Bombardier EDMU

[Kingfisher200262]

Also, how would you count people who are left standing or who choose to stand rather than sit?

This will not be used as a passenger counting device for official industry data collection purposes; there are much more sophisticated means to do this, like Advanced Passenger Counting, which uses infra red "curtains" to count passengers in and out at doorways and passenger weighing.

This is just an additional aid, to indicate what parts of the train have empty seats at any given time.

 

[LE Greys]

Middle?

First class in the middle, third class (as was) at either end. On the ECML, it usually went BTK-?TK-?FK-R?B-?TK-BG. The idea was that at intermediate stations, the entrance/footbridge/subway is in the middle of the platform, so first class pax have the shortest walk to it. Putting first at one end might give them the shortest walk in London, but the longest at wherever the other terminus is. It is probably also safer in a crash.

 

[Failed Unit]

First class in the middle, third class (as was) at either end. On the ECML, it usually went BTK-?TK-?FK-R?B-?TK-BG. The idea was that at intermediate stations, the entrance/footbridge/subway is in the middle of the platform, so first class pax have the shortest walk to it. Putting first at one end might give them the shortest walk in London, but the longest at wherever the other terminus is. It is probably also safer in a crash.

Not trying to make you sound older than you may be, but I suspect that 1st was in the middle during steam days to keep it as far away from the smoke as possible. If it was always at the London end for example one journey would alway have the smoke as they wouldn't reverse all the coaches to make sure 1st is smoke free... The middle was the best comprimise.

 

[Crossforth]

This will not be used as a passenger counting device for official industry data collection purposes; there are much more sophisticated means to do this, like Advanced Passenger Counting, which uses infra red "curtains" to count passengers in and out at doorways and passenger weighing.

This is just an additional aid, to indicate what parts of the train have empty seats at any given time.

Ah very clever, it will be interesting to see it working

Certainly an upgrade from a simple clicker in a hand

 

[jon0844]

I am sure there must be a way to tell if a person is in a seat as against a bag.

In any case, the idea is sound - if you've been to and parked at Heathrow T5 (and a few other car parks that have a similar technology to show available spaces, as well as guide you to your space afterwards - using ANPR).

I'm sure we could combine the LED system with NFC, that allows you to scan your smartcard against the seat when you arrive, thus allowing you to reserve it when you leave to go to the buffet/toilet. In addition, it would then mean the seat would become unreserved if you suddenly stayed on for longer than your booked journey!

 

[Kingfisher200262]

I am sure there must be a way to tell if a person is in a seat as against a bag.

If it's set to activate at, say 25 kg, it will detect most people from young children upwards, but the chances are that a bag of that weight would be left in a luggage stack or put between the seats in a bay.

 

[LE Greys]

Not trying to make you sound older than you may be, <snip>.

I pick a lot of this stuff up from various people I talk to. Notice I said "TK" not "SK". I think it changed over around the time MkII stock came in.

 

[IanXC]

Unfortunately, most of the rail network is not a closed system, with one type of rolling stock using it. The platforms at most stations would be like a patchwork quilt if they had to be marked to accommodate 20 metre / 23 metre, end doors / 1/3 - 2/3 doors.

Could there be some kind of electronic display to show this information depending on which stock is in the platform? A row of slimline LCD displays at above door height could show the operator, route and position of the doors. It could potentially even indicate which parts of the train have more available space as per the seat occupation sensors idea.

I can't really find a picture to illustrate this, but I guess screens attached to the underside of the lighting bars at St Pancras would be close. http://www.flickr.com/photos/31074376@N06/3734061811/

Clearly it would be an expensive solution given the length and number of platforms, but is there any technical reason it couldn't work? Would OHLE interfere with the displays?

 

[MCR247]

In Germany, they all have those blue LCD screens like the ones at St Pancras. http://is4.myvideo.de/de/movie18/54/thumbs/6557967_1.jpg

They show whereabouts the train will stop by have letters for each part of the platform. You can see a bit here, under where the time is http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1066/3165739467_a438ab6f68.jpg

 

[IanXC]

Reading back my post isn't exactly clear, I meant running the length of the train so that standing on the platform facing the track there would be a line of information at high level - which would then be immediately above the doors of a train at the platform.

Thinking about it, when there isnt a service due, and between the door indicators the screens could be used for advertising which could offset some of the cost. Hmm.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Reading back my post isn't exactly clear, I meant running the length of the train so that standing on the platform facing the track there would be a line of information at high level - which would then be immediately above the doors of a train at the platform.

Thinking about it, when there isnt a service due, and between the door indicators the screens could be used for advertising which could offset some of the cost. Hmm.

This goes back to my original point about the need to treat and think of the railway as a whole system, which includes trains, track, signalling and stations. Such a system as we have started to "specify" as a forum would benefit the industry significantly, particularly at major pinch points like the busiest platforms at Reading, Leeds and Pl. 13/14 at M/c Piccadilly (I'm sure there are many more, but these are three that come to mind immediately).

The main problems is that any station investment (which will also involve investment in rolling stock systems for the maximum benefit to be delivered), would require investment by one (or maybe two) parties for the benefit of all.

In the disjointed (and sometimes dysfunctional) industry that we work within, how could that ever happen without DfT becoming involved and being accused (sometimes justifiably) of micro-managing.

It's partly a rhetorical question, but partly one to be out there for thoughts of others (PLEASE, no "bring back BR" ****ocks, it's never going to happen!).

 

[RobShipway]

If it's set to activate at, say 25 kg, it will detect most people from young children upwards, but the chances are that a bag of that weight would be left in a luggage stack or put between the seats in a bay.

Some car senses are able to detect that it is a person on the seat rather than bag. For instance when I place my ruck sack that has laptop and anything up to about 25kg on the front seat of my Honda Civic the alarm does not go off, but does when I sit in either the drivers seat or front passenger seat without a seat belt. I believe the car has senses not just for weight, but if there is anything dangling over the edge of the seat like a pair of legs which you would still get even if it is a small child.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All of that is rubbish.

Rubbish huh? Please explain why the Class 172 trains are using Voyager bogies and electrical equipment within them???

 

[ainsworth74]

Rubbish huh? Please explain why the Class 172 trains are using Voyager bogies and electrical equipment within them???

Erm Voyagers are diesel electric whilst 172s are diesel mechanical, in no way are they the same other than by sharing the same lightweight bogie design.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Erm Voyagers are diesel electric whilst 172s are diesel mechanical, in no way are they the same other than by sharing the same lightweight bogie design.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Voyager traction motors are body mounted with the drive being transmitted to the wheels through cardan shafts and final drive gear boxes.

This is the same arrangement as for a mechanical DMU such as a 172, except that the power to the cardan shaft comes from the engine/transmission raft.

Therefore, the two bogies could indeed be the same.

 

[starrymarkb]

They are indeed, there are a few panned photos where you can see the drive shafts to each bogie. BTW Voyagers are 1A-A1 formation, the inner axle on each bogie is driven, I suspect the 172s have both axles on one bogie driven...

 

[depablo]

If anyone wants some pics taken of voyager running gear / engines etc just let me know.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

They are indeed, there are a few panned photos where you can see the drive shafts to each bogie. BTW Voyagers are 1A-A1 formation, the inner axle on each bogie is driven, I suspect the 172s have both axles on one bogie driven...

That's an interesting point. I assume that it was done this way to provide redundancy and also to ensure that the traction motors were not too large physically.

For a local DMU with a lower output power this is not as much or an issue, though the redundancy issue is one that needs to be thought about carefully.

 

[RobShipway]

Erm Voyagers are diesel electric whilst 172s are diesel mechanical, in no way are they the same other than by sharing the same lightweight bogie design.

My point is that it would not take much to change a class 172 to be an DEMU train which I would have these should have been whne they were built so that they can be adapted to use electric power if the lines they operate on change to be overhead or third rail electric.

 

[Nym]

You mean that aside from the fact that for units going less than 100mph there's next to no point in building them as a DEMU and it would use a hell of a lot more power to get it to move off.
DMU (Hydrolic / Mechanical) works better for the multipule stops, there's a reason why there mechanical transmission!

And yes it would take a hell of a lot to make it a DEMU, you'd probably have to move the engine, fit a generator, new control gear, fit traction motors, and re-build the control systems.

If you wanted to have an EDMU for commuter use, it would need to be 3 coaches minimum.

Generator & Drive - Transformer & Drive - Generator & Drive

You'd need somthing like two cummins QSK19F gennies at 750hp each, giving 1500hp over the train, you can also fit in, under the centre coach a 1.3MW transformer. Using Onynx control systems and a 750V bus bar (Sound familliar Birmingham X City and Manchester South?) would work nicely. Christ, you could even throw 3rd rail shoes into the works

 

[The_Stig]

Not really, 390s can be turned in Birmingham and ECs at Newcastle

I've saw 2 Pendolino's being reversed in Glasgow last year.

 

[RobShipway]

You mean that aside from the fact that for units going less than 100mph there's next to no point in building them as a DEMU and it would use a hell of a lot more power to get it to move off.
DMU (Hydrolic / Mechanical) works better for the multipule stops, there's a reason why there mechanical transmission!

And yes it would take a hell of a lot to make it a DEMU, you'd probably have to move the engine, fit a generator, new control gear, fit traction motors, and re-build the control systems.

If you wanted to have an EDMU for commuter use, it would need to be 3 coaches minimum.

Generator & Drive - Transformer & Drive - Generator & Drive

You'd need somthing like two cummins QSK19F gennies at 750hp each, giving 1500hp over the train, you can also fit in, under the centre coach a 1.3MW transformer. Using Onynx control systems and a 750V bus bar (Sound familliar Birmingham X City and Manchester South?) would work nicely. Christ, you could even throw 3rd rail shoes into the works

But would have been better than a diesel only purchase and give better scope should the lines be changed to be electric. Hence should have been like a hybrid car and persoanlly I think all new trains should be either EDMU or DEMU with the electrical part being such that the train could be used overhead or third rail electric if available.

 

[Nym]

Thing is, there will always be non-electrified lines, I don't see Bolton - Blackburn being done any time soon, or Hull - Bridlington - Seamer, many many rural lines need diesel stock, and we need new ones to cascade through life expired stock eventually...

 

[Kneedown]

You mean that aside from the fact that for units going less than 100mph there's next to no point in building them as a DEMU and it would use a hell of a lot more power to get it to move off.

Not true at all. A diesel powering a hydraulic/mechanical transmission is revving at 100% until the desired speed is reached, just as a diesel powering an alternator is. As the acceleration of a diesel electric is vastly superior to a DH/MMU, it follows that desired speed will be reached sooner, and therefore max rpm will be maintained for a shorter time, hence saving fuel. In addition, in my experience, a Diesel electric will coast for considerable distances and not suffer a depreciation in speed, whereas with hydraulic, you nearly always have to keep some power on to maintain speed, even on many downhill gradients.

DMU (Hydrolic / Mechanical) works better for the multipule stops, there's a reason why there mechanical transmission!

I don't believe it does work better for the reasons outlined above, ie it's slower off the mark. If i had to hazard a guess as to the reason for continued use of hydraulic/mechanical transmission, i'd have to say cost as in my experience there are absolutely no other advantages that i can think of.

And yes it would take a hell of a lot to make it a DEMU, you'd probably have to move the engine, fit a generator, new control gear, fit traction motors, and re-build the control systems.

If you wanted to have an EDMU for commuter use, it would need to be 3 coaches minimum.

Generator & Drive - Transformer & Drive - Generator & Drive

If you're talking of converting current hydraulics and mechanicals to electric transmission then yes. It would be a major structural undertaking, and although possible, would probably not be cost effective.
I believe the way forward is to build all future DMU's with electric transmission, which will enable future conversion to ac overhead use. This will gaurentee the units are reasonably "futureproof" and ROSCO's would be more likely to invest in them in the numbers required.
There's no reason why you couldn't have a two car version. Forget single cars, we're supposed to be catering for growth.