Bombardier EDMU

[tbtc]

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

Cheers; I find these really interesting discussions. I'm not a very technical person, but I find insights like yours very valuable

 

[Crossforth]

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

Do remember though that as they are "new" they are bound to have introductory problems

 

[tbtc]

We dont give ourselves chance to build anything anymore

We have plenty chance, but we can't compete for labour costs.

We have the technology, we have the ideas, we have the copyright, we have the inventors. But you can't build things as cheaply as they do in China etc.

Over the twenty five (?) year expected lifetime of new stock, the labour part is a small bit (bearing in mind the people working on them in the UK, maintaining them in the UK, refurbishing them in the UK etc).

Why not want the best quality trains (regardless of country)?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do remember though that as they are "new" they are bound to have introductory problems

...as are all new trains. But we seem to have had some significant problems with some new stock recently...

 

[Pumbaa]

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.

Using Bombardier only...

From the start!:

- Turbostars are built to a price; they're cheap. They are numerous because they were the cheapest version of the same product from different manufacturers available. Most Engineers will agree that they're a) hideously underpowered and b) use cheap and nasty underfloor gubbins, which the first three operators stripped out and had replaced. They were included as standard from then on. Interiors fall to bits easily, panels come lose if not kicked back once a day and offer non-standards across a class, as Bombardier built them with whatever they had lying around.

- 377s/375s/376s etc were again built to a price so compromised on quality. What comes as standard on comparative kit either doesn't exist or is woefully inadequate here, including traction packages, passenger monitoring, auto-stabilising, sanding equipment, TMS, pan recovery... the list is endless. Operators have had to customise and butcher their fleets to get them up to a reasonable standard, although to be fair, they now hold their own and have a fairly good reliability. Oh - nearly forgot - one of their biggest problems is that Bombardier couldn't be bothered to develop their own inputs/cabs for their EMUs and took everything out of a DMU and stuck it in, including the bits that are especially pants. Result - trains that can't brake properly in the rain, have linear rather than progressive power made available for them for acceleration and bits that don't work as well as they should.

- Voyager family were atrociously designed, even if we just look at what Bombardier decided to do and not what VRG told them to do. Meridians are a huge improvement, but mainly because they hived the design work out to a European branch and got another company in to do the interiors. Still all in all, their best product to date operating here in the UK. Maybe because they were all built in Europe????!

- 378s/172s are both hideously behind schedule, and built (AGAIN) to a price. The numerous issues are well catalogued by many so I'm not going to go in to them.

- 379s running on time so far, but using same pieces of kit as the above.

- S and 2009 TS on the Underground are behind schedule, don't work and causing much agro between engineers.

See a theme developing here? Earlier this year, they hired an Industry Pro to come and whip their arses into gear as they were so crap. He is taking them to task, sorting their product quality, sorting their aftersales and trying to generally improve their manufacturing ability. And that's just Bombardier.

Moral here - you want a decent train, look elsewhere. Siemens et al may be a little more expensive, but you get much more for your money.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Competition from Siemens, CAF, CSRE, Alstom, AnsaldoBreda

We may have done it in the past, maybe we are just as efficient now (hypothetically speaking) but other countries have improved. Where is the logic in settling for second best?

 

[tbtc]

Using Bombardier only...

From the start!:

- Turbostars are built to a price; they're cheap. They are numerous because they were the cheapest version of the same product from different manufacturers available. Most Engineers will agree that they're a) hideously underpowered and b) use cheap and nasty underfloor gubbins, which the first three operators stripped out and had replaced. They were included as standard from then on. Interiors fall to bits easily, panels come lose if not kicked back once a day and offer non-standards across a class, as Bombardier built them with whatever they had lying around.

- 377s/375s/376s etc were again built to a price so compromised on quality. What comes as standard on comparative kit either doesn't exist or is woefully inadequate here, including traction packages, passenger monitoring, auto-stabilising, sanding equipment, TMS, pan recovery... the list is endless. Operators have had to customise and butcher their fleets to get them up to a reasonable standard, although to be fair, they now hold their own and have a fairly good reliability.

- Voyager family were atrociously designed, even if we just look at what Bombardier decided to do and not what VRG told them to do. Meridians are a huge improvement, but mainly because they hived the design work out to a European branch and got another company in to do the interiors. Still all in all, their best product to date operating here in the UK. Maybe because they were all built in Europe????!

- 378s/172s are both hideously behind schedule, and built (AGAIN) to a price. The numerous issues are well catalogued by many so I'm not going to go in to them.

- 379s running on time so far, but using same pieces of kit as the above.

- S and 2009 TS on the Underground are behind schedule, don't work and causing much agro between engineers

Surely the fact they are "British" should absolve them from any blame though?

 

[Pumbaa]

Surely the fact they are "British" should absolve them from any blame though?

But of course! And even more importantly *peeps around corner to check certain individuals aren't nearby* they have "proper" sized windows too...

 

[tbtc]

But of course! And even more importantly *peeps around corner to check certain individuals aren't nearby* they have "proper" sized windows too...

Nail. Hit. Head.

 

[Lampshade]

So the Junipers and Adelantes were the epitome of reliability when they were built

Hmm, they were built here as well, a trend perhaps?

 

[MCR247]

Pendolinos were assembled here, and they're good trains!

*hides*

 

[Pumbaa]

So the Junipers and Adelantes were the epitome of reliability when they were built

Hmm, they were built here as well, a trend perhaps?

Quite difference is that one of those families does their job really well, and are highly regarded by the staff that drive and work on them! We'll just forget about 175/180s...

And of course they did then deliver the Pendolinos...!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nail. Hit. Head.

Head-Slam-Desk more like. You just know he's going to pop back up And anyway I'm sure we'll have plenty of riveting debate on why the Pendolinos (as a British built train) are actually 'rubbish' from junglejackarse based on his previous track record

 

[Lampshade]

Pendolinos are fine trains, which sane member of Joe Public even gives a flying wotsit about window size? :?

 

[Pumbaa]

Pendolinos are fine trains, which sane member of Joe Public even gives a flying wotsit about window size? :?

This cretin from this thread here here and here. There are more, but the first is the worst example!

Oh and of course, just remember Pendolinos are crap trains. No reason other than they smell and have small windows. They just are

 

[MCR247]

You forgot the fact that passenger prefers MK3s

 

[Pumbaa]

You forgot the fact that passenger prefers MK3s

I did didn't I! Silly me - must be getting old, what with all this modern sensibility and stuff...!

Yes add that to the list, all and every single passenger prefer MK3s. Absolutely every single one of us!

 

[Lampshade]

This cretin from this thread here here and here. There are more, but the first is the worst example!

Note I said 'sane', I had said cretin in mind

 

[Pumbaa]

Note I said 'sane', I had said cretin in mind

Apologies, its late - that little word just crept under my radar... Just keeping you on your toes!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Right.... let's challenge Virgin Trains to hold a market research excercise on this shall we?

Let us, at a quiet time when the stock and platforms can be spared, park a 390 and WB64 in adjoining platforms at Euston and have them contract a major independent market research company to oversee this and analyse the results.

Without any information at all about either train, they ask the public to board both trains, have a good explore of the inside, try the seats etc etc and then fill in a questionnaire with no leading questions whatsoever. Just asking whether they preferred this or that about train A and train B and why. Ask the questions on the assumption that journey time would be identical on each.

Do a triple analysis - recruit one lot of respondents who travel by rail regularly, the second lot who travel irregularly / occasionally and the third lot who don't travel by train at all. See which train each category of respondent prefers, and why.

The results should settle the argument either way once and for all shouldn't they?

 

[tbtc]

Right.... let's challenge Virgin Trains to hold a market research excercise on this shall we?

Let us, at a quiet time when the stock and platforms can be spared, park a 390 and WB64 in adjoining platforms at Euston and have them contract a major independent market research company to oversee this and analyse the results.

Without any information at all about either train, they ask the public to board both trains, have a good explore of the inside, try the seats etc etc and then fill in a questionnaire with no leading questions whatsoever. Just asking whether they preferred this or that about train A and train B and why. Ask the questions on the assumption that journey time would be identical on each.

Do a triple analysis - recruit one lot of respondents who travel by rail regularly, the second lot who travel irregularly / occasionally and the third lot who don't travel by train at all. See which train each category of respondent prefers, and why.

The results should settle the argument either way once and for all shouldn't they?

That'd be irrelevant.

Firstly, the precious Mark Threes couldn't match 390 times (esp when it comes to tilting), so asking "which is prettier" doesn't resolve things. Asking "would you be prepared to spend an additional twenty minutes on each journey if it meant you had a better view out of the window" would be more honest.

Secondly, you couldn't build more Mark Threes today. Simple as that. Whatever your opinion of legislation, the fact is that Mark Threes wouldn't meet 2010 standards for new-build stock, so its not like we could build more of them even if we wanted (and people were prepared to put up with longer journey times).

I appreciate that a lot of enthusiasts think the Mark Three coach is the gold standard. However, we can't build any more (because they don't meet safety regs) and the ones we have couldn't keep to existing timings, so the whole thing would be a non-starter, sorry.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

That'd be irrelevant.

Firstly, the precious Mark Threes couldn't match 390 times (esp when it comes to tilting), so asking "which is prettier" doesn't resolve things. Asking "would you be prepared to spend an additional twenty minutes on each journey if it meant you had a better view out of the window" would be more honest.

Secondly, you couldn't build more Mark Threes today. Simple as that. Whatever your opinion of legislation, the fact is that Mark Threes wouldn't meet 2010 standards for new-build stock, so its not like we could build more of them even if we wanted (and people were prepared to put up with longer journey times).

I appreciate that a lot of enthusiasts think the Mark Three coach is the gold standard. However, we can't build any more (because they don't meet safety regs) and the ones we have couldn't keep to existing timings, so the whole thing would be a non-starter, sorry.

I would say that you're half right. Any engineer will design to the standards of the day. So, while you are right to say that the Mk III coach as designed and built wouldn't meet current standards, that isn't to say that you couldn't create a new "Mk V" coach, which had as its fundamental design brief "the recreation of the ambience and level of comfort offered by the Mk III coach, but meeting current standards for crashworthiness and accessibility (and all other mandatory legislation)."

As for the vehicles matching Pendolino timings, this is a function of the motive power, not the coach itself. If sufficient installed power and tractive effort (ensuring both fast acceleration and high terminal speed) were provided, then a "Mk III for the 21st Century" should be eminently achievable.

 

[jopsuk]

out of interest, anyone know how well the Bombardier EDMUs they designed for French regional trains are running?

 

[MCR247]

Unfortunately, they rely on putting the diesel equipment above the passenger compartment etc and probably wouldn't fit in our loading gauge.

 

[Bastiaan]

I think that's more because of the low floor the units have, which means there's not much room for underfloor equipment.

 

[Geezertronic]

As for the vehicles matching Pendolino timings, this is a function of the motive power, not the coach itself. If sufficient installed power and tractive effort (ensuring both fast acceleration and high terminal speed) were provided, then a "Mk III for the 21st Century" should be eminently achievable.

I thought it was more that the 390s can tilt around the WCML rollercoaster bends whereas you'd get thrown around more in a non tilting Mk3 at the same speed?

 

[route:oxford]

The equivalent to the mark 5 was built 10 years ago. Unfortunately it was built as a dmu - but for anyone who has sat in a 180 coach either first or standard class with a kaput engine, they'll appreciate what 90s engineering could have brought to lhcs - it's even suitable to be used as a dvt with passenger accommodation in the lead coach.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

The equivalent to the mark 5 was built 10 years ago. Unfortunately it was built as a dmu - but for anyone who has sat in a 180 coach either first or standard class with a kaput engine, they'll appreciate what 90s engineering could have brought to lhcs - it's even suitable to be used as a dvt with passenger accommodation in the lead coach.

At last, somebody proposed a way to improve the reliability of 180s! Strip out the running gear, re-form into eight coach sets and put a loco on one end!

Seriously though, the guys at Met-Camm were capable enough at that time, they just had too many orders on their books all at once and were stretched far too thin in the engineering design team.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I thought it was more that the 390s can tilt around the WCML rollercoaster bends whereas you'd get thrown around more in a non tilting Mk3 at the same speed?

That's also a factor, but there is now some debate within "the powers that be" regarding whether tilt delivers the benefits that were advertised. If you compare the ride on the non-tilting Pretendolino at 110 mph with a Pendolino at 125, there are places where the absence of tilt has benefits. In places where there are reverse curves and a 390 tilts quickly from one side to the other, it can be quite uncomfortable, which is something that you don't experience without tilt.

Add to that the weight penalty that tilt imposes (around 5%) and the additional cost (both capital and maintenance) and I think the jury is still out regarding whether tilt is necessary at 125. If the WCML did ever get upgraded to 140 though, it would be a different matter, with tilt being essential.

 

[Pumbaa]

That's also a factor, but there is now some debate within "the powers that be" regarding whether tilt delivers the benefits that were advertised. If you compare the ride on the non-tilting Pretendolino at 110 mph with a Pendolino at 125, there are places where the absence of tilt has benefits. In places where there are reverse curves and a 390 tilts quickly from one side to the other, it can be quite uncomfortable, which is something that you don't experience without tilt.

To be fair, I've done the same stretch on the WCML in a 350, non-EPS 390 at 100 and on an EPS 390 at 125. There are noticeable differences between the three; the most comfortable as you'd expect is the 390 with tilt. Without tilt and slower, you notice the bends more and get thrown around on one particular reverse section. On a 350 it was simply horrid at times.

 

[junglejames]

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 ---


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.

I stand corrected on certain points here then.
As for quality on chinese built products. Yes, ive had problems with quality. On more than one product. The worst one being my original sat nav.
My parents old laptop as well.
I once made the bad mistake of buying clothes in China, mainly because they were so cheap (yep, even ive fallen for it), but never again. They were awful quality.

 

[tbtc]

ive had problems with quality. On more than one product. The worst one being my original sat nav

The first generation of any electronic product tends to be poorer quality. These things improve with each model. First generation DVD player, first generation ipod... look at how the 222s show some lessons learnt from the 220/221s.

 

[junglejames]

The first generation of any electronic product tends to be poorer quality. These things improve with each model. First generation DVD player, first generation ipod... look at how the 222s show some lessons learnt from the 220/221s.

My original means my first. It wasnt that long ago.

As for all this about unreliable Bombardier etc, and the pendo. Whats the point.
The only problem i have with the pendo, is its woeful standard class. As for the small windows. Thats down to the Italians.

 

[Pumbaa]

My original means my first. It wasnt that long ago.

As for all this about unreliable Bombardier etc, and the pendo. Whats the point.
The only problem i have with the pendo, is its woeful standard class. As for the small windows. Thats down to the Italians.

The point was that Bombardier as a manufacturer are dire. And the small windows are necessary as per the design. Do some reading and you'll see why.