Future rolling stock and upgrades for the WoE line.

[Domh245]

If DMU's can couple without a "shunter" as can IET's other units like them, why can't locos with the same coupling do the same? If a loco had a dellner couple why couldn't it couple to another loco/unit with a delner coupler just like a unit?

With a dellner fitted loco you could put them together mechanically, pneumatically, and low voltage controls, but the ETS cannot be done automatically which requires someone to manually make the connection with the cable, unless of course the rolling stock either has it's own power source, or is little more than an elegantly shaped box on wheels

 

[DB]

If DMU's can couple without a "shunter" as can IET's other units like them, why can't locos with the same coupling do the same? If a loco had a dellner couple why couldn't it couple to another loco/unit with a delner coupler just like a unit?

Why do we even need a shunter, can drivers not walk? This is an example of H&S impeeding operations needlessly.

Locos could couple like that, but if ETS connections are needed that would have to be done manually. Not sure how it would work with air either.

But even if those issues were overcome, what woulld be the advantage in wasting what is effectively another coach length on a second loco (modern locos would be able to cope with any normal passenger train on their own), especially on busy routes like this one? Redundancy would be the only potential reason, but even in that case having it in the middle of the train would be very awkward.

It basically comes down to what advantages loco-hauled trains would offer over a modern version of a 159 - and I can't really see any at all. The only places where loco-hauled may make sense is on long trains going long distances - but the ubiquity of the Hitachi units on (or soon to be on) all the major mainlines has rather put paid to that idea.

 

[pompeyfan]

No no, not out of Waterloo. It was more an idea for XC, same with the HST type setup.

For SWR, I still maintain that 6 car Stadler 755's is the best option.

how long would a 6 car 755 be? What about a double set? There would be a substantial amount of wasted space, lack of gangway between units and the door layout could present issues. How would seating capacity on a double 6 car 755 compare to the current 9 car 159 set up.

 

[Charlie Smythe]

how long would a 6 car 755 be? What about a double set? There would be a substantial amount of wasted space, lack of gangway between units and the door layout could present issues. How would seating capacity on a double 6 car 755 compare to the current 9 car 159 set up.

A 4 car 755 is 80.7m as is. The intermediate cars are 15.22m each so adding 4 of them to what would already be an 8 car consist would give you a total train length of 222.28m, only 13.39m longer than a 9 car 159.

A 4 car 755 has 229 seats as they are in GA's arrangement.
A 3 car 159 has 196 seats in SWR's current arrangement.

So a 9 car 159 has 588 seats.
An 8 car 755 has 458 seats.

Add in the 4 trailer (32 seats each) to your 8 car train and that gives you 586 seats or 2 less than a 159.

So in terms of seats at least, they are very comparable although the 159's do win on seats/m (which is a pointless and dangerous figure to worry about).

As for power and performance, the 755's win hands down by a strong margin.

A 9 car 159 weighs 340.2 tonnes and with a total output of 400hp per car at best giving you a total of 3600hp, this means that the 159's have 10.6hp tonne.

The 4 car Stadler 755's weigh 326 tonnes and with 4 trailer added that gives you 390 tonnes. Each 6 car unit would have 2570hp meaning a total power output of 5140hp.

5140hp / 390 tonnes = 13.2 or a 24.5% increase over the 159's.

 

[pompeyfan]

I agree that the seating and performance would be suitable but I believe the length would be excessive at key places like Salisbury, also the lack of walk through gangway between units could present issues. Good work on the figures although you threw me a bit jumping between an 8 car and a 12 car 755

 

[Wolfie]

A 4 car 755 is 80.7m as is. The intermediate cars are 15.22m each so adding 4 of them to what would already be an 8 car consist would give you a total train length of 222.28m, only 13.39m longer than a 9 car 159.

A 4 car 755 has 229 seats as they are in GA's arrangement.
A 3 car 159 has 196 seats in SWR's current arrangement.

So a 9 car 159 has 588 seats.
An 8 car 755 has 458 seats.

Add in the 4 trailer (32 seats each) to your 8 car train and that gives you 586 seats or 2 less than a 159.

So in terms of seats at least, they are very comparable although the 159's do win on seats/m (which is a pointless and dangerous figure to worry about).

As for power and performance, the 755's win hands down by a strong margin.

A 9 car 159 weighs 340.2 tonnes and with a total output of 400hp per car at best giving you a total of 3600hp, this means that the 159's have 10.6hp tonne.

The 4 car Stadler 755's weigh 326 tonnes and with 4 trailer added that gives you 390 tonnes. Each 6 car unit would have 2570hp meaning a total power output of 5140hp.

5140hp / 390 tonnes = 13.2 or a 24.5% increase over the 159's.

All smacks of a solution, based on your personal preferences/prejudices, looking for a problem....

 

[Charlie Smythe]

All smacks of a solution, based on your personal preferences/prejudices, looking for a problem....

No really. Seating and installed power figures are the same regardless of personal opinion .

 

[Kite159]

A 4 car 755 is 80.7m as is. The intermediate cars are 15.22m each so adding 4 of them to what would already be an 8 car consist would give you a total train length of 222.28m, only 13.39m longer than a 9 car 159.

A 4 car 755 has 229 seats as they are in GA's arrangement.
A 3 car 159 has 196 seats in SWR's current arrangement.

So a 9 car 159 has 588 seats.
An 8 car 755 has 458 seats.

Add in the 4 trailer (32 seats each) to your 8 car train and that gives you 586 seats or 2 less than a 159.

So in terms of seats at least, they are very comparable although the 159's do win on seats/m (which is a pointless and dangerous figure to worry about).

As for power and performance, the 755's win hands down by a strong margin.

A 9 car 159 weighs 340.2 tonnes and with a total output of 400hp per car at best giving you a total of 3600hp, this means that the 159's have 10.6hp tonne.

The 4 car Stadler 755's weigh 326 tonnes and with 4 trailer added that gives you 390 tonnes. Each 6 car unit would have 2570hp meaning a total power output of 5140hp.

5140hp / 390 tonnes = 13.2 or a 24.5% increase over the 159's.

A 9 coach 159 has 17 sets of doors
A 12 coach 755 will only have 12 sets of doors which will massively increase dwell times at the likes of Basingstoke/Woking and during peak times beyond Basingstoke

 

[Energy]

A 9 coach 159 has 17 sets of doors
A 12 coach 755 will only have 12 sets of doors which will massively increase dwell times at the likes of Basingstoke/Woking and during peak times beyond Basingstoke

The doors themselves are bigger and the central location will mean passenger have less distance to walk.

 

[Kite159]

The doors themselves are bigger and the central location will mean passenger have less distance to walk.

Less distance to walk to where? The seating area which will have flows from either side both trying to leave from the central door.

 

[Energy]

Less distance to walk to where? The seating area which will have flows from either side both trying to leave from the central door.

Yes. The doors are double the width (ish) of the ones on the 158s, they can deal with more people getting on and off.

 

[Kite159]

Yes. The doors are double the width (ish) of the ones on the 158s, they can deal with more people getting on and off.

Generally outside London people will only get on/off one person at a time to avoid being accused of being rude

If it takes 5 minutes for a Stansted bound 755 to unload/reload passengers at Cambridge on a Saturday afternoon, how long will it take for passengers to unload at Basingstoke in the evening peak?

 

[Charlie Smythe]

A 9 coach 159 has 17 sets of doors
A 12 coach 755 will only have 12 sets of doors which will massively increase dwell times at the likes of Basingstoke/Woking and during peak times beyond Basingstoke

But they don’t have to deal with crammed vestibules and stupidly slow vestibule doors. The doors on the 755 are very wide.

 

[Kite159]

And will your 6 coach 755s have enough fuel to last an entire day or will they have to get swapped over during the day for refuelling?

And have you taken into account the reduction of loos as a 6 coach 755 will only have 2 bogs if you are simply adding in 2 extra coaches, ideally you will want a toilet both sides the centre power-unit

 

[Charlie Smythe]

And will your 6 coach 755s have enough fuel to last an entire day or will they have to get swapped over during the day for refuelling?

And have you taken into account the reduction of loos as a 6 coach 755 will only have 2 bogs if you are simply adding in 2 extra coaches, ideally you will want a toilet both sides the centre power-unit

There is a walkway through the power car.

As for fuel, this is an issue. I don't know the range of the 755's (I have tried to find out),

 

[Irascible]

An intelligent management system onboard might plausibly blend power from the 3rd rail with onboard storage and diesel power to limit peak load, charge batteries at Waterloo while laying over, and harvest braking energy. Some more capacity in the supply is definitely justified as well though.

Aside from the diesel, this would be an upgrade for the entire 3rd-rail system ( or at least the less well supplied bits of it ) - whether the batteries are better on the train or at the supply ( given it is not a hugely efficient power distribution network ) I dunno.

-

Can we stop suggesting replacing usable train length with engines? and can someone who likes doing diagrams work out where we need to redouble and in what order? ( let's just assume we can't redouble all of it in one go ) and how much more can we ram into Exeter?

 

[Charlie Smythe]

Aside from the diesel, this would be an upgrade for the entire 3rd-rail system ( or at least the less well supplied bits of it ) - whether the batteries are better on the train or at the supply ( given it is not a hugely efficient power distribution network ) I dunno.

-

Can we stop suggesting replacing usable train length with engines? and can someone who likes doing diagrams work out where we need to redouble and in what order? ( let's just assume we can't redouble all of it in one go ) and how much more can we ram into Exeter?

Sacrificing usable train length to gain passenger comfort is a no brainier. A few less seats is a small price for comfort, especially on a long slow journey like the WoE.

 

[Domh245]

Sacrificing usable train length to gain passenger comfort is a no brainier. A few less seats is a small price for comfort, especially on a long slow journey like the WoE.

It really isn't a "no brainer", particular when the passenger comfort benefit is really not so clear cut. It's also really not something that can be realistically proposed for a train running into the country's busiest station

 

[Energy]

It really isn't a "no brainer", particular when the passenger comfort benefit is really not so clear cut. It's also really not something that can be realistically proposed for a train running into the country's busiest station

Passenger comfort is not really top priority for the route as well, the SWR route has been the budget alternative to GWR, loco-hauled isn't cheap...

 

[DB]

It really isn't a "no brainer", particular when the passenger comfort benefit is really not so clear cut. It's also really not something that can be realistically proposed for a train running into the country's busiest station

Indeed. I have long preferred loco hauled trains, but that view has changed with the Mk5s sets - I actually prefer the 185s to them. Underfloor engines are only one component of passenger comfort.

But we can talk about it as much as we like on a forum like this - the reality is that more new-build loco-hauled stock is very unlikely for any route in this country, but particularly one such as this, operating into a very busy station and with potential requirements for portion working.

 

[Kite159]

There is a walkway through the power car.

As for fuel, this is an issue. I don't know the range of the 755's (I have tried to find out),

Also a 6 coach 755 will be a large reduction
in the number of seats available west of Salisbury which are normally run as 6 coach 159s.

So in a 6 coach unit 2 toilets to replace 6 on a long distance journey, what could possibly go wrong...

 

[HamworthyGoods]

In a post-pandemic world with national debt at an all time high does anyone really think new stock for a railway network that has seen its biggest contraction in passenger numbers in decades is going to be high on the list of priorities?

Yes the report quoted said about new stock but that was in a very different pre-pandemic world.

 

[Irascible]

Passenger comfort is not really top priority for the route as well, the SWR route has been the budget alternative to GWR, loco-hauled isn't cheap...

And despite that they're more comfortable places to be than GWR's offering. A seat on top of an engine is also far more comfortable than not having a seat.

 

[bb21]

We are clearly going around in circles.

You have all made your point now. Time to move on. Thank you.