just trying to stop the lets have all trains stop at bedford talk as i thought it was pointless...

 

[MCR247]

If the MML was electrified it would still use 222s


jimmyowl1992: Even if they got new stock and the 222s went to XC it wouldn't give them a uniform fleet


Drsatan: 222s could not replace 170s

 

[Drsatan]

If the MML was electrified it would still use 222s


jimmyowl1992: Even if they got new stock and the 222s went to XC it wouldn't give them a uniform fleet


Drsatan: 222s could not replace 170s

Not necessarily: if the MML was electrified new trains would be ordered: either EMUs or locomotive hauled stock (including DVTs) with new electric locomotives.

In your opinion MCR247, why couldn't five or seven car 222s replace 170s on Cardiff-Nottingham and Birmingham NS - Stansted Airport runs? Replacing 170s with longer units seems like common sense

 

[YorkshireBear]

If the MML was electrified it would still use 222s


jimmyowl1992: Even if they got new stock and the 222s went to XC it wouldn't give them a uniform fleet


Drsatan: 222s could not replace 170s

i am aware not uniform i was distracted while writing it as i meant to say that i knew not but there not drastically different. as in compared to voyager and HST

 

[Aictos]

Not necessarily: if the MML was electrified new trains would be ordered: either EMUs or locomotive hauled stock (including DVTs) with new electric locomotives.

In your opinion MCR247, why couldn't five or seven car 222s replace 170s on Cardiff-Nottingham and Birmingham NS - Stansted Airport runs? Replacing 170s with longer units seems like common sense

Longer units on the Birmingham NS - Stansted Airport runs seem like common sense HOWEVER as has been raised a million times before, there are issues which prevent this from happening.

There are reasons why the service is currently restricted to 2 and 3 car 170s, mainly due to platform lengths and restrictions at Stansted Airport with non electric stock.

 

[MCR247]

Not necessarily: if the MML was electrified new trains would be ordered: either EMUs or locomotive hauled stock (including DVTs) with new electric locomotives.

No, the 222s are adequate for MML and would just have their engines and diesel equipment removed

In your opinion MCR247, why couldn't five or seven car 222s replace 170s on Cardiff-Nottingham and Birmingham NS - Stansted Airport runs? Replacing 170s with longer units seems like common sense

222s aren't just longer units though. They are Intercity units. XCs 170 routes are not InterCity. 222s are way overspecced for those routes. XCs 170s need the centre cars from LM, to make them all 3 car, and the remainder can be doubled up (if there is any).

 

[YorkshireBear]

No, the 222s are adequate for MML and would just have their engines and diesel equipment removed




222s aren't just longer units though. They are Intercity units. XCs 170 routes are not InterCity. 222s are way overspecced for those routes. XCs 170s need the centre cars from LM, to make them all 3 car, and the remainder can be doubled up (if there is any).

Agree with you there, changed my mind now, agree that XC don't need them. There not exactly old units are they.

 

[paul1609]

Considering Voyagers and Meridians can keep time with engines isolated, I do imagine that they should have no problem hauling the extra coaches around.

I dont have much experience of these trains running with engines out but an expanded 7 car set running on all 5 engines would have the same performance as a class 221 running on about 3 1/2 engines. I'd imagine that top speed on the flat would be around 90 mph and climbing for instance the devon banks would be very slow.

If voyagers are able to keep time on 3 out of 5 engines it shows just how much slack is built in to the timetable these days.

Of course if you lose 1 engine you are fast heading towards **** creek.

 

[Wyvern]

In your opinion MCR247, why couldn't five or seven car 222s replace 170s on Cardiff-Nottingham and Birmingham NS - Stansted Airport runs? Replacing 170s with longer units seems like common sense

Would there be a problem with axle loading in places? 170s could operate the Matlock branch but 222s couldnt and that was the reason given.

 

[MCR247]

XC don't run to Matlock :?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Would there be a problem with axle loading in places? 170s could operate the Matlock branch but 222s couldnt and that was the reason given.

he means when Midland Mainline had HST's and 170's and a 170 ran a matlock london service

 

[MCR247]

he means when Midland Mainline had HST's and 170's and a 170 ran a matlock london service

Oh right

 

[Wyvern]

Thanks

 

[tbtc]

i was thinking yesterday could XC take on 222's and have an almost uniform fleet but there will be no new units for the MML for a while so ....

One other problem with this is that the capacity for a 3 car 170 is greater than a *four* car Voyager (presumably the same for a Meridian), so there may be a capacity problem there...

One great advantage of this pantograph idea is that the MML could slowly be electrified, first to Leicester, then to Derby/Nottingham, then to Sheffield, then to Doncaster/Leeds, and maintain the same units and same timetable.

Once the whole line is wired, it may be time to consider new electric trains, but the 222s could still do the job in the meantime. Otherwise you're going to end up wiring long stretches and not seeing any benefit.

 

[Big Chris]

I was thinking if we electrify the whole MML we could use some of our underutilised Class 90's. Replace the HSTs that only run to 110 on the MML anyway and then remove diesel power under the wires from the MML all together. Win win, the class 90's have a home, the HSTs can be retired before they are flogged to death and bobs your uncle a fully electric MML with 222s having the flexibility to run off the wires if needed. Much the same situation as Virgin have with a Diesel fleet at their disposal but with the added bonus no fuel usage under the OHL

 

[YorkshireBear]

One other problem with this is that the capacity for a 3 car 170 is greater than a *four* car Voyager (presumably the same for a Meridian), so there may be a capacity problem there...

One great advantage of this pantograph idea is that the MML could slowly be electrified, first to Leicester, then to Derby/Nottingham, then to Sheffield, then to Doncaster/Leeds, and maintain the same units and same timetable.

Once the whole line is wired, it may be time to consider new electric trains, but the 222s could still do the job in the meantime. Otherwise you're going to end up wiring long stretches and not seeing any benefit.

thats the kinda thing i was getting at when they were all saying stop at bedford and i just suggested electrifying to leicster so i agree

 

[MCR247]

I was thinking if we electrify the whole MML we could use some of our underutilised Class 90's. Replace the HSTs that only run to 110 on the MML anyway and then remove diesel power under the wires from the MML all together. Win win, the class 90's have a home, the HSTs can be retired before they are flogged to death and bobs your uncle a fully electric MML with 222s having the flexibility to run off the wires if needed. Much the same situation as Virgin have with a Diesel fleet at their disposal but with the added bonus no fuel usage under the OHL

They are going to upgrade it to 125 soon hopefully in parts

 

[TheWalrus]

The call at Bedford to switch over if it can't be done on the move, although it would probably actually add around 10 - 12 minutes.

Isn't 10 mins a bit excessive? It wouldn't take that long surely?!

 

[ukrob]

Isn't 10 mins a bit excessive? It wouldn't take that long surely?!

Answered:

12 minutes, to slow down, put pan down and start engines while boarding etc waiting for engines to warm up properly, get back to linespeed etc

What is the line-speed through Bedford at the moment? That will have an affect on how long it takes to come to a stop then get back up to line speed in addition to changing power source.

 

[Kneedown]

2tph out of 5tph EMT trains call at Bedford, which is where the wires end.

Not forgetting the many that call at Luton and Luton Airport Pky.

 

[MCR247]

Not forgetting the many that call at Luton and Luton Airport Pky.

That is the same 2. Out of the other 3, 1 is non-stop to Market Harborough (NOT) and the other 2 are non-stop to Leicester (SHF)

 

[Kingfisher200262]

To be honest I can only imagine that this project would be suitable for short extensions diversions away from the overhead at relatively slow speed.
I dont think there would be the room underneath the extra coaches for diesel engines and their associated exhaust systems assuming that you want the extra coaches to carry passengers.
Assuming you converted a 221 to 7 coaches with two motored pantographs according to my back of the fag packet calculations youd have a power to weight ratio of around 8.70.
On diesel power with the 5 existing engines running youd have performance slightly worse than a class 170 dmu. 4 engines on a 6 coach 220 conversion would seem to be a bit of a non starter.
I reckon a balancing speed in the high 80s/low 90s with quite slow acceleration.
Might be okay to divert off the WCML to serve Manchester via Bolton or Blackpool.
Probably okay for Hull and Lincoln off the ECML.
Not enough power for most XC routes or the MML.
An interesting engineering project though.

I thought that the idea was to introduce pantograph vehicles, which will supply electrical power to the existing five Onix traction sets on the existing five motor cars. The traction equipment should be able to have additional control equipment introduced, so that changeover from diesel to electric when the pan is raised happens relatively smoothly.

I'm puzzled as to why two pantograph vehicles are needed (I think I've read that?). It could be that it's to strengthen the fleet, but in all but the six x seven car units, the maximum power demand should be no more than 3 MW (including auxiliaries), which one panto car should deal with comfortably (Pendolini can draw nearly 5 MW through one pantograph and main transformer).

As for power to weight ratios, if unmotored panto cars are introduced, I reckon they will weigh about 45 tonnes (challenging, but possible). This will increase the weight of a five (now six) car unit to 289 tonnes, with 2750 kW of available power, so a little over 9.5 kW / tonne... more than enough power to cope with the MML.

As a comparison, an HST (2 + 8) weighs 414 tonnes and has c. 3000 kW of traction power, so a power to weight ratio of 7.25 kW / tonne.

If preferred on the 222s, one engined, motored vehicle could be removed from each of the existing seven cars and added to some of the five cars, to make a larger, more uniform fleet of seven cars (once the pan car is added). That would mean a revised 222 fleet of twelve x 7-car (222001 to 12), eleven x 6-car (222013 to 23) and four x 5-car (222101 to 104).

 

[paul1609]

I thought that the idea was to introduce pantograph vehicles, which will supply electrical power to the existing five Onix traction sets on the existing five motor cars. The traction equipment should be able to have additional control equipment introduced, so that changeover from diesel to electric when the pan is raised happens relatively smoothly.

I'm puzzled as to why two pantograph vehicles are needed (I think I've read that?). It could be that it's to strengthen the fleet, but in all but the six x seven car units, the maximum power demand should be no more than 3 MW (including auxiliaries), which one panto car should deal with comfortably (Pendolini can draw nearly 5 MW through one pantograph and main transformer).

As for power to weight ratios, if unmotored panto cars are introduced, I reckon they will weigh about 45 tonnes (challenging, but possible). This will increase the weight of a five (now six) car unit to 289 tonnes, with 2750 kW of available power, so a little over 9.5 kW / tonne... more than enough power to cope with the MML.

As a comparison, an HST (2 + 8) weighs 414 tonnes and has c. 3000 kW of traction power, so a power to weight ratio of 7.25 kW / tonne.

If preferred on the 222s, one engined, motored vehicle could be removed from each of the existing seven cars and added to some of the five cars, to make a larger, more uniform fleet of seven cars (once the pan car is added). That would mean a revised 222 fleet of twelve x 7-car (222001 to 12), eleven x 6-car (222013 to 23) and four x 5-car (222101 to 104).

I agree that your stretch 5 to 6 plan makes more sense on a power to weight basis but for the MML with only 60 miles wired the extra fuel used hauling the transformer around would outweigh any benefit. If you need more capcity it would be far easier and economic to add a unppowered trailer.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

I agree that your stretch 5 to 6 plan makes more sense on a power to weight basis but for the MML with only 60 miles wired the extra fuel used hauling the transformer around would outweigh any benefit. If you need more capcity it would be far easier and economic to add a unppowered trailer.

In any event, it only makes sense to convert the Meridians to dual power if you electrify the MML way north of Bedford. The business case modellers will probably (nay, hopefully!!) be able to tell you how far you need to electrify (at least as far as Derby I would have thought), to justify the investment in converting the existing fleet to dual power.

 

[Geezertronic]

It might be more cost effective to convert the 222's whilst they are building vehicles for the 220/221's as it might keep the manufacturing costs down the more vehicles they need to build?

 

[Kingfisher200262]

It might be more cost effective to convert the 222's whilst they are building vehicles for the 220/221's as it might keep the manufacturing costs down the more vehicles they need to build?

Of course that's true. However, to be honest, I thought the 222s were the primary target for this project in any case. The argument that has been put up regarding dragging traction equipment around when off the wires must be far greater on XC and WC, isn't it?

 

[charlesn132]

They could get cars like on the 375/376/377s without AC equipment and fit it later on the 222s?

 

[The Planner]

What is the line-speed through Bedford at the moment? That will have an affect on how long it takes to come to a stop then get back up to line speed in addition to changing power source.

110 on the fasts. Thats a minute to slow down and another minute on the other side to speed up assuming a 222.

I dont think it would require 12 minutes to do it, you would certainly be looking at 8 in planning terms though if you treated it as adding a DMU to the set.

 

[ukrob]

110 on the fasts. Thats a minute to slow down and another minute on the other side to speed up assuming a 222.

I dont think it would require 12 minutes to do it, you would certainly be looking at 8 in planning terms though if you treated it as adding a DMU to the set.

60 seconds from 110mph to stop and 60 seconds from standing to 110mph?

I don't think so!