Intercity Express Programme going ahead

[Zoe]

You could also control each individual square inch of the screen independently if you want, so in theory you could have the name of the station appear on the window.

Or you could just not have any windows at all but have cameras outside and LCD screens inside where the windows would be.

 

[Yew]

Or you could just not have any windows at all but have cameras outside and LCD screens inside where the windows would be.

Somehow, I think glass will be cheaper.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Oh god, I can just see it now, the default setting of the "windows" will be advertising, and (largely useless) "information," and you have to pay if you actually want to see out the window. Perhaps for first class it will show an image of travelling through wonderful rolling countryside, instead of the endless urban sprawl that will probably be more true by then.

 

[HSTEd]

Lots of water under the bridge since then, it was kicked into touch a while back when they changed spec to underfloor engines and a number of smaller transformers also distributed through the train;

Ooh distributed transformers, now that is a turn up for the books.... now I'm slightly more pro-IEP than before as this is something I want to happen for the sake of all axle motored high speed trains.

 

[Nym]

Except appart from weight reduction in some carriages, there is sod all benefit to using smaller transformers rather than larger ones. Other than having a nice 50Hz buzz in every sodding carriage...

 

[HSTEd]

Except appart from weight reduction in some carriages, there is sod all benefit to using smaller transformers rather than larger ones. Other than having a nice 50Hz buzz in every sodding carriage...

Spreading the weight of the transformer around allows lower peak axle weight which enables more traction motors to be fitted on more axles.
And if they ever do manage to make kilohertz range power transformers we might even have a day when the transformer buzz is above the range of human hearing.

Oh and you don't need a 25kV AND ~3.3kV bus, reducing weight and complexity (hotel loads can come off the power transformer, and if your hauling the train you can connect a ~3.3kV line to the end carriage's transformer and isolate the traction motors)

It also means that it is far easier to build trains can that rapidly change lengths without having enormous transformer dead weights being lugged around whether you need them or not.
The only limitation is the 25kV bus diameter and the pantograph capacity, which are both a lot lighter to overengineer than transformers (especially as you could always run with both of the train's pans up), so you literally have to unbolt the 25kV bus between two carriages, split the train and put another carriage ina dn bolt it back up again, then press a button on the control system at one end of the train to "re-poll" all carriages and reconfigure the TMS accordingly.

It gives you near LHCS flexibility from an EMU.

 

[Nym]

Very fair set of points...

One is now wondering if this could be the next generation of LHCS...?

 

[HSTEd]

They apparently make bayonet type connectors up to ~20-30kV DC rated to 20-30 amps, which although is far too weedy for our applications does raise the possibility of making a 25kV AC autocoupler, which would take that concept to the absolute extreme.

"Polling" carriages that would undoubtedly have network adaptors with differing MAC addresses also satisfies the ERTMS Level 3 completeness check since you could do it every second or so and see if any carriage fails to answer.

 

[Nym]

Such a 'Polling' action could just be built into the standard atop of an Ethernet connection using the multicast NETBIOS or WHOIS commands.

If we where getting into the realm of distributed traction with a generator car being able to be added, providing oh, I dunno, 5000hp to the formation using a 25kV overhead bus to transfer power, and distrubited traction...

I'd proberbly see autocouplers being placed on the roof for the 25kV bus, with some kind of interlock clamp autocoupler and VCBs on the roofs of each carriage, so it remains isolated when coupling, then when coupled, closes the gap between the HT connectors, joining together and clamping automatically.

 

[HSTEd]

We would really need to find out how light such a diesel power unit could be, if we want to keep the train as light as possible to get higher speed differentials in more places.
It doesn't need to develop high tractive effort so its all about how light the engine is.

Also might have trouble mounting the 25kV bus on the roof of the end vehicles as to obtain the speeds you need it would have to have a pointy front end, which means there would be no roof for a tacked-on power unit to attach to.

Unless you want to splice the power unit into the middle which would be annoying and break the train in half.
Could just have the front of the DVM have the connector at the coupler level, isolated during normal operation.

A single vehicle would have to draw roughly 600kVA from its transformer, and would be fitted with a pair of VCBs (one at each end of the bus through the vehicle). The VCBs add up to roughly 200kg total (rated for 1000A so no limit on train length there) and the transformer would weigh something from 600kg (for a standard frequency one) to 150kg (for a Medium Frequency one once those arrive) which is somewhere between 350kg and 800kg total extra weight on each vehicle.

Which I think you will agree is not that major, especially if MF transformers become practical at that scale soon.

 

[TGV]

A 600kVA trasnformer at 600kg? Not in my experience. You'd be looking at over twice that weight. I've recently specced and fitted a 5.5kVA transformer for a rail application and it weighed 120kg.

 

[HSTEd]

A 600kVA trasnformer at 600kg? Not in my experience. You'd be looking at over twice that weight. I've recently specced and fitted a 5.5kVA transformer for a rail application and it weighed 120kg.

ABB and Bomardier also publish information about 6MVA traction transformers that weigh roughly 6 tonnes, there appears to be major nonlinear weight effects in play.

Which is annoying.
I will continue research.

EDIT:

What was the output voltage of that transformer?
Here we are looking for roughly 3kV output and then there could be a far smaller 3kV - 400V "hotel" transformer.

 

[TGV]

Although it is a few years old, a typical TGV-R or Duplex transformer rated at around 5MVA weighs approx 8000kg dry. 8500kg with oil. That weight also includes pumps, pipes, heat exchangers and fans.

 

[HSTEd]

Although it is a few years old, a typical TGV-R or Duplex transformer rated at around 6MVA weighs approx 8000kg dry. 8500kg with oil. That weight also includes pumps, pipes, heat exchangers and fans.

Bombardier is making a huge song and dance over the lightweight nature of the traction transformers in the ALP-45DP as well, those are ten tonnes and can handle full power on 25Hz.

This is very annoying.

Hopefully MF Transformers will arrive and render this moot.

 

[swt_passenger]

Ooh distributed transformers, now that is a turn up for the books.... now I'm slightly more pro-IEP than before as this is something I want to happen for the sake of all axle motored high speed trains.

2 or 3 per train dependent on length, like 390s. Not throughout the whole train as I may have implied...

 

[HSTEd]

2 or 3 per train dependent on length, like 390s. Not throughout the whole train as I may have implied...

Oh well, theres always the next project.


Oh and it appears that a ~600kW ~6kHz traction transformer rig with DC-DC conversion and a tapping point for a hotel load inverter (or two even?) would weigh something like 200kg all up.

Which is rather mroe like it.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Traditional TDM (although this is pointless now as it's only 90s, 47s and 57s that use it, but it's a good use for the 90s, plenty of life left in them!)

How could you forget the 91s, surely they have TDM! Sadly I think you are wrong about 47s and 57s having TDM (47/7s had it once, and might still do so, but I've been told on here that it was an incompatible form of TDM that was only suitable for use with DBSOs which were then converted to work with 87s or 86s and 90s). It means we can't use LHCS on diesel routes without modifying DVTs to other control systems, rather than just being able to stick the current DVTs and DBSOs on a train as they are. Now if we converted another batch of 47s to 57s, with TDM and a greater focus on making something reliable this time, we might be able to get things moving.

The silly thing is, diesel locos are always more eco friendly. But you have a handful that try and claim voyagers etc use less fuel. Even a 47 and 7/8 coaches uses less fuel than an 8 car voyager. But its to be expected. Physics tells you that 1 loco is going to be more economical than 7 or 8 powered coaches.
Its only when you get to the electrics that there is very little difference. You still get those claiming EMUs are better, but thats only when they compare a fantasy EMU (ive seen someone try and explain that a pendy could be ultra amazing if you improved it for heavens sake) to an 80s electric loco. Compare like for like, and there will be next to no difference. Unpowered coaches will still be quieter though.

Take a 1990 locomotive (class 91), nine mark 4 coaches and several tons of practically wasted space (the DVT) and it matches the 'fuel' economy (per seat km) of a 9-car Pendolino. Turn the Pendo's regenerative braking off to level the playing field and the IC225 will probablly take the lead (that would be a silly thing to do though, put seats in the DVT though and the Pendo's fuel ecconomy per-seat should be beaten soundly). However, you can't really compare like-with-like, since nobody's ever built an EMU which is similar enough to an existing LHCS rake, or vice versa.

With a bi-mode MU though all you have to do is remove the engines once electrification of the route is complete. You wouldn't need to build a new electric loco.

So you end up with sky high development costs to incorporate this new engine and then a pile of useless engines in 10 - 15 years, good play...

Maybe longer than 10-15 years but due to climate change diesel engines are not likely to be an option in the long term so best to plan for the possibility of running without them.

So why not save the cost of building the diesel engines, and the climate change impact of running them, and have a diesel-free IEP EMU or electric LHCS rake?

But thinking sensibly, yes, an IC225 type train. DVT at the end with no passengers in it. Gives space for luggage and bikes etc which we wouldnt find space for if it was full of passengers.

An IC225 like train would be great, especially if we had the afformentioned reliable TDM-fitted 57s which could take over from the electric loco away from the wires. However, I disagree that the DVT should still be empty, use it for passengers so we can have more legroom throughout the train and have at least as many seats in total. There would probablly still be the passenger-free crumple zone in the DVT which I'm sure could have a few bikes or suitcases parked in it.


---------------------------------------------------

Anyway, far more useful right now than trying to specify the next generation of LHCS stock I think would be to find a way to make the DfT drop all diesel engines from IEP. Then, to keep Hitachi and the proposed workers at the north-east's assembly plant happy order a climate-friendly diesel-free Hitachi IEP EMU fleet for some (maybe all) East Coast routes, and Paddington-Oxford/Bristol/Cardiff (Swansea too if you can't get the LHCS) and Cheltenham.

 

[Zoe]

So why not save the cost of building the diesel engines, and the climate change impact of running them, and have a diesel-free IEP EMU or electric LHCS rake?

As the trains needs replacing now but you can't electrify all the routes in the next five years. Bi-mode is better than a new fleet of DMUs as once eletrification is complete you can just remove the engines and you have a fleet of EMUs.

 

[junglejames]

As the trains needs replacing now but you can't electrify all the routes in the next five years. Bi-mode is better than a new fleet of DMUs as once eletrification is complete you can just remove the engines and you have a fleet of EMUs.

But the trains dont need replacing yet. You have time to do all the wiring you need. Just fit power doors to the HSTs (they are keeping HSTs for Penzance, so you may as well keep them all until you have done the wires). The HSTs themselves are much better than this Bi Mode rubbish. Can the Bi modes even reach 125mph on diesel? Anyway, even if you did need to replace them now, LHCS with loco changes, or EMUs (not Hitachi though), being dragged off the wires.

 

[Rhydgaled]

But the trains dont need replacing yet. You have time to do all the wiring you need. Just fit power doors to the HSTs (they are keeping HSTs for Penzance, so you may as well keep them all until you have done the wires). The HSTs themselves are much better than this Bi Mode rubbish. Can the Bi modes even reach 125mph on diesel? Anyway, even if you did need to replace them now, LHCS with loco changes, or EMUs (not Hitachi though), being dragged off the wires.

Precisely, IC125s don't need replacing yet. Personally though I expect they would want to fit power doors to as few sets as possible to save costs, so I suggest keeping some and replacing the rest with your alternatives, LHCS with loco changes and EMUs (yes Hitachi ones, anything that kills off that new assembly plant would be unpopular, so Hitachi IEP has to happen, just please not with diesel engines), being dragged off the wires.

By 2020, we should be able to add Crewe - Chester, Cardiff - Swansea and Swindon - Cheltenham electrification at least. East Coast can stick a 67 on the front of a Hitachi EMU to reach Lincon, Hull and Harrogate (if the latter two aren't wired by then also) and Aberdeen and Inverness (with the timetable changed a bit so the 67 that goes up on the sleepers comes back to Edinbrough on an East Coast service, and vise versa).

Paddington - Cheltenham/Oxford/Cardiff and some Bristol services will then be IEP EMU operated also. The faster Bristol services, and the Paddington - Swansea services (I think the plan is for them to observe only two stops in England, Paddington and either Bristol Parkway or Reading, after electrification) would then be LHCS operated, either cascaded IC225s from giving East Coast more IEP EMUs, new stock or mark 3s with new electric locos. Existing diesel locos (class 47 with many reliablity mods (perhaps the engines from stored class 66s) and TDM installation) would take over from the electric loco on the push-pull sets for journeys beyond Swansea. The IC125s are the right choice for anything that runs from Paddington to Devon and Cornwall. That leaves the Cotswolds line, to be sorted with 14 5-car bi-mode 220s, released by giving XC all the WCML 221s (lengthened to 7-car bi-mode) after Chester is electrified and th WCML operator gains more Pendolinos (which would be dragged to Bangor/Holyhead by a 57, or take away the 2-hourly Cardiff - Holyhead service and put one to Manchester instead so North Wales can have an electrified railway too). If there is to be a semi-fast Paddington - Taunton/Exeter service to allow the Paddington - Plymouth/Penzance via Westbury trains to call at fewer stations, the 180s soon to go on the Cotswolds line would be moved to that service.

As an alternative to the extra Pendos and wires to Chester the 14 bi-mode 220s could be released from XC by retaining more IC125s and giving them to XC (2+6 sets replacing 5/4-car 220s?).

 

[Chris125]

As the trains needs replacing now but you can't electrify all the routes in the next five years. Bi-mode is better than a new fleet of DMUs as once eletrification is complete you can just remove the engines and you have a fleet of EMUs.

Not only can HST's be kept going, they will be anyway - bi-mode IEP wont be venturing over the Devon Banks.

A far better long term solution would be to to release enough (potentially bi mode) Voyagers and Meridians in the next 10-15 years to fully retire the HST's - this could be done through wiring the MML, which is almost certain to happen anyway, and enough GWML/Cross Country infill to make up the numbers.

...it also solves what to do with the 220/221/222 fleet when they get cascaded from long distance services by electrification - if bi-mode IEP's are built there'll be far too many long distance, diesel powered units with another 20-30 years of life left when electrification is seen as the future.

Chris

 

[Greenback]

Not only can HST's be kept going, they will be anyway - bi-mode IEP wont be venturing over the Devon Banks.

A far better long term solution would be to to release enough (potentially bi mode) Voyagers and Meridians in the next 10-15 years to fully retire the HST's - this could be done through wiring the MML, which is almost certain to happen anyway, and enough GWML/Cross Country infill to make up the numbers.

Chris

The south west has only occasionally received brand new stock in my lifetime. I can see that hand me downs may be the best option in the future.

 

[Zoe]

Not only can HST's be kept going, they will be anyway - bi-mode IEP wont be venturing over the Devon Banks.

These will most likely be the best of the current fleet that will remain in service. I doubt the entire fleet will be in a good state.

A far better long term solution would be to to release enough (potentially bi mode) Voyagers and Meridians in the next 10-15 years to fully retire the HST's - this could be done through wiring the MML, which is almost certain to happen anyway, and enough GWML/Cross Country infill to make up the numbers.

In the case of Paddington to Plymouth/Penzance 221/222s may well be a good choice but this route isn't planned for bi-mode IEP. The other routes have significant electric sections and so will benefit in using electric power when under the wires and once the electrification of these routes is complete the engines can be removed and you have a fleet of EMUs.

 

[anthony263]

These will most likely be the best of the current fleet that will remain in service. I doubt the entire fleet will be in a good state.



In the case of Paddington to Plymouth/Penzance 221/222s may well be a good choice but this route isn't planned for bi-mode IEP. The other routes have significant electric sections and so will benefit in using electric power when under the wires and once the electrification of these routes is complete the engines can be removed and you have a fleet of EMUs.

I know stakeholders said they didnt want the class 222's which is what FGW looked at using on the London - Penzance services as an alternative to life extending some hst's

 

[Zoe]

I know stakeholders said they didnt want the class 222's which is what FGW looked at using on the London - Penzance services as an alternative to life extending some hst's

I don't know why people object to the use of underfloor engines on this route considering they are used on much longer routes.

 

[Pumbaa]

I wouldn't bother speculating too much. Various parties who intend to bid for both GW and EC have both already indicated that they will all advocate not using IEP and instead provide details of alternative traction. As long as ALL bidders state that they won't use IEP, it won't be a problem. And knowing industry collusion, I'd say that's a safe bet.

It ties in, what with IEP close and bid submission deadline being together.

 

[Zoe]

I wouldn't bother speculating too much. Various parties who intend to bid for both GW and EC have both already indicated that they will all advocate not using IEP and instead provide details of alternative traction.

If the DfT have already committed the IEP order though by the time the franchises go to tender, how much say with the bidders have?

 

[Pumbaa]

If the DfT have already committed the IEP order though by the time the franchises go to tender, I'm not sure the bidders will have that much say in it.

But that's exactly it. By coinciding the deadline with the tender submission, DfT have a get-out clause for not going ahead with it.

Plus, as the main proponent of IEP is no longer working on the programme (thank ***) other industry insiders and heavyweights have been a little more forthcoming with their reservations. It is speculated (note, speculated, I am merely repeating industry rumour mill) that Greening has finally been briefed on what a ridiculous idea it is, now that the project saviour has been removed.

I won't take it as dead until it is officially killed, but I think it looks more and more likely every week.

 

[Zoe]

Plus, as the main proponent of IEP is no longer working on the programme

Philip Hammond?

 

[Pumbaa]

Philip Hammond?

Stuart Baker - a suit with no comprehension of the railway at all it would seem.