Generic Centre Cars

[tbtc]

This may sound like a daft question, but is there any potential to build centre coaches capable of slotting into a variety of DMU units?

At the moment we have a number of DMU classes which need extending - pretty much all in fact! But the production costs of a few dozen new coaches for 170/ 175/ 185/ 220/ 221 etc are going to be high as you need a separate production line for each unit.

Has anyone ever investigated whether it'd be possible to design something capable of working with various different DMU classes, so it could be slotted into the middle of anything (which would make the cost of each coach a lot cheaper).

I'm talking something fairly basic-spec, which works with the computers of existing stock, like the "universal" remote controlls you can buy for televisions (regardless of the brand of telly involved).

Could anyone come up with something worthy of Dragon's Den?

 

[jopsuk]

I think the electrical systems, both for train control (needed even if the car is an unpowered trailer- braking, as well as the MU controls for the other power cars/further units) for doors (and locking) and for "hotel systems"- heating, lights etc- would be so different, due to a lack of standardisation. One of the things that made it possible in "the old days" to shove a mrk1 trailer into MU formatiosn was that as well as being simple, many of the systems were pretty much standard- especially on the Southern, where the MUs being built at the time were based on the mrk1 anyway.

I certainly wouldn't want something that worked as well as "universal" remote controls!

 

[Eng274]

It COULD theoretically be possible, if electrical systems, coupling, braking, power, ancillary systems (eg lighting, heating), and control, could somehow be organised under the floor in a manner that would allow interchangeable 'modules' to be installed. I believe the Turbostars have sections of the underfloor that slide out to allow easier access, someone with experience of them can correct me on this.

For instance, a bare underfloored carriage would have a space to accommodate any EMU driveline, irrespective of whether it is a Siemens/Alstom/Bombardier unit, with a standardised drive shaft connection point at the bogie. And so on for the other functions.

The differences in body dimensions and loading gauge across all the classes of MU would also be a challenge, and I doubt one size would adequately fit all. It would be hugely complex task mating every possible configuration (and a million miles of wiring and pipes) but without in-depth knowledge of each MU type I can only give optimistic conjecture!

It would be good if capacity problems could be solved in this manner, but as well as mating various different equipment types, would each train builder be willing to donate their components to create franken-trains?

Hindsight is a fine thing - if a standardised DMU and EMU type was established in the 90s it would be a very simple job adding carriages.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Hindsight is a fine thing - if a standardised DMU and EMU type was established in the 90s it would be a very simple job adding carriages.

It was established in the 1980s with the 15x / 31x / 45x DMUs and EMUs. What a shame that we lost the plot, in the name of "progress".

 

[MCR247]

To be fair, if we kept building more 156s they would just be too outdated

 

[tbtc]

Hindsight is a fine thing - if a standardised DMU and EMU type was established in the 90s it would be a very simple job adding carriages.

Imagine if we'd insisted that all "new build" units (post-privatisation) had to be able to work with others?

The fact that we don't even have common couplers seems crazy when you consider we are used to things like USBs/ memory cards being interchangeable...

 

[mumrar]

Imagine if we'd insisted that all "new build" units (post-privatisation) had to be able to work with others?

The fact that we don't even have common couplers seems crazy when you consider we are used to things like USBs/ memory cards being interchangeable...

I agree, but then remember we have Compact flash I and II, SD, MMC, SDHC, Memory stick, Memory stick Pro, Memory stick micro, miniSD.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

To be fair, if we kept building more 156s they would just be too outdated

If we were working in a competitive environment, where we're selling Class 156s and somebody else is selling Turbostars, I'd agree with you.

However, we're putting metal tubes to carry people on a national transport network.

What we need is trains that get people from A to B in a reasonable level of comfort, reliably and safely.

A Class 156 ticks all these boxes, even almost 25 years after they were designed.

 

[MCR247]

Well yes, but if we kept making 156s, we would have to change them with the times, and DDA stuff, and you would almost end up with completely different trains!

 

[tbtc]

Well yes, but if we kept making 156s, we would have to change them with the times, and DDA stuff, and you would almost end up with completely different trains!

...but presumably we'd have units which were still compatible with each other.

If we had a micro-managing DFT back in the mid '90s who said "All new stock must be compatible of working with a 156, coupling to a 156, corridor-connecting to a 156..." etc then we'd ensure that everything (new) was capable of working with all new stock (and with all the things a 156 works with).

Mumrar makes a good point about memory cards etc, but consider how settling on VHS (after the "war" with Betamax) helped us with having a "standard", how important other industries think one "standard" is (witness the fuss over HD-DVD vs BluRay)...

On a related note - are there any coaches which would work in other units? I'd assume 171 centre-coaches would be able to fit inside 170s (since the coupling on the cabs is the only difference), but would a 172 coach work inside a 170?

Would it be possible to slot 180 coaches inside 175s? It'd mean every 175/180 would be three or four coaches, if possible).

Presumably 220/221 coaches would work inside 221/220s, but AFAIK they couldn't be fitted inside a 222 (?)...

Would 168 coaches work inside a 170?

I suspect the answer to the above will be "no"

(etc)

 

[MCR247]

A 171/8 centre car would be fine in a 170
Dunno about 180s
172 would not go in 170
220/221 would not go in 222
168 would be fine in a 170

 

[tbtc]

A 171/8 centre car would be fine in a 170
Dunno about 180s
172 would not go in 170
220/221 would not go in 222
168 would be fine in a 170

Cheers.

That answers a few things about potential "cascades" / "transfers" I've been scheming on the back of a beermat

 

[MCR247]

If you put the original couplers on 171s, they would be the same as 168/1 and /2s and 170s

 

[142094]

Would be good but we'd still have obsolescence every 40 years or so (bit like Windows releasing a new system every year or so it seems now).

 

[185]

The DfT actually looked at this just a couple of years ago. General agreement was it would be prohibitively expensive with the usual vultures, leasing companies, consultancies, and the rest trying to cash in so it was deemed purchasing new units would be the answer. However I do think the Voyager electrification idea does have some merit.

Messy? Maybe - SWT 455/7 with the 508 Merseyrail extra vehicle slung in:
"Cut n shuts"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:455740_D_Wimbledon.JPG

With the SWT red paint job, you hardly notice.

 

[sprinterguy]

Would be good but we'd still have obsolescence every 40 years or so (bit like Windows releasing a new system every year or so it seems now).

Which is still preferable to having a mixed bag of train types that are unable to “communicate” with each other or work in multiple all the time as is the case now.

There’s a real risk that when the time comes for the replacement of Pacers and the various Sprinter classes in the northern regions that the north will end up with a similarly hapless fleet of different new train designs as is the case in the South East. So long as the replacement programme is on a piecemeal basis, which it could well be given that the Sprinters will probably outlive the Pacers by several years, then it is likely that different train designs will be ordered at different times.

Can you imagine the issues that could ensue with future cascades if the Northern franchise was split back into North East and North West regions again, and the two separate franchises decided to order completely different train types to replace their Pacers? There is definitely a need for some standardisation of equipment.

EDIT: Actually…We could end up with an identical scenario to Southeastern and South West trains if the Northern franchise was split again…Just substitute the word “South” for “North” in each company name, and substitute EMUs for DMUs: If “Northeastern” ordered a squadron fleet of 2 and 3 coach Bombardier Turbostars, and “North West Trains” ordered a squadron fleet of diesel Siemens Desiro Cities. That wouldn’t be too bad so long as the franchises remained separate, but if they were combined there’d be no scope for the sort of unit exchange that has been seen with the creation of the wider Northern franchise.

 

[jopsuk]

Generic and interoperable design was something NSE were, to some extent, looking at with the Networker program- I'd reckon that had the will been there, they would even have gone as far as to replace anything that wasn't a Networker with some sort of varient (so, mrk3 based units, "PEP" units, 442s, 159s). Standardised (or near enough) designs that they would have contracted builders to construct (the 465s were made by two different builders- tighter control could have seen even the minor variations ther eliminated).

It is also, sort of, what the previous programs had aimed at under BR- the mrk3 family of suburban EMUs, the Sprinter program etc.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I think the most cost effective centre cars are currently being phased out over time, in the 90's there were plenty about, but now there is a decreasing number. The idea was simplicity itself, unpowered trailers sandwiched by a driving van and locomotive.

 

[starrymarkb]

Generic and interoperable design was something NSE were, to some extent, looking at with the Networker program- I'd reckon that had the will been there, they would even have gone as far as to replace anything that wasn't a Networker with some sort of varient (so, mrk3 based units, "PEP" units, 442s, 159s). Standardised (or near enough) designs that they would have contracted builders to construct (the 465s were made by two different builders- tighter control could have seen even the minor variations ther eliminated).

It is also, sort of, what the previous programs had aimed at under BR- the mrk3 family of suburban EMUs, the Sprinter program etc.

NSE didn't want 159s to begin with though, they were looking at a Turbo derivative - think 166 meets 442. It then transpired that Regional Railways had 22 158s spare that were in build. So NSE added an order for the centre cars and had the 158s modded at Rosyth

 

[Eng274]

The 'Networker' family was the next parent series of multiple units, and had the railways not been privatised with the end result of rolling stock design 'open season', I reckon most new builds throughout the late 90s would have been networker units, probably moving onto the standardised Siemens Desiro range or similar in the 00s.

It is ridiculous how even units from the same "family" like the Desiros have little or no inter-connectivity.

I think the most cost effective centre cars are currently being phased out over time, in the 90's there were plenty about, but now there is a decreasing number. The idea was simplicity itself, unpowered trailers sandwiched by a driving van and locomotive.

a loco with 2, 3, or 4 trailers and a DVT? Can't really see that being profitable on rural routes unfortunately, not to mention units are infinitely more flexible in that they take up less space in a platform, 2 coach DMU or 2 trailers, plus loco plus DVT? Plus joining up multiple sets is a 2-minute job, you can't add coaches to a rake without many shunting/ depot movements..{unless class 08s were resurrected back into doing serious shunter work with passenger cars}

Besides, I like the sounds of an engine under my seat

 

[Lampshade]

I think the Pacer replacement would be a golden opportunity for just this. Make a standard two carriage DEMU (to take advantage of OHLE) to directly replace the Pacers 1:1. Then build a load of centre cars so you can have any number of carriages. There's the whole thing about TOCs not wanting loads of stock sat around doing nothing, well with this there won't be, the trains themselves would be still out in service, but can be lengthened with relative ease.

 

[142094]

Forgetting one thing: most of the routes that Pacers run on would need to be electrified first.

 

[MCR247]

It is ridiculous how even units from the same "family" like the Desiros have little or no inter-connectivity.

What?

 

[WillPS]

Incompatible types isn't just a facet of privatisation, IIRC NSE deliberately made their Networkers incompatible with other BR DMUs.

172 would not go in 170
220/221 would not go in 222

I'm certain it'd not be beyond the wit of man to rectify these.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....a loco with 2, 3, or 4 trailers and a DVT? Can't really see that being profitable on rural routes unfortunately, not to mention units are infinitely more flexible in that they take up less space in a platform, 2 coach DMU or 2 trailers, plus loco plus DVT? Plus joining up multiple sets is a 2-minute job, you can't add coaches to a rake without many shunting/ depot movements..{unless class 08s were resurrected back into doing serious shunter work with passenger cars}....

And how many post-privatisation built DMUs were ordered specifically with rural routes in mind?

139? - yes
168? - not really
170? - not sure about NXEA ones, but for the rest, I'd say no
171? - I'd say yes
172? - local routes rather than rural
175? - I'd say no
180? - no
185? - no
220? - no
221? - no
222? - no

There is no reason why locos plus stock can't be designed to work like DMUs (isn't that basically what polaris is???) and given that you can just add stock at the start of each day when needed is a plus point, not a minus, you can't do it with DMUs these days with all their computer gubbins on board.

Given that DBSOs carried passengers and Anglia initially planned to have a restaurant retro-fitted to their DVTs, I don't see why DVTs have to be "lost space" and given the length of many platforms, is a loco and DVT really wasted space anyway?

Non-powered centre cars are cheaper to buy, cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain and quieter than a powered version.

....Besides, I like the sounds of an engine under my seat

If I have to sit in a tiny space on uncomfortable seats, surrounded by ill-fitting plastic panels with leg room that would be illegal if I were cattle, I'd rather not hear it all vibrate for an hour or more, and that's before I consider the sound of the engine!:roll:

 

[MCR247]

I'm certain it'd not be beyond the wit of man to rectify these.

If you wanted to put a 220/221 carriage in a 222 or vice versa it would not be compatible due to the different electric systems and TMS. So would it mean a whole rewiring?

 

[MCR247]

And how many post-privatisation built DMUs were ordered specifically with rural routes in mind?

139? - yes
168? - not really
170? - not sure about NXEA ones, but for the rest, I'd say no
171? - I'd say yes
172? - local routes rather than rural
175? - I'd say no
180? - no
185? - no
220? - no
221? - no
222? - no

There is no reason why locos plus stock can't be designed to work like DMUs (isn't that basically what polaris is???) and given that you can just add stock at the start of each day when needed is a plus point, not a minus, you can't do it with DMUs these days with all their computer gubbins on board.

Given that DBSOs carried passengers and Anglia initially planned to have a restaurant retro-fitted to their DVTs, I don't see why DVTs have to be "lost space" and given the length of many platforms, is a loco and DVT really wasted space anyway?

Ermm yes? If EC went to EMU operation, you would have about 1 and 1/2 extra carriages for seating.

I do love the 'with LHCS you can add an extra carriage when you want'

So why don't EC just add a carriage to some of their MK4s that run busy services? Oh wait, they can't can they? They don't have SDO and it would be too long for platforms. There's that idea out the window

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Ermm yes? If EC went to EMU operation, you would have about 1 and 1/2 extra carriages for seating.

I do love the 'with LHCS you can add an extra carriage when you want'

So why don't EC just add a carriage to some of their MK4s that run busy services? Oh wait, they can't can they? They don't have SDO and it would be too long for platforms. There's that idea out the window

Surely the more pertinent point is that you can remove carriages when you don't need them. I have very rarely seen an EC train crammed to the gunwales, but I've seen plenty with literally hundreds of empty seats. I travelled on a mid morning service between Stevenage and York a couple of weeks before Christmas that looked particularly lightly loaded, so I decided to walk through and do a head count (something I wouldn't have needed to do with the Polaris seat sensor system) and there were eleven people in First and 31 in Standard.

I know that the operators will argue that there is insufficient time to marshal coaches in and out of train sets, but the cost and time of doing this must run close to that of the track access costs, energy costs and maintenance costs of dragging around unnecessary vehicles. Has a railway economist ever seriously looked at this?

 

[sprinterguy]

There is no reason why locos plus stock can't be designed to work like DMUs (isn't that basically what polaris is???) and given that you can just add stock at the start of each day when needed is a plus point, not a minus, you can't do it with DMUs these days with all their computer gubbins on board.

Not really. Polaris is a fixed formation unit that utilises a transformer car at one end of the train, as opposed to distributed power throughout the train with the electrical equipment underfloor. They seem to be quite similar to the Hitachi Super Express concept.

Once you start trying to make a loco and carriages behave like a multiple unit, you lose some of the flexibility, as is seen with the HSTs and 91+mk 4 rakes. In order to be able to add carriages to a train, you need to have spare carriages available, and it is about as likely that a TOC would request additional coaches if ordering a loco hauled fleet as it is that it would request additional multiple units above the order size required to operate the services.

Having a loco and coaching stock is always going to result in unusable "dead space". Even if, say, East Coast were to put seating in it's DVTs, an eleven carriage EMU formation of comparable length would still offer half a carriage worth of additional accomodation. Locos and carriages are more suited to long distance Intercity operations than local work as with a 9 or 10 carriage train the amount of space wasted by having a locomotive forms a comparably small proportion of the entire train length compared to a 2 or 3 carriage local train.

 

[ukrob]

Surely the more pertinent point is that you can remove carriages when you don't need them. I have very rarely seen an EC train crammed to the gunwales, but I've seen plenty with literally hundreds of empty seats. I travelled on a mid morning service between Stevenage and York a couple of weeks before Christmas that looked particularly lightly loaded, so I decided to walk through and do a head count (something I wouldn't have needed to do with the Polaris seat sensor system) and there were eleven people in First and 31 in Standard.

I know that the operators will argue that there is insufficient time to marshal coaches in and out of train sets, but the cost and time of doing this must run close to that of the track access costs, energy costs and maintenance costs of dragging around unnecessary vehicles. Has a railway economist ever seriously looked at this?

But is it seriously viable? How do we know that set wouldn't be rammed on its return working, or packed on its diagram (which has no time for coach marshalling) later in the day?