Hybrid Voyagers

[ajdunlop]

In all the treads about the electrification announcements yesterday Bombardier's idea to add a pantograph coach to the voyagers to make them hybrid electric / diesel seems to have appeared again. Is this something that was mentioned in the infrastructure plan or just being talked about because it would make sence?

 

[sprinterguy]

Not announced as part of the infrastructure plan, but by Bombardier themselves a while ago saying that they had the ability to do it if anyone fancied coughing up the cash as you appear to already know. There have been no further developments on the proposal as far as I know.

http://rail-news.com/2010/10/06/bombardiers-electrification-plan-presented-to-ministers/

 

[dalmahoyhill]

Bombadier suggested the concept as obviously its a cheaper alternative than the hybrid IEP.

Also after 'Derbygate' and the thameslink rolling stock bunfight chucking Bombadier a hybrid voyager upgrade would be a way of keeping litchurch lane open seeing as there are no new rolling stock contracts it is likely to win.

Modern railways has had a few articles on Derbygate but no indication on if the Voyager is a concept or it is further on than that.

 

[Aictos]

Not announced as part of the infrastructure plan, but by Bombardier themselves a while ago saying that they had the ability to do it if anyone fancied coughing up the cash as you appear to already know. There have been no further developments on the proposal as far as I know.

http://rail-news.com/2010/10/06/bombardiers-electrification-plan-presented-to-ministers/

Yes they could extend the 220/221/222s but why not also look at the B 81500-series that Bombardier do which run on both Diesel and 1.5 kV DC - something like that would be ideal for the Thames Valley using the wires to Oxford and Newbury then using the Diesel to continue off the wires.

Or providing work can be done to ensure it's able to run at 125mph under the wires, why not allow Grand Central and First Hull Trains to order a batch and use them to use the wires between Kings Cross and Doncaster/York then use the Diesel onto Sunderland and Hull.

Allowing their existing rolling stock to be used elsewhere.

 

[sprinterguy]

Bombadier suggested the concept as obviously its a cheaper alternative than the hybrid IEP.

Also after 'Derbygate' and the thameslink rolling stock bunfight chucking Bombadier a hybrid voyager upgrade would be a way of keeping litchurch lane open seeing as there are no new rolling stock contracts it is likely to win.

Modern railways has had a few articles on Derbygate but no indication on if the Voyager is a concept or it is further on than that.

I'm surprised that Rail News have reported that Bombardier would be building the additional carriages at Derby. None of the existing Voyager or Meridian carriages were constructed, or even fitted out, there, and I'd be surprised if Bombardier would want to move the equipment for the production line off the continent.

 

[jopsuk]

Presumably if a 22x fleet did get pantograph coaches fitted, the diesel engines, fuel tanks etc could in theory be removed at a later date if (as a fleet) they found themselves operating 100% under the wires? So say if the 222s were so extended, and then MML electrification in full happens.

 

[Nym]

Yes, they could, but there will be LDPE Diesel or Bi Mode routes until at least 2035 - 2040 when the 22x fleet will be nearing life expired...

Plymoth - Penzance
Inverness
etc.

It could be timed that they would no longer be needed at the point of life experiation, and then if any more Diesel LDPE stock is needed, it will end up being provided by Loco Haulage of the CCHS stock built for HS2, cascaded away by completion of HS2b to Manchester and Leeds.

 

[507 001]

If XC recieved a batch of IEP's would the voyagers be suitable for TPE services in Bi-Mode?

 

[LE Greys]

I just wish someone would get on with it and order some!

 

[Nym]

Platform lengths mean computer says no for TPE services.

And said it before, will say it again, if we're scrapping bi-mode IEP (please) then the 222 fleet will be needed for th GW LDPE Off wires services, as would some of the 221 fleet.

But the chances are that most of XC will need the Bi Mode fleet for as long as ICGW, would take some major electrification to not need to keep the HSTs going until 2025 minimum. (Would be better with a 5 year exemption rather than re-engineering)

2025 would see half the 221 and the 222 fleet freed up to replace the HSTs, provided that:
MML Electrified
HS2 opened
CCHS Stock haulable by a locomotive, designed to run with it. (Would run the Aberdeen, Holyhead, Harrogate, etc services)

 

[MCR247]

Bombadier suggested the concept as obviously its a cheaper alternative than the hybrid IEP.

Also after 'Derbygate' and the thameslink rolling stock bunfight chucking Bombadier a hybrid voyager upgrade would be a way of keeping litchurch lane open seeing as there are no new rolling stock contracts it is likely to win.

Modern railways has had a few articles on Derbygate but no indication on if the Voyager is a concept or it is further on than that.

Well it seems Southern want some 377/6s but they've said 'no, but we'll do you a 379/1' :roll:

 

[LE Greys]

Platform lengths mean computer says no for TPE services.

And said it before, will say it again, if we're scrapping bi-mode IEP (please) then the 222 fleet will be needed for th GW LDPE Off wires services, as would some of the 221 fleet.

But the chances are that most of XC will need the Bi Mode fleet for as long as ICGW, would take some major electrification to not need to keep the HSTs going until 2025 minimum. (Would be better with a 5 year exemption rather than re-engineering)

2025 would see half the 221 and the 222 fleet freed up to replace the HSTs, provided that:
MML Electrified
HS2 opened
CCHS Stock haulable by a locomotive, designed to run with it. (Would run the Aberdeen, Holyhead, Harrogate, etc services)

I like the idea of the last bit, cutting an hour or two off the time to Birmingham and London would be very helpful from up here. However, it does present a problem for the time being, especially if we get IEPs on the ECML. Do the HSTs soldier on, or do we have IEP/MkIV sets hauled when not under the wires?

I also want to be aboard the HST Golden Jubilee special in 2022

 

[Nym]

Well, the idea would be that the ICGW and ICXC networks would be the soul users of the 22x fleet from 2025 when HS2 opens.

Off wires services on the ECML and WCML would be run by the Classic Compatable High Speed stock via HS2 to the end of the wires, then hauled by a locomotive specified to run with it.

Bit more of timeline:
2030 HS2bL opens to Manchester S and W Parkways and Manchester CC
Classic Compatable Stock will continue to run via Rugley Jcn on to Crewe for Chester and Holyhead, hauled by the specified locomotives from Crewe or Chester.
Between 12 and 24 (Depending on how many run in 400m formation) Classic Compatable sets will be cascaded away by the introduction of Captive stock on the Manchester - Euston route.
The Class 91 Electra Sets will be coming close to retirement... These can be replaced by cascaded HSCC units.

2035 HS2bR opens to Leeds for captive stock and connects into York or Doncaster for Classic Compatable stock, off route services continue as previously with CC stock, the 8 - 12 units from Leeds cascaded by replacement with captive stock is used to augment the HSCC units running from Kings Cross up the ECML and cascade the IEP units from this route on to the GW for that route's growth.

Between 2025 and 2040 The ECML North of York between York and Northallerton have been re-signaled to ERTMS Level 3 and the fast lines have been upgraded for 250km/h+ running, allowing the CCHS stock cascaded from HS2bLR to run much faster, and if before this has been cascaded to the KX routes, allow the Electra sets to run up to 225km/h and services via HS2 to run up to 250km/h

2035 - 2040 The 22x fleet faces Booths of Rotherham
Some of the CCHS Stock cascaded from the opening of HS2b will run the off wires services into Cornwall, the route via Kemble and Costwoulds lines have been electrified, and is being run by IEP/LDPEEMU Units.

Note: HSCC and HSCap stock will have a locomotive specified to haul them away from wires and for thunderbirding, will be drivable from the EMU.

PS: I think more would be gained by having an excemption for HSTs to run past the DDA deadline, (The toilets are already accessable, it's the lack of power doors if I'm thinking right), it would be cheaper to employ a member of staff per unit to open the door for wheelchair users for 5 or 6 years than modify the sets.

 

[WatcherZero]

Good and Bad news, Governments reportedly sent a letter to Bombardier giving a provisional go ahead and asking for firm pricing options, however they believe the cost is still too high and that many XC routes may not be electrified so they are at the moment only willing to pay for 30-35 sets of the 102 to be converted. As Derby doesnt have a steel milling facility this would be uneconomical to build for such a small run and the work would therefore be done on the continent. This would keep the design jobs at Derby but the unions and others pushing for this to help keep Derby open would likely be stabbed in the back by Bombardier who will just take the work abroad.

 

[387star]

Surely the VT units would be far more cost effective

 

[tbtc]

Given the crowding on many XC services (not just peak), I'd be amazed if it weren't economical to build extra coaches (whether diesel ones or pantograph ones).

If thats the case then I don't know whether any UK rail routes can justify new capacity.

 

[HSTEd]

Its a pity, but maybe we can hope for a electrodiesel MITRAC transmission to be rammed into an Electrostar Cl210 style.

 

[Nym]

I think it might be more useful rammed into an M5000 for some uses (Mid Cheshire, East Lancs, Rotherham) and into a Desiro City in 3 car form..

 

[Hydro]

Given the crowding on many XC services (not just peak), I'd be amazed if it weren't economical to build extra coaches (whether diesel ones or pantograph ones).

What about non-engined vehicles with traction motors in addition to the Pan vehicles? My impression of the EDMU concept has a Pan vehicle with transformer, with a power bus feeding into the traction motors on the entire train. This bus could carry traction current to the non-engined "power trailer" (oxymoron I know) from both the transformer vehicle and the engines on the conventional vehicles. The engines will have to power the "power-trailer" and the transformer vehicle though.

Could 4/5 750hp engines power an extra one or two coaches without too much of a performance hit?

 

[Nym]

Think I went through it before hydro, so theres proberbly a more detailed post with more numbers kicking around on here somewhere.]

It would reduce performance at the higher end of the acceleration curve, and at the starting end of the curve, but not that much inbetween, thanks to the way the diesel electricness is configured.

But that is basically because the acceleration curve of the 3 phase traction motors via motor controllers (unlike older DEMUs or DE Locomotives) is fed from a demand controlled MVDC bus. You're reducing the amount of power available per traction motor on this bus if you have an additional carriage that is fitted with traction motors but not a generator, but I worked out you could proberbly take a hit of 1 or maybe 2 carrigages, but you're getting closer to the performance of an HST and it would be harder to recover lost time on the electrified parts of the network (that tend to be at the higher speeds, ECML, Birmingham - Manc) etc.

If however, you standardise an additional carriage (or two for 5 car units) then you're only reducing the power to weight ratio off wires, and in 10 or so years, off wires won't have much over 110mph anyway, so you can afford to peg out the top speed a little lower than it is now (and the rate that it gets there), and if you keep traction motors in every carriage, the blistering acceleration mid range should be kept (when motors are already spinning they don't need as much current to keep spinning, or go slightly faster, all due to feild slip etc. that I'm sure you don't care about, and if you do care about it, you'll already know about it).

Thats from the Engineer's point of view anyway.

From a railway point of view, how often to 22x series units run around with at least one generator shut down anyway? (I say generator to avoid confusion about drive systems, and because thats what they are!)

The thing is, if you're going to put together extra 'trailer coaches' I don't personally see the point, as every single XC service runs under wires at some point. And for a reasonable wack, either from Birmingham to Manchester, York / Doncaster - Newcastle - Edinbrugh - Glasgow, Birstol Parkway - Bristol TM, Oxford - Reading. And if you include 3rd Rail down to Southampton and Bornmouth even more. Then theres the ICWC Network with very little actual off wires work. Not to mention the potential for the 222 fleet with conversion and cascade to the ICGW network, post MML electrification, the same for the 221 ICWC Fleet post HS2 if that fleet is correctly specified. (We can't change the IEP spec to include a locomotive, but the HS2CC Stock can, but we can scrap off the Bi-Mode SET part of the IEP).

So I don't see any benifit in buying trailer coaches when a transformer / power electronics (3rd Rail) carriage will always have use.

And before you start up saying that diesel will need to be running and warm before you get off wires, yes, I know, but running and warm is very different to running and providing power. And if the current power units are modified with pre-heaters and auxillary water pumps, (That I know for a fact Cummins produce!), then we don't need to worry about the cold start issues with the QSK19F units in the 22x series.

And if you want no loss at all in performance on wires, you'll need a reasonably sized transformer and set of power electronics. 560kW per carriage to be exact, so for your 4 car voyager convertion to 5 car you'd need a 2.8MW transformer, or to convert to 6 car, two 1.7MW transformers. Etc. etc.

tan<<post:
HS2CC Stock is the Classic Compatibale Stock for HS2, proberbly either a 9x23m or 10x20m EMU, the locomotives specified would connect with the unit's standard couplers, be used for thunderbird duties, but also for off wires haulage in service up to 90mph / 100mph, and would be fully compatible with a the EMU drive contol system, so would be driveable from either end.
For example an operational segment would be (Assuming electrification doesn't reach Chester):
London Euston - Chester & Liverpool L St via Runcorn

Depart Euston two HS2CC units joined together, Liverpool L St leading Chester trailing
Use HS2 until Rugley (Even if HS2 continues ontwards to Manchester by this point)
Call at Crewe:
:2 mins dwell for Liverpool portion that then proceeds to Liverpool L St calling at Runcorn.
:While the Liverpool section is departing, a locomotive has been autocoupled from a waiting siding onto the rear of the rear unit, when the signal clears after a 6min dwell, depart for Chester
Same in reverse on return, chester comes in first.

If wires reach Chester, simply split at Crewe and have the locomotive sat in platform at Chester ready to take the unit onwards to Holyhead, couple on entry into the platform under permissive working.

 

[Hydro]

It'd make sense to have the engine pre-heaters maybe thermostatically controlled when running on the wires using the electrical supply, ensuring the engines never run down too cold and avoid any sudden cold starts. Also removes the need to pre-start engines miles off wire, or initiate any preheating 30-40 mins prior to changeover (which could be forgotten).

 

[Nym]

It'd make sense to have the engine pre-heaters maybe thermostatically controlled when running on the wires using the electrical supply, ensuring the engines never run down too cold and avoid any sudden cold starts. Also removes the need to pre-start engines miles off wire, or initiate any preheating 30-40 mins prior to changeover (which could be forgotten).

Wouldn't be too hard, you'd need to valve out the current water pump, have an auxillary electric water pump, and pass it through an electric heater matrix that can be thermostatically controlled, you could possibly even simply change the water pump for one that can 'free wheel' and add the electronic heater and pump, (that can be 3 wayed out and isolated either side for normal running, the pump, not the heater matrix, just turn that off) so that when pre heating, it just idley sping away without a care in the world, keeping the water under pressure from the electrical pump, and at about 70C from the heater.

(Pre heaters are quite common in diesel generators, and even in Range Rovers)

And yes, having pre-heaters perminantly ON whenever running on wires would be quite sensible, if wires suddenly go down, or something breaks, you want your diesel on right away and able to give power (it would still need 2 - 3mins to be ready for full power, ie. a normal station stop) but you can have immediate hotel power.

 

[Hydro]

(Pre heaters are quite common in diesel generators, and even in Range Rovers)

Most of our locos have preheaters fitted, they do take a while to get the engine to temperature (though these tend to be rather large, late 50's/early60's vintage EE lumps that would would rival a car in size). The AC genny's I work with normally don't have them fitted, and it can be a right arse getting them started in cold weather, with lots of cringing involved.

 

[Nym]

Aye, and with generators you wouldn't give them full load till the water and block are up to temprature will you, I know I usually started my wagon 10mins before I'm due out (while being loaded) the only lads who didn't where those on tachos. But I had to give it a load of welly straight away thanks to steep hill and leaving very heavy (cheese aint light).

And most of the AC gennies I worked with are UPS ones or MoD ones, or MoD UPS ones and they usually had pre-heaters. UPS ones usually working off grid to keep warm so when bye bye grid, hello full load within 2mins

And having tried to get a Seddon Atkinson started in the middle of winter after 18 months downtime, I feel your pain...

Although DROPS vehicles where usually more of a pain to get started, older.

 

[Hydro]

Foden or Scammell DROPS? I've had a whirl in a Scammell, the Fodens looked a bit "rustic" on the few occasions I've worked with them. I normally used the Mark 1 foot for transport so the only thing I ever had to worry about starting was my heart after 6 hours in a freezing OP.

Our AC gennys don't tend to be massively loaded, mainly computer equipment - the messing facilities tend to really put a strain on (depending on the vehicle - the Mk.1 genny vans can generally take anything), but they're not used right from the off. The technical equipment can run off the UPS kit until the genny gets settled.

 

[Wyvern]

Minister gives rail firm hope that it can win £127m of work

WORKERS at troubled Derby train-maker Bombardier have been offered some pre-Christmas cheer by the Government after it concluded that a multi-million-pound project to convert trains to hybrid power is viable.

Transport Secretary Justine Greening has written to the Litchurch Lane firm's president, Andre Navarri, to say that she is "enthusiastic" about pushing ahead with the eVoyager project, which could be worth about £127 million to the company that is desperate for new work at its Derby factory.

Would the idea be useful for EMT's Meridians to Bedford pending further electrificcation?

 

[ChrisCooper]

Minister gives rail firm hope that it can win £127m of work

Would the idea be useful for EMT's Meridians to Bedford pending further electrificcation?

I doubt it. It's only 50miles, about 1/3 of the total route mileage, and not the really steep parts either. The fuel saved by running on electric to Bedford would probably be used up dragging around the extra coach and transformer on the rest of the route, especially up Sharnbrook, Desborough and Kibworth, and also up all the hills north of Derby. It would need the ability to change over on the move, as only half the services call at Bedford, the rest would need to change at Luton or Luton Airport Parkway, 20 miles earlier. There would be no performance gain south of Bedford, but they would loose performance on the steep gradients and 125mph sections (currently being worked on) to the north.

 

[Nym]

Foden or Scammell DROPS? I've had a whirl in a Scammell, the Fodens looked a bit "rustic" on the few occasions I've worked with them. I normally used the Mark 1 foot for transport so the only thing I ever had to worry about starting was my heart after 6 hours in a freezing OP.

Our AC gennys don't tend to be massively loaded, mainly computer equipment - the messing facilities tend to really put a strain on (depending on the vehicle - the Mk.1 genny vans can generally take anything), but they're not used right from the off. The technical equipment can run off the UPS kit until the genny gets settled.

We had both, the joys of bein in the RLC, and only 6 hours in an OP? Lucky sod... Although when I was doing covert or overt OPs (while playing enemy for the cadets) things where a tad more err, relaxed, so long as we didn't make smoke they'd never spot us so it wasn't exactly hard routine breaking out the tinnies and taking a landy into town for pizza runs on a night and bacon butties of a morning

Minister gives rail firm hope that it can win £127m of work



Would the idea be useful for EMT's Meridians to Bedford pending further electrificcation?

Yes and no...

As far as I know some 222s run around most of the time with generators shut down, but if they where to be electrodieseled it wouldn't be exactly the same as 221 and 220 units control system wise, since the 220 and 221 use Alstom control systems and the 222s use Bombardier. If it's extending a 5 or 6 car unit by two it wouldn't screw up timings beyond what a HST is capable of, although tbh, you could put a 6 car out to 9 car and have about the same performance as an HST.

I doubt it. It's only 50miles, about 1/3 of the total route mileage, and not the really steep parts either. The fuel saved by running on electric to Bedford would probably be used up dragging around the extra coach and transformer on the rest of the route, especially up Sharnbrook, Desborough and Kibworth, and also up all the hills north of Derby. It would need the ability to change over on the move, as only half the services call at Bedford, the rest would need to change at Luton or Luton Airport Parkway, 20 miles earlier. There would be no performance gain south of Bedford, but they would loose performance on the steep gradients and 125mph sections (currently being worked on) to the north.

But it's still 50 miles worth of fuel saved, and if you can switch on the fly, and I see no reason why not, it will save about 1/4 of the diesel, and make St P. a happyer and less dieseley enviroment. It would also be a benifit if the MML electrification comes about as a rolling project, that it can be benifited from from day one, rather than waiting for the new rolling stock to arrive a'la GW / Lancs Triangle. And when complete, then they can switch to new rolling stock for the Midland Mainline, and of course this also depends on the happenings of HS2. Since if HS2 does happen and the MML electrification doesn't, it will only require diesel running between Derby / Nottingham and Bedford.

 

[Hydro]

We had both, the joys of bein in the RLC, and only 6 hours in an OP? Lucky sod... Although when I was doing covert or overt OPs (while playing enemy for the cadets) things where a tad more err, relaxed, so long as we didn't make smoke they'd never spot us so it wasn't exactly hard routine breaking out the tinnies and taking a landy into town for pizza runs on a night and bacon butties of a morning

.

6 was enough, frozen to the ground and cock eyed night vision from one eye staring down the CWS all night. Someone always had it worse though, AT platoon were lugging their Javelin drill rounds and CLU's all exercise so a bit of freezing was preferable to a load of extra dead weight. Could have done with a CLU on the OP mind, but we would've probably broken it through playing around.

 

[Nym]

CWS? Luxary! We didn't have anything like that, but still, we wern't allowed to bump a load of 13 to 16 year olds at 2am either, that is a shame, did drive a landy through their camp blatting off a couple of LSW on auto to scare the.... well you know what I mean. Did get in a tad bit of trouble for that, not as much as Bravo Company's (2nd training level) CO who said, "My cadets know how to search after running through", only to be proven very very wrong...

PS: If we had a SUSAT between us it we where lucky, although our platoon did seem to be a law unto ourselves, commondant didn't seem to care so long as we stuck to our bump list for the oppo, and didn't bother the good folk of Folkestone too much... (Oh, and stowed rifles before going into the takeaway). Can you tell we didn't have a rupert between us and the only officer was an ex. para who decided that 30rds to bump a company is taking the mickey and went and got us 300rds (per bump, took ages to bomb all that up!) each for the L85/L86, scaring 14 year olds with automatic fire when bumping them isn't as fun as the looks on the faces of their instructors when they realise we have smoke, flashes, mock grenades and trip wires

And for fear of triggering the off topic allarm, any further on this will be in pvt...