Electric HSTs is it possible

[alanf]

I'm just wondering with the talk about electrifying the MML and lenghtening the 220/1/2s surely it would be possible to cascade some HSTs,therefore is it a good time to convert one to 25kv as a testbed. I realise it wouldn't be cheap and the PCs look short but they would only need 3000hp continuous per PC and they are only 4mm shorter than a 86 or 87 which both had 5000hp continuous and they had an extra cab. Opinions please.

Alan

 

[jopsuk]

More than possible- ditch the current power cars, build new locos similar to class 91s (but with a bodyshell to match the mrk3s) and new DVTs for the other end.

Whether it would be cost effective is another matter.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

I'm just wondering with the talk about electrifying the MML and lenghtening the 220/1/2s surely it would be possible to cascade some HSTs,therefore is it a good time to convert one to 25kv as a testbed. I realise it wouldn't be cheap and the PCs look short but they would only need 3000hp continuous per PC and they are only 4mm shorter than a 86 or 87 which both had 5000hp continuous and they had an extra cab. Opinions please.

Alan

Anything's possible. However, I personally think that by the time you've finished reinforcing the body structure to support a pantograph, modifying the bogies to accommodate more powerful traction motors, and so on, the cost would be not much lower than a new loco.

Apart from that, the modification may be so major that the Safety Authority (ORR) may deem that the "new" loco would need to comply with current crash worthiness standards, which would probably prove to be impossible at an affordable level.

Better start with a new body structure I think, maybe recycling some component parts if this is worthwhile.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

More than possible- ditch the current power cars, build new locos similar to class 91s (but with a bodyshell to match the mrk3s) and new DVTs for the other end.

Whether it would be cost effective is another matter.

This is pretty much one of Foster's alternatives to IEP, with some additional "Mk V" coaches to bolster the numbers of HST trailers.

 

[route:oxford]

I'm just wondering with the talk about electrifying the MML and lenghtening the 220/1/2s surely it would be possible to cascade some HSTs,therefore is it a good time to convert one to 25kv as a testbed. I realise it wouldn't be cheap and the PCs look short but they would only need 3000hp continuous per PC and they are only 4mm shorter than a 86 or 87 which both had 5000hp continuous and they had an extra cab. Opinions please.

Alan

Very few things are impossible...

Take a "spare" Mk3 Coach of some kind - rebuild to form a Pantograph coach.

Install a power bus throughout an HST set of trailers.

Disconnect diesel motors (but leave them intalled for now to maintain weight and integrity).

Connect powers cars to power bus.

Sorted

(Obviously there's a bit more too it technically).

 

[brompton rail]

Bring back Class 89! Avocet!

East Coast electrification did result in an HST with Class 43 at one end and Class 89 at the other. Acceleration was most impressive. Class 43s used had buffers added. As soon as Mark 4 sets and Class91 became available this stopped of course.

 

[tbtc]

they are only 4mm shorter than a 86 or 87 which both had 5000hp continuous and they had an extra cab

Could new electric engines be built a lot shorter than the 86 generation? Can things be compacted a lot better nowadays?

I ask because the "crumple zone" on new stock (with passengers in the front coach) eats up space.

 

[rail-britain]

modifying the bogies to accommodate more powerful traction motors

I think the suggestion was to convert the existing HST power cars, not to uprate them
Therefore the existing traction motors (and bogies) would be sufficient, saving some money

The main issue would be the size and weight of the transformer
The existing bogies would be a serious issue though at speeds of 100mph and above
In the same way as the Class 86 locos had to have their bogies modified, the class 43 bogies would require the same, especially if they are to retain the maximum 125mph speed
Equally, these bogies would be quite old and probably suffer the same fate as those of the Class 87 and Class 90

The next consideration is if the OHLE could cope with such a train, with an AC electric loco at each end
I understand some sections on the ECML can only just cope with the Class 91 locos, in some cases balancing has to be done to ensure the supply limit is not exceeded

I tend to agree, given that all that would be salvaged would be the body and traction motors, a complete new more powerful engine and DVT would be the best alternative
Therefore, a Class 91/2 would be the most obvious choice

Ironically, this would be so much cheaper than complete new trains
Also, these HSTs could then have the AC electric swapped at Edinburgh, retaining them in service and on the routes to the north (Inverness and Aberdeen)

Finally, it would then be prudent to convert the Mark 3 coaches from 3 phase electric to standard ETH (to work with any other locos on the network)

 

[thelem]

Why would you want to? Assuming the thameslink order goes ahead in some form (even if it's just more electrostars) then there will be plenty of electric trains. I thought the question that needed answering was what to do if the HSTs become life expired before their routes can be electrified.

 

[Lampshade]

Didn't they consider this back in the early 80s? The idea was the power car could be fitted with a pantograph and one of the power bogies transferred to the adjacent car as per the Blue Pullman.

It shouldn't be too hard considering the power cars are diesel-electric.

 

[tbtc]

Why would you want to? Assuming the thameslink order goes ahead in some form (even if it's just more electrostars) then there will be plenty of electric trains. I thought the question that needed answering was what to do if the HSTs become life expired before their routes can be electrified.

My question is where all these old EMUs will go.

Even if only the Edinburgh/Glasgow schemes, Crossrail and Thameslink "2000" are completed, with new stock, that's over 100 new EMUs, meaning dozens of EMUs "spare".

Some of these can be used to strengthen "London area" services to twelve cars, but there's a limit to how many of these are required (some services are already at twelve cars, plus some stations can't cope with that length anyway).

GWML electrification would mainly be an HST replacement. Even if it means every Thames Valley "branch" being wired, that's under 60 EMUs to replace 165/166s (which work as far as Basingstoke/ Worcester etc).

 

[rail-britain]

My question is where all these old EMUs will go
Even if only the Edinburgh/Glasgow schemes, that's over 100 new EMUs, meaning dozens of EMUs "spare"

I can't quite grasp that cascade program
The Edinburgh / Glasgow area is electrified, resulting in spare EMUs?
The routes are currently operated by DMUs, so surely the issue is where do the old DMUs go?

 

[tbtc]

I can't quite grasp that cascade program
The Edinburgh / Glasgow area is electrified, resulting in spare EMUs?
The routes are currently operated by DMUs, so surely the issue is where do the old DMUs go?

You seem to have omitted the reference to Crossrail and Thameslink from my quote... :roll:

Electrification of the Strathclyde routes will mean new EMUs which will displace some current EMUs due to the new units being used on some new links that partly replace "old" units.

The displaced EMUs (from Thameslink, Crossrail and the Strathclyde schemes) will still be in better condition and have a better hundreds than lots of 1980s Pacers/ Sprinters etc, but will we have lines to use them on?

 

[rail-britain]

edited original quote to be relevant to reply intended

Electrification of the Strathclyde routes will mean new EMUs which will displace some current EMUs due to the new units being used on some new links that partly replace "old" units

Perhaps you mean it may mean new EMUs will displace some current EMUs

There are no such plans within Scotland for such a cascade, at this time, it is a straight fleet replacement
125mph EMUs for Glasgow QS - Edinburgh, displacing the 170s for other non-electrified Express routes, cascade allowing some 158s to be returned to RoSCo
100mph EMUs for Glasgow South, displacing the majority of 156s to be returned to RoSCo
This phase 2 order will include replacements for the Class 314 units, a cascade of any other units is not planned

 

[starrymarkb]

I thought the question that needed answering was what to do if the HSTs become life expired before their routes can be electrified.

That is the elephant in the room, a life extension might get an extra 10-15 years at best, what if it doesn't work and HSTs start falling over left, right and centre in 2015?

IIRC FGW specced their MTU project to help the HSTs get through to about 2015 at the latest with the expectation of IEP

 

[Kingfisher200262]

I think the suggestion was to convert the existing HST power cars, not to uprate them
Therefore the existing traction motors (and bogies) would be sufficient, saving some money

The main issue would be the size and weight of the transformer
The existing bogies would be a serious issue though at speeds of 100mph and above
In the same way as the Class 86 locos had to have their bogies modified, the class 43 bogies would require the same, especially if they are to retain the maximum 125mph speed
Equally, these bogies would be quite old and probably suffer the same fate as those of the Class 87 and Class 90

The next consideration is if the OHLE could cope with such a train, with an AC electric loco at each end
I understand some sections on the ECML can only just cope with the Class 91 locos, in some cases balancing has to be done to ensure the supply limit is not exceeded

I tend to agree, given that all that would be salvaged would be the body and traction motors, a complete new more powerful engine and DVT would be the best alternative
Therefore, a Class 91/2 would be the most obvious choice

Ironically, this would be so much cheaper than complete new trains
Also, these HSTs could then have the AC electric swapped at Edinburgh, retaining them in service and on the routes to the north (Inverness and Aberdeen)

Finally, it would then be prudent to convert the Mark 3 coaches from 3 phase electric to standard ETH (to work with any other locos on the network)

This all sounds very expensive!

Firstly, if the existing traction motors were to be retained, you would need both HST power cars to be electrified, as the motors are only sized for the Valenta / VP185 / MTU engine rating, and are therefore not beefy enough to work at 125 mph in single.

This would then raise pantograph bounce issues with two pantographs raised at 125 mph, which could only be resolved by installing new OHLE that could cope with two pantos or installing a 25 kV bus down the length of each train set, to feed both power cars from one pantograph.

Modern transformers / traction sets are much lighter than those fitted at the time of Class 91 and I'm very confident that with the engine / alternator / fuel tanks removed, the existing weight of 70.5 tonnes could be maintained.

For me the biggest issues are twofold. Firstly strengthening the body structure for the pantograph (most of the weight on an HST is currently either sat on or hung from the under frame and the body structure os pretty much an "overcoat", from the GRP cab "pod" backwards. Secondly, finding a way of making the design meet current crashworthiness standards, which might entail fitting an extended "platypus" nose, a la TALGO.

Converting the trailers to 1000 V ETH sounds like a good plan... in theory. However, loco hauled Mk IIIs derived their 415 V three phase from the motor alternator (MA) set, which was supplied from the 100 V ETH. A modern solution would be a combined static inverter / battery charger, fed from 1000 V ETH and would probably be quite expensive (though it would improve reliability).

Instinctively, the 380 V ac three phase solution for ETH makes more sense to me, as this is the requirement for air con and requires less messing around with adding kit.

 

[chic]

You seem to have omitted the reference to Crossrail and Thameslink from my quote... :roll:

Electrification of the Strathclyde routes will mean new EMUs which will displace some current EMUs due to the new units being used on some new links that partly replace "old" units.

The displaced EMUs (from Thameslink, Crossrail and the Strathclyde schemes) will still be in better condition and have a better hundreds than lots of 1980s Pacers/ Sprinters etc, but will we have lines to use them on?

If the strathclyde infill electrifications are done, then the most likely EMU's will be tge 314's or 320's. I'm guessing new stock will benefit some argyle line runs.

 

[rail-britain]

the most likely EMU's will be tge 314's or 320's

If the Class 320 units are withdrawn, then the Class 318 units would go as well
The Class 318 units will only be 25 years old in 2018, so will have at least another 10 years under them

 

[tbtc]

If the strathclyde infill electrifications are done, then the most likely EMU's will be tge 314's or 320's. I'm guessing new stock will benefit some argyle line runs.

I know most of the electrification will be to replace DMUs, but some of the interworking proposed (e.g. the Cumbernauld line being replaced by an extension of the Springburn EMUs, Cumbernauld - Motherwell tagging onto Hamllton EMUs) would presumably mean a number of new EMUs needed which would end up meaning some of the existing older ones are replaced (to ensure like with like working etc, rather than having a muddle of 318s and brand new trains).

So, if the 318s and 320s go, that's about forty EMUs surplus to requirements. Could be used for stock strengthening, but there are obvious limits in platform capacity

 

[chic]

Cheers had forgotten whifflet was to be added to the argyle line/ Lanarkshire routes.

I guess the introduction of the 380's will play a part in what eventually comes in, be interesting to see what happens.

 

[rail-britain]

I guess the introduction of the 380's will play a part in what eventually comes in

Very unlikely to be any change for the Class 380 until later on

I've mentioned this before, but to clarify
There will be two orders for EMUs
The first is for 125mph EMUs
The second is for 100mph EMUS

The 125mph EMUs will cover the routes :
Glasgow QS - Edinburgh
Edinburgh - Dunblane
Glasgow QS - Alloa
Glasgow QS - Cumbernauld / Falkirk G

The 100mph EMUs will cover the routes :
Glasgow C - Paisley C
Glasgow C - Cathcart routes
Glasgow C - East Kilbride / Kilmarnock
Glasgow C - Whifflet
Glasgow C - Edinburgh (via Shotts)
Cumbernauld - Motherwell

It then becomes quite obvious that the second order is likely to be based on units similar to the Class 380
This would then allow the Class 314 units
No where in the document does it many other unit types that would be withdrawn as a result
I therefore assume the Class 318 and 320 would remain solely on the Argyle Line, the Class 334 on the North Clyde
A third order would have to be placed to replace those units, but that would not be due until about 5 to 10 years after the CP5 scheme has been completed

Equally, there would be no benefit in swapping such new units for the Class 380, as the specification would be almost identical

 

[MCR247]

Why do the first batch need to be 125mph when they are replacing 100 and 75mph units?

 

[The Planner]

Is there anywhere they can reach 125mph ?? if not you're spitting into the wind.

 

[rail-britain]

Why do the first batch need to be 125mph when they are replacing 100 and 75mph units?

The Edinburgh - Glasgow QS route is to be reinstated to its 125mph maximum line speed, which hasn't been used since the HSTs were removed from the route in the late 1980s, details are in the report from Network Rail
Transport Scotland are paying for a single fleet of mixed units (the same as with the Class 380s)
Thus they can take advantage of the higher line speed when required to do so
The proposal is to complete this off with a 10 minute frequency for services between Glasgow QS and Edinburgh
The xx:00 and xx:30 services would be 5 car units, non-stop with an anticipated journey time of 40 minutes
The local services (Alloa, Dunblane, Falkirk G) would be 3 car units

 

[MCR247]

So there would be two 'sub' batches, one of 3 car sets and one of 5 car sets?

 

[tbtc]

The 125mph EMUs will cover the routes :

...Glasgow QS - Cumbernauld / Falkirk G

That is going to be one seriously overspecced unit!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The proposal is to complete this off with a 10 minute frequency for services between Glasgow QS and Edinburgh
The xx:00 and xx:30 services would be 5 car units, non-stop with an anticipated journey time of 40 minutes

Any non-stop 125mph units from Glasgow to Edinburgh aiming for a 40 minute journey are going to catch up with the service ten minutes ahead, or at least with other services from Glasgow to Croy or Polmont to Edinburgh. Sounds impossible to me.

 

[rail-britain]

That is going to be one seriously overspecced unit!

The principle is to keep all the units on this side of the wires to the same specification, allowing exchange and swap if required
Thus such a unit can operate a diagram like :
Glasgow QS - Edinburgh - Glasgow QS - Cumbernauld - Glasgow QS - Alloa
It can therefore utilise the 125mph when used between Glasgow - Edinburgh, and Glasgow - Carmuirs
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Any non-stop 125mph units from Glasgow to Edinburgh aiming for a 40 minute journey are going to catch up with the service ten minutes ahead, or at least with other services from Glasgow to Croy or Polmont to Edinburgh

You are assuming the services are an exact ten minute frequency and do not pass each other!
You then have to take into account the other services it would run into (Aberdeen - Glasgow, Perth - Glasgow, Dunblane - Edinburgh)
Network Rail have apparently already performed a simulation which was succesful
You can expect see the passing loops at Cadder Yard being used all the time
Apparently there is also some route realignment that needs to be carried out, which will add a further similar section beyond Linlithgow

Anyway, we are going off-topic, so please refer to the CP5 documents from TS and Network Rail

 

[tbtc]

You are assuming the services are an exact ten minute frequency

...because you said

The proposal is to complete this off with a 10 minute frequency for services between Glasgow QS and Edinburgh

If they want to start overtaking slow services then it was a really short-sighted move to build Edinburgh Park on the main line with no scope to overtake the six trains an hour that will be stopping there in each direction.

 

[route:oxford]

If they want to start overtaking slow services then it was a really short-sighted move to build Edinburgh Park on the main line with no scope to overtake the six trains an hour that will be stopping there in each direction.

Yes, it was.

But then, wasn't Edinburgh Park privately funded?

 

[LE Greys]

Is it possible?
Well:
125 mph electric locomotive - yes
Converting MkIII trailers to work with locomotive - yes
Converting Class 43 power cars into (say) Class 93 locomotives - maybe, but would cost almost as much as new locos
Adding a transformer coach and a pan somewhere in the middle - maybe, but you would have to come up with an entirely new control system for the power cars

However (sorry to pour cold water):
Cost-effective - no
New 125 mph locos, even if they worked with the existing trailers, would have a lot more life in them. We're talking about 30-year-old technology, power cars that haven't been new for a long time. The initial cost of the new locos is outweighed by the savings in maintenance costs and efficiencies gained from using new technology.

It's probably possible, but doesn't sound like a good idea.