Bombardier EDMU

[IanXC]

Anyone with more knowledge have any idea if it would be possible to fit the diesel element of the powertrain of a Voyager to an Electrostar design?

Southern have a couple of routes partly over 3rd rail electrification, and South West Trains 158/159s work a partly 3rd rail route - replacing these 56 units would be a very environmentally sound move, and allow the 158/159/171 units to be cascaded.

I guess alternatively with new Voyager carriages being constructed, new units could be built, but is there much more work constructing cab ends for some?

 

[MCR247]

Anyone with more knowledge have any idea if it would be possible to fit the diesel element of the powertrain of a Voyager to an Electrostar design?

Doubt it

 

[tbtc]

Anyone with more knowledge have any idea if it would be possible to fit the diesel element of the powertrain of a Voyager to an Electrostar design?

My query was going to be to ask whether similar "panto coaches" could be inserted into 172s, since the production line is still there, so that they could run on electrified sections where applicable?

It'd presumably be too much to ask for this on 170s or 158s etc

 

[Crossforth]

My query was going to be to ask whether similar "panto coaches" could be inserted into 172s, since the production line is still there, so that they could run on electrified sections where applicable?

It'd presumably be too much to ask for this on 170s or 158s etc

I think it can only be conidered for DEMUs, not DMUs

 

[mallard]

I think it can only be conidered for DEMUs, not DMUs

Well you could build a complete pato-fitted motor coach that could propel the diesel coaches on electrified routes...

 

[LE Greys]

Well you could build a complete pato-fitted motor coach that could propel the diesel coaches on electrified routes...

I think that's known as an electric locomotive (probably wouldn't be space for seats).

 

[90019]

I think that's known as an electric locomotive (probably wouldn't be space for seats).

Why not?

A lot of EMUs only have a single motor coach for either 3 or 4 cars. I would assume that they would be able to fit everything into either 1 or possibly 2 semi permanently coupled coaches in the consist.

 

[LE Greys]

Anyone with more knowledge have any idea if it would be possible to fit the diesel element of the powertrain of a Voyager to an Electrostar design?

Southern have a couple of routes partly over 3rd rail electrification, and South West Trains 158/159s work a partly 3rd rail route - replacing these 56 units would be a very environmentally sound move, and allow the 158/159/171 units to be cascaded.

I guess alternatively with new Voyager carriages being constructed, new units could be built, but is there much more work constructing cab ends for some?

Er, yes and no. While it might fit in, it would be about the same weight as a Voyager, but would have a 100 mph bodyshell. Probably better to order one of those DEMU Turbostars that have been suggested, with a 450 hp engine, smaller generator and Electrostar traction motors. However, the standard Turbostar would probably be lighter anyway, but would not be able to work off the live rail. However, it's a lot more likely that SWT would go for an electro-diesel Desiro, to fit in with their existing fleet. The TPX Desiros use the same Cummins engines as the Voyagers, so fitting a generator to one of those is probably possible. The real problem would be hooking it up to the live rail. I'm not an expert on d.c. control systems, but I think it would be tricky.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why not?

A lot of EMUs only have a single motor coach for either 3 or 4 cars. I would assume that they would be able to fit everything into either 1 or possibly 2 semi permanently coupled coaches in the consist.

I was assuming that all the motors would be underneath the motorcoach, thus requiring big, powerful motors and large cooling systems (which take up a lot of the space in electric locos). It might be possible to couple an electric tractor unit onto the diesel unit, roughly what used to happen with the 4-REPs at Bournemouth. However, the 4-TCs they used to work with were not motored, and hauled on to Weymouth by Class 33s, which meant that they were lighter. Still, it's worth considering.

 

[tbtc]

it's worth considering.

Forgive my lack of electrical knowledge, but something like this sounds like the way forward, if it can be done. There are a lot of DMUs running for considerable time under wires, with little prospect of complete electrification (e.g. Newcastle to Manchester Airport, Birmingham - Rugley....) as well as the often quoted Cross Country examples.

Plus, something like this would be ideal for when a line is gradually elecrified, meaning part could be EMU run even if it's not all been wired.

 

[EWS 58038]

How wonderful, everyone here thinks the OHLE just stops at Bedford.

If the EDMU will see the light, I'm sure the OHLE will be extended to Loughborough or Nottingham/Sheffield as stated in the recently published Northern RUS.

This will make it possible to change over from high voltage 25k current to a lower current generated on the train, during a station stop.

Who believes it's only possible to change when the train isn't moving should reconsider what they suppose to be true.

You can change from current whenever you like as long as the speed allows it. Sure you don't want to do it at 186 mph, but 100 mph wouldn't be any problem for a modern train.

And if it would cause any problems... then change the software.

 

[ukrob]

How wonderful, everyone here thinks the OHLE just stops at Bedford.

Doesn't it?

If the EDMU will see the light, I'm sure the OHLE will be extended to Loughborough or Nottingham/Sheffield as stated in the recently published Northern RUS.

Isn't the whole point that it is an alternative to full electrification? A RUS is just ideas which have been floated, not what is planned.

This will make it possible to change over from high voltage 25k current to a lower current generated on the train, during a station stop.

Who believes it's only possible to change when the train isn't moving should reconsider what they suppose to be true.

Is it peoples imagination that some EMUs are required to be shut down to changeover?

You can change from current whenever you like as long as the speed allows it. Sure you don't want to do it at 186 mph, but 100 mph wouldn't be any problem for a modern train.

And if it would cause any problems... then change the software.

Precisely the point we have been talking about. I'm not really sure what the point of your post is because some is inaccurate and some is backing up what others have said whilst trying to say that they are wrong.

 

[MCR247]

Well this is short term, so if the panto-coaches were built say in the next 5 years, the MML will not have been electrified by then (or at least I doubt it), so this is what would have to happen.

What the RUS doesn't mean it will actually happen anytime soon. I don't understand the rest of your post

 

[EWS 58038]

Doesn't it?

At present it does, but when the EDMU will see the light the OHLE will undoubtly be extended further up north because you simply do not install those new panto-coaches for the odd 25 miles to Bedford

Isn't the whole point that it is an alternative to full electrification? A RUS is just ideas which have been floated, not what is planned.

No, it's a short term solution in the run up to a fully electrified main network throughout the UK without the need to invest in new trains for the next fifteen years.

Is it peoples imagination that some EMUs are required to be shut down to changeover?

That's not what I said. I said "only" in the context of more classes. There are classes that can change without the need of a complete shut down, and there are classes that were designed by "not so smart engineers" that do require a complete shut down.

Precisely the point we have been talking about. I'm not really sure what the point of your post is because some is inaccurate and some is backing up what others have said whilst trying to say that they are wrong.

My post is all but inaccurate, and I never accused anyone of having it wrong. But I said that those that do believe that changing from one current to the other is not possible whilst driving should reconsider what they take for granted.

 

[depablo]

I know this thread is a few months old, has anyone any update on this or able to post a link to another news section?

Just wondering if the Cummins engineers might find themselves out of a job?

 

[MCR247]

It was just a proposal made by Bombardier, it is up to the government/TOC/ROSCOs to do anything with it

 

[OMGitsDAVE]

I should hope the ROSCO's/TOC's/Government actually take up this offer, it would certainly help a lot of causes - especially electrified areas (which a majority of the Cross Country network is), opening up plenty of new fields for Cross Country, and needless to say more capacity.

It's a no-brainer in my mind.

 

[RobShipway]

Going back to an earlier post having a DEMU is nothing new, it was done back in the 1960's i.e. the Thumper DEMU trains that use to run to Uckfield and Hastings. I believe that you could put dc conductor shoes to a Turbostar as as the power from the diesel engine correct me if I am wrong goes through a converter that can all accept AC or DC power in the same way that the Electrostar does?

Certainly the Voyager/Meridian trains have the converter required, they are just missing the Pantograph carriage which can also have shoes for third rail pickup?

 

[MCR247]

Going back to an earlier post having a DEMU is nothing new, it was done back in the 1960's i.e. the Thumper DEMU trains that use to run to Uckfield and Hastings. I believe that you could put dc conductor shoes to a Turbostar as as the power from the diesel engine correct me if I am wrong goes through a converter that can all accept AC or DC power in the same way that the Electrostar does?

All of that is rubbish.

 

[ainsworth74]

I believe that you could put dc conductor shoes to a Turbostar as as the power from the diesel engine correct me if I am wrong goes through a converter that can all accept AC or DC power in the same way that the Electrostar does?

You couldn't do that, the Turbostar's have hydrodynamic transmissions which don't rely on electricity at any point to provide motive power. Unlike Voyagers/Meridians which have diesel engines and generators linked to electric traction motors hence why they could be easily converted to run on overhead lines.

 

[bangor-toad]

All of that is rubbish.

Not quite...
The old Thumper classes (201-7) were built with the ability to be converted to run off the 3rd rail. That's converted in the 1960's sense of a rebuild from DEMU to EMU rather than a 2010 type of dual mode.

Thumpers used an English Electric 4SRKT engine (there's that classic sound!) and they used EE507 250 hp motors for traction.
These same traction motors were used with pretty much everything on the SR for many, many years.

When the Thumpers displaced steam on the Uckfield line they were seen as a temporary measure until electrification came. Once the 3rd rail was laid, the units would have been taken out of service one by one, the engine removed and pickups attached to the bogies. In the interiem, some units would be DEMU and some EMU.
Hey presto: conversion of a DEMU fleet to a EMUs without the need to massively alter the units.

Sadly, some 53 years after the Thumpers were introduced the Uckfield line didn't manage to get electrified and the foresight shown by those Eastleigh engineers of building units with such flexibility was wasted...
I did wonder if the Class 221/22 engineers were inspired by this tale in how they designed thier traction package...

Anyway, Happy Christmas to all!
Jason

 

[depablo]

Thanks for the prompt replies. QSK19 diesel is my bread and butter

 

[junglejames]

Thanks for the prompt replies. QSK19 diesel is my bread and butter

Whats the butter part? The coolant or the oil!!!

They are fine until they are stuck underneath a cheap plastic voyager, making the whole thing rattle like nobodies business.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

There seem to be some misunderstandings here.

A DEMU is a diesel-electric multiple unit, where one or more diesel engines, connected to electrical alternator/s generate/s electricity, which is then fed through a traction control system to traction motors, which are the prime movers.

An EDMU is something different altogether. This is where the same traction control system / traction motor combination that is employed in a DEMU can draw its electrical power from one of two power sources; either the alternator that is driven from a diesel engine, or from an external electrical supply (either 25 kV ac OHL or 750 V dc third rail (through power conditioning equipment such as transformers, rectifiers etc).

The EDMU is otherwise known as a "hybrid" or a "bi-mode" train.

My own opinion about the Voyager / Meridian "juicification" proposal is that the idea is great in theory, but when you start to dig a bit deeper, you start to encounter a few "issues", especially if the trains become long ones by re-forming the sets (as might be likely if proposed as HST replacements).

The first is that of whole life cost. If we are ever to drive down the cost of running the railway, we have to look at all aspects, and in the case of rolling stock, the biggest cost (far greater than buying the trains) is maintenance. As Midland Mainline found out with nine-car Meridians, once you get past a train length of five or six cars, having the diesel power concentrated rather than distributed (i.e. two VP185s rather than nine QSKs) is much cheaper from a maintenance point of view.

The second is that of ambience for long distance rail travel. Just ask yourself as a passenger; 180 or HST (on Grand Central); 222 or HST (on East Midland)?

This is why, if IEP were to go ahead in its revised form (i.e. bi-mode with under-floor engines) it would be an even bigger basket case than when originally conceived, and why, at CSRE we opted to stick our necks out with Polaris and retain the power car principle. Yes, you lose half a vehicles' worth of seating, but the whole life cost is far lower and the passenger comfort is much better.

 

[tbtc]

There seem to be some misunderstandings here.

A DEMU is a diesel-electric multiple unit, where one or more diesel engines, connected to electrical alternator/s generate/s electricity, which is then fed through a traction control system to traction motors, which are the prime movers.

An EDMU is something different altogether. This is where the same traction control system / traction motor combination that is employed in a DEMU can draw its electrical power from one of two power sources; either the alternator that is driven from a diesel engine, or from an external electrical supply (either 25 kV ac OHL or 750 V dc third rail (through power conditioning equipment such as transformers, rectifiers etc).

The EDMU is otherwise known as a "hybrid" or a "bi-mode" train.

My own opinion about the Voyager / Meridian "juicification" proposal is that the idea is great in theory, but when you start to dig a bit deeper, you start to encounter a few "issues", especially if the trains become long ones by re-forming the sets (as might be likely if proposed as HST replacements).

The first is that of whole life cost. If we are ever to drive down the cost of running the railway, we have to look at all aspects, and in the case of rolling stock, the biggest cost (far greater than buying the trains) is maintenance. As Midland Mainline found out with nine-car Meridians, once you get past a train length of five or six cars, having the diesel power concentrated rather than distributed (i.e. two VP185s rather than nine QSKs) is much cheaper from a maintenance point of view.

The second is that of ambience for long distance rail travel. Just ask yourself as a passenger; 180 or HST (on Grand Central); 222 or HST (on East Midland)?

This is why, if IEP were to go ahead in its revised form (i.e. bi-mode with under-floor engines) it would be an even bigger basket case than when originally conceived, and why, at CSRE we opted to stick our necks out with Polaris and retain the power car principle. Yes, you lose half a vehicles' worth of seating, but the whole life cost is far lower and the passenger comfort is much better.

That's a very interesting post, a lot of points to question (e.g. we have nine coach units with underfloor engines running around and five coach HST sets... bonkers!)

Rather than bug you with 100 things, one question sticks out. You've said that a HST (or equivalent) loses "half a vehicles' worth of seating". With Voyagers the "crumple zone" takes up quite a bit of space (IIRC the Quiet Zone coach is approx 40 seats rather than 60 seats). I was wondering how much space (in terms of metres or seats) is the difference between a "stand alone" power car and the "crumple zone" space taken up in a DMU. And would a power car be as long as an HST one, or could they be shorter?

 

[junglejames]

There seem to be some misunderstandings here.

A DEMU is a diesel-electric multiple unit, where one or more diesel engines, connected to electrical alternator/s generate/s electricity, which is then fed through a traction control system to traction motors, which are the prime movers.

An EDMU is something different altogether. This is where the same traction control system / traction motor combination that is employed in a DEMU can draw its electrical power from one of two power sources; either the alternator that is driven from a diesel engine, or from an external electrical supply (either 25 kV ac OHL or 750 V dc third rail (through power conditioning equipment such as transformers, rectifiers etc).

The EDMU is otherwise known as a "hybrid" or a "bi-mode" train.

My own opinion about the Voyager / Meridian "juicification" proposal is that the idea is great in theory, but when you start to dig a bit deeper, you start to encounter a few "issues", especially if the trains become long ones by re-forming the sets (as might be likely if proposed as HST replacements).

The first is that of whole life cost. If we are ever to drive down the cost of running the railway, we have to look at all aspects, and in the case of rolling stock, the biggest cost (far greater than buying the trains) is maintenance. As Midland Mainline found out with nine-car Meridians, once you get past a train length of five or six cars, having the diesel power concentrated rather than distributed (i.e. two VP185s rather than nine QSKs) is much cheaper from a maintenance point of view.

The second is that of ambience for long distance rail travel. Just ask yourself as a passenger; 180 or HST (on Grand Central); 222 or HST (on East Midland)?

This is why, if IEP were to go ahead in its revised form (i.e. bi-mode with under-floor engines) it would be an even bigger basket case than when originally conceived, and why, at CSRE we opted to stick our necks out with Polaris and retain the power car principle. Yes, you lose half a vehicles' worth of seating, but the whole life cost is far lower and the passenger comfort is much better.

All very true. If they did add a pantograph to the voyagers, it would only be any good for their current operations. As mentioned, you cant seriously consider this for IEP.

As for CSRE and Polaris though. The day we start ordering trains from China, is the day I totally lose faith in the rail industry. The only reason we would be doing it is for cheapness, and not for quality reasons.
Its about time we started supporting our economy and constantly build trains in the UK.

 

[MCR247]

Its about time we started supporting our economy and constantly build trains in the UK.

You mean like Bombardier? With their new units have the lowest MPC in their category? And just about every category?

 

[Pumbaa]

As for CSRE and Polaris though. The day we start ordering trains from China, is the day I totally lose faith in the rail industry. The only reason we would be doing it is for cheapness, and not for quality reasons.
Its about time we started supporting our economy and constantly build trains in the UK.

Why bother buying "British" if its rubbish, unreliable, expensive and not good value for money?

Whats wrong with getting more for less money, even if it comes from (godforbid...) China!?

And you also imply that CSRE/Polaris is not a quality product at all? Any evidence to back that up, any fact at all, or just a blatant xenophobic outlook?

 

[junglejames]

We dont give ourselves chance to build anything anymore. We have Bombardier and thats it. If we actually gave ourselves a chance, perhaps things may get better. Where is the competition for Bombardier? We have done it in the past, so we can do it now.
Also, the more we build, the cheaper it will become. Its going to be expensive at first, but it gets cheaper.
If im proved wrong, then fine (although i doubt i will have the chance to be proved wrong). I just believe in Britain.

Also, Bombardier may suffer from unreliability, but they are usually dam good trains. The Turbostars are probably the best units to be built since privatisation. They actually seem to have been put together well. A lot more than can be said for a lot of other stuff.
In my mind, the most pleasant train for a passenger built since privatisation.

As for Chinese build. Just experience, thats all. Not actually trains, but most other things on the whole.
Having worked on a Chinese built ship, the problems were there to see. Badly built, and badly designed.
Theres all the other little things as well.
We went out there to start with for one reason only. Cheapness.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh, and where is your evidence of British stuff being rubbish? Not just one thing either. It needs to be across the board (anybody can come up with one thing from any country). In my eyes Turbostars definitely do not count as rubbish.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

That's a very interesting post, a lot of points to question (e.g. we have nine coach units with underfloor engines running around and five coach HST sets... bonkers!)

Rather than bug you with 100 things, one question sticks out. You've said that a HST (or equivalent) loses "half a vehicles' worth of seating". With Voyagers the "crumple zone" takes up quite a bit of space (IIRC the Quiet Zone coach is approx 40 seats rather than 60 seats). I was wondering how much space (in terms of metres or seats) is the difference between a "stand alone" power car and the "crumple zone" space taken up in a DMU. And would a power car be as long as an HST one, or could they be shorter?

I wan't intending to be too scientific. However, if we assume that a conventional "head end power" solution has two power cars (the Polaris PCs are 19.63 metres over the couplers) and the alternative, underfloor solution has two 23 metre driving vehicles, over the two, you gain about a vehicles' worth of seating - as you say, with the crumple zones for 125 mph running, there is an extended non-passenger area.

So, in summary, a typical HST (or Polaris) set, with 2 x FO, one TRFB, four TSO and one TGS vehicles might have 500 seats and be 223 metres long.

An equivalent underfloor engined unit, with nine vehicles might be formed as follows: -

DMF - MF - MF - MSRMB - MS - MS - MS - MS - DMS

Based on Meridian seating layouts, this would provide 478 seats and would be 215 metres long.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All very true. If they did add a pantograph to the voyagers, it would only be any good for their current operations. As mentioned, you cant seriously consider this for IEP.

As for CSRE and Polaris though. The day we start ordering trains from China, is the day I totally lose faith in the rail industry. The only reason we would be doing it is for cheapness, and not for quality reasons.
Its about time we started supporting our economy and constantly build trains in the UK.

I understand your point of view, but would mitigate as follows: -

1. All of CSRE's UK products are being developed by UK engineers, in the UK, and the intellectual property will remain in the UK (let's face it, it's no use to the Chinese, even to offer elsewhere in Europe)

2. All of CSRE's UK products with the exception of the first of each class (so that advantage can be taken of China's superb testing facilities) will be assembled in the UK, in purpose built, sustainable assembly facilities

Next time you use your I-Pad, I-Phone, mobile phone or laptop computer, please consider that the design ownership probably rests with an American, Dutch, Finnish or Korean company, but that it was probably manufactured in China. Any problems with the quality?

You can't support the UK economy any better than creating new UK jobs, which is exactly what CSRE is doing.

 

[MCR247]

We dont give ourselves chance to build anything anymore. We have Bombardier and thats it. If we actually gave ourselves a chance, perhaps things may get better. Where is the competition for Bombardier? We have done it in the past, so we can do it now.
Also, the more we build, the cheaper it will become. Its going to be expensive at first, but it gets cheaper.
If im proved wrong, then fine (although i doubt i will have the chance to be proved wrong). I just believe in Britain.

Also, Bombardier may suffer from unreliability, but they are usually dam good trains. The Turbostars are probably the best units to be built since privatisation. They actually seem to have been put together well. A lot more than can be said for a lot of other stuff.
In my mind, the most pleasant train for a passenger built since privatisation.

Really? I beg to differ with the 377/5s and 172s. 172/0s and 378s have shocking MPCs having both come at the bottom of their categories