Hybrid Voyagers

[WatcherZero]

Sorry I was refering to North Wales, Crewe-Chester-Holyhead, forgot to disassociate it from South Wales/IEP.


P.S. Can anyone remember if Bombardier or someone else is reserve bidder on the IEP? Could be their way of staying in the game but im sure Hitachi would be ****ed if they were passed over at this late stage having already bought the factory.

P.P.S The article definetley said 'Diesel' and 'Locomotive' though I suppose it could be a generator car rather than actual traction, possibly with a small secondary engine and cab for shunting. I guess it would come down to how quickly or safely you could couple a high voltage power cable to feed into the bus. The emphasis did seem to be on the new coupler design and software that could be refitted to existing Pendos.

 

[Nym]

RE PPS: The HV Bus on Pendos doesn't reach the ends...

Chances are it will be pull & hotel power.

 

[ukrob]

Let's hope this is well thought out if it comes to anything.

Ideally able to be driven from the Pendolino cab with the loco on the rear to eliminate running around, and one driver required unlike 57 drags (one in the 57 and one in the Pendolino).

 

[tbtc]

30-35 extended (and associated modifications to existing carriages) at £100m. That works out at £3.3m a carriage (and probably more as the 100m sounds like a ballpark quote) which is probably getting on 25-50% more than what you would pay for a new build.

That's a lot more than the "377/6" carriages, which were a little over £1m IIRC (?)

 

[HSTEd]

That's a lot more than the "377/6" carriages, which were a little over £1m IIRC (?)

You have to account for a vast amount of development work.

 

[tbtc]

You have to account for a vast amount of development work.

Yes, but the order for Voyager centre cars is still going to use the original design for Voyager centre cars as a template (before the obvious complication of pantographs etc), it's amazing that we are talking around three times as much.

How many passengers would a carriage need to carry over its (say) thirty year lifespan to justify costing over £3m? (bearing in mind that the TOC will be paying additiona track access charges etc)

Crazy money...

 

[Nym]

Well, if it's a lot of development cost why not order more to get better value for money?

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, but the order for Voyager centre cars is still going to use the original design for Voyager centre cars as a template (before the obvious complication of pantographs etc), it's amazing that we are talking around three times as much.

How many passengers would a carriage need to carry over its (say) thirty year lifespan to justify costing over £3m? (bearing in mind that the TOC will be paying additiona track access charges etc)

Crazy money...

Its not just that, you basically have to rewrite and requalify the TMS to include the relevant controls for the pantograph and for running under electric traction, develop a transformer fit from scratch, rewire the driving coaches with additional controls.

The list goes on and on on.

Ideally they should by buying as many as possible but we will have to see if that Pendolini kills the project.

 

[Nym]

Well, if we have the pendolini and eVoyager we don't need the Bi Mode SET any more, so it will make that project cheaper. And/or provide some more capacity for XC.

 

[WatcherZero]

That's a lot more than the "377/6" carriages, which were a little over £1m IIRC (?)

£188m, 130 carriages, £1.45m each

But also factor in the Voyagers are 23m vs 20m, built for 125mph and fitted out for the longer passenger journeys which would put the comparable costfor new build more in the £2m bracket.

 

[sprinterguy]

This would cause quite a few knock-on problems though, including fitting in the signalling overlap of Platforms 10-12 at Newcastle (4 cars barely fit between buffers and starter). It just happens that a lot of XC services start from Platforms 10 or 11; 12 is the only alternative bay at that end (before anyone says Platform 9, the 3-car Class 185s struggle to fit in there, so no hope for the voyagers!)

Platform 9 used to be able to squeeze in 5 carriage 158 formations before TPE got their 185s, as shown in the first photo below (Although it's worth noting that the reason I took the shot from such an obscure angle is because the front of the formation was right up alongside the signal at the platform end), so while it would not be possible to fit a 5 carriage Voyager, with their slightly longer carriages, into the platform, it is certainly not true that a 3 carriage 185 "struggles" to fit into platform 9. A four carriage 158 formation used to fit comfortably into platform 9, as the second photo testifies.

Platforms 10 and 11 are similar, and platform 12 would be able to accomodate a five carriage Voyager formation if the existing barrier was moved further along the platform face but track realignment would also be needed.

Plus, Crosscountry services didn't used to use the bay platforms at Newcastle: Prior to squadron introduction of the Voyagers, much use was made of Forth sidings for stabling XC stock out of the way between services, a practice that has largely fallen out of favour but could easily be brought back in use despite Forth sidings not being electrified given that the Voyagers would be bi-mode.

 

[sprinterguy]

IIRC it was platforms 5 to 8 - an Island through platform (since Sunderland is from the High Level Bridge end, which actually leads northbound on the ECML). It is possible to "bend" to 5 cars, but the overlap is blocked and the rest of Plat. 9-12 are out of use for however long it takes. Also, it's a detour for something from Sunderland to approach the west end of NCL.

Ah, didn't see this post though. Still, the problem is not insurmountable by any means.

 

[tbtc]

£188m, 130 carriages, £1.45m each

But also factor in the Voyagers are 23m vs 20m, built for 125mph and fitted out for the longer passenger journeys which would put the comparable costfor new build more in the £2m bracket.

Fair enough, cheers. It still seems like a lot of money to recoup though

 

[ChrisCooper]

P.P.S The article definetley said 'Diesel' and 'Locomotive' though I suppose it could be a generator car rather than actual traction, possibly with a small secondary engine and cab for shunting. I guess it would come down to how quickly or safely you could couple a high voltage power cable to feed into the bus. The emphasis did seem to be on the new coupler design and software that could be refitted to existing Pendos.

The coupler redesign seems to be about it being permenantly exposed and extended, to allow faster coupling. The other big issue would be the high voltage connection for train supply, which would be totally new as currently no autocouplers have a high voltage connection. Software would probably be to allow the loco to operate the EP brakes, to control the doors and to be able to access the TMS. I really don't get the point with generator cars as on the sort of work they would be doing the low speed acceleration advantage that would be achieved from distributed traction would not really make a big difference, yet it would add to the complexity. Power to weight ratio is still the same, and I doubt above 10mph or so there would be any difference, infact gear the loco for 100mph and you'd probably get better acceleration once full power could be put down. Remember a modern loco with modern AC traction and advanced control is going to be able to get far better adhesion that most current locos do anyway.

 

[WatcherZero]

It would have to be geared for 125 (and the usual 10% overspeed safety margin). The weight of the fuel should ensure good traction but adding a powerful set of traction motors does seem to be duplication when they are already available on the train. Theres also the issue of whether top and tailing would be required which might be avoided if it used the existing MU traction motors.

Your right on the voltage hookup which Is why I considered it the obstacle but a similar modification is being made for the eVoyagers while they wont have to couple it. This emphasis on coupler design has me though, if it wasnt a new feature then there would be no need for a new coupler design as the existing coupler would be able to handle the simple commands required.

Alstom is designing a new Pendolino auto coupler for Finnish Railways to be introduced by around 2015 with first prototypes from 2013 and will speed up splitting and coupling at intermediate stations, I wonder if their thinking of using the same new design. The idea is in the cold you dont want staff to have to get out and check the connections and the coupling/decoupling can be commanded remotely from a control centre. The Finnish stock are also being modified with the addition of hot water pipes on the bogies to minimise deicing times during limited depot layovers.

 

[jopsuk]

Coupler design is something that I'm sure UIC TSIs should be sticking their oar into. There's a profusion of proprietary designs, and even where physical connections are the same, electrical connections aren't.

It might require a rethink, and may not be backwards compatible without refits, but surely there should be no technical reason why a standard coupler and communication system should not be able to be created that would allow all stock to work in at least a limited multiple fashion. Just need to create a big enough stick to beat the manufacturers with until they comply.