Intercity Express Programme going ahead

[Zoe]

If you leave it up to he bidders the result could be a non-standard fleet with East Coast choosing a different option to Great Western. Also don't forget the result when it was left to Virgin Cross Country to order stock.

 

[Pumbaa]

It's all very well leaving it up to he bidders but the result could be a non-standard fleet with East Coast choosing a different option to Great Western. Also don't forget the result when it was left to Virgin Cross Country to order stock.

That is true, but I think everyone would prefer two separate incompatible fleets that are suited to the job they will be doing, rather than a homogenous fleet of ill-suited trains. (worst case scenario admittedly).

It looks like Alstom could be doing a lot of consultancy these coming months...

Regards to Virgin, looking forwards but learning backwards seems to be the order of the day here. I would hope that the industry has learnt and moved on from 2001 and can anticipate future demand a little better.

 

[Zoe]

That is true, but I think everyone would prefer two separate incompatible fleets that are suited to the job they will be doing, rather than a homogenous fleet of ill-suited trains. (worst case scenario admittedly).

Which off the shelf EMUs would be best suited for the routes then?

 

[Chris125]

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.

Im not suggesting keeping the whole fleet - just enough for the services which cant be replaced by traditional EMU's, through electrification schemes already approved, those planned, and infill paid for by dropping IEP. Even, if neccesary loco-haulage on certain services which lend themselves to this, especially if the 225's are replaced.

If the rate of electrification planned for the latter part of this decade continues into the next, i dont see why life-extended HST's would have to be kept too far beyond the 2016-18 introduction planned for the IEP bi-modes.

Chris

 

[Pumbaa]

Which off the shelf EMUs would be best suited for the routes then?

Alstom's Pendolino family are well proven. They are already consulting with the current franchise holders of EC and GW, as well as interested parties for the new franchises.

I'm sure both Bombardier and Siemens could easily build upon the Aventra and City platforms that they already offer to market a new intercity EMU.

 

[Zoe]

Alstom's Pendolino family are well proven. They are already consulting with the current franchise holders of EC and GW, as well as interested parties for the new franchises.

Do you really need Pendolini on routes that are not going to benefit much from tilt?

 

[Nym]

Well, I still favour LHCS and there isn't a standard one of them about at the moment, but neither is there a standard 125 EMU that fits our loading gauge... (Other than the 390s)

The only problems I can foresee is the need for autocouplers and the amount of power that needs to be supplied through them, perhaps a two stage coupler is necessary, but nothing is impossible. 3.3kV 3phase shouldn't be an issue for an autocoupler, or possibly 3000V DC rather than the current 1000V

Anywho, if we have a new evolution of LHCS carriage, Mk.X and this becomes the standard design for all LDPE Electric and Diesel and all Inter-Reigonal Diesel (Short rakes with locomotive, avoids the need to order DMUs, as locos can sod off to freight, and the carriages can be inserted into LDPE formations when no longer needed) the price will come down significantly, and if there is a set of standards, production can be put out to tender for Locomotives for different purposes...

If we must have a hauled EMU, Siemens/Bombardier and Alstom both say it's no problem to make it haulable by diesel away from the wires and are willing to provide or tender for such locomotives. I'd be happy with a 10 car EMU or 5 car EMUs that can be coupled with through gangways, although I don't see why you can't just have a 10 car one, running round where you can attach or detach a Diesel loco where needed.

 

[Pumbaa]

Do you really need Pendolini on routes that are not going to benefit much from tilt?

The Pendolino family already offers derivatives that don't tilt. A new Pendolino will not be the same profile as a 390. Indeed, the 390 profile is so small because it is required to tilt.

A non-tilt UK gauge Pendolino would have a larger profile, bigger windows, smaller pillars and be lighter to boot, while keeping all the proven Alstom equipment underneath.

 

[Zoe]

Anywho, if we have a new evolution of LHCS carriage, Mk.X and this becomes the standard design for all LDPE Electric and Diesel and all Inter-Reigonal Diesel (Short rakes with locomotive, avoids the need to order DMUs, as locos can sod off to freight, and the carriages can be inserted into LDPE formations when no longer needed) the price will come down significantly, and if there is a set of standards, production can be put out to tender for Locomotives for different purposes...

The issue with that is that it's still relying on the concept of locomotive and stock which I'm sure quite a few would argue is an outdated concept. Loco hauled stock is never going to give all the benefits of an MU.

 

[Nym]

The issue with that is that it's still relying on the concept of locomotive and stock which I'm sure quite a few would argue is an outdated concept. Loco hauled stock is never going to give all the benefits of an MU.

And an MU will never achieve all the benefits of LHCS...

Namely passenger comfort, interior space, diagram and service flexibility.

 

[ainsworth74]

Loco hauled stock is never going to give all the benefits of an MU.

Might want to find a bunker to take cover in Zoe as I imagine the likes of Rhydgaled and JungleJames will be along shortly to tell you just how wrong you are

Though for the record I agree with you

Namely passenger comfort, interior space, diagram and service flexibility.

Service flexibility? How often do EC change round the formations of their HSTs or IC225s? How often do NXEA? Or FGW? And how often do they do this in service at a terminus or through station? MU operators tend to do it all the time, LHCS users not so much. Also how does LHCS have greater diagramming frequency over MUs?

As for Passenger comfort and interior space I think that has less to do with the MUs as a concept and more to do with crappy interior design on the part of the builders. I for one find 180s to be just about as comfy as HSTs or IC225s (the only negative is the engine noise, but when you're talking about EMUs that's isn't really an issue).

 

[Pumbaa]

Well, I still favour LHCS and there isn't a standard one of them about at the moment, but neither is there a standard 125 EMU that fits our loading gauge... (Other than the 390s)

I seriously doubt if any new LHCS will ever be ordered by the UK, other than for the sleeper services. Knock it as much as you want, it all boils down to £££ at the end of the day and units knock the £££ off in many ways.

I agree that a new Intercity EMU will take some development, but won't hinder the order prohibitively. After spending £31m on not even a finished design for the frankenstein Incredibly Expensive Procurement, I'm sure a few extra £m will be considered palatable to tart up an existing design, such as the Pendolino.

 

[Nym]

Name some of the advantages of an MU over a rake of LHCS, that are valid for LDPE services stopping every 45 - 60mins and formed of 8 carriages or more.

And sorry, but how is an MU cheaper than a rake of carriages?

1 set of traction motors vice 8 for example...

 

[Pumbaa]

And an MU will never achieve all the benefits of LHCS...

Namely passenger comfort, interior space, diagram and service flexibility.

I would argue all of those could be achieved on a well designed MU, just as they'd fall short on a poorly designed passenger coach.

 

[Nym]

So what would it be like on Hitachi's poorly designed MU Coach?

 

[Pumbaa]

Name some of the advantages of an MU over a rake of LHCS, that are valid for LDPE services stopping every 45 - 60mins and formed of 8 carriages or more.

Here we go again...

- Redundancy; an MU will stagger on after isolating a traction motor, whereas the Loco will fail.
- Acceleration; an MU will knock the pants off LHCS in the UK.
- Length; an 8 car LHCS with a DVT and a loco give 8 carriages of accommodation. An MU of the same length gives 10. Win. Convert the DVT to seating; still 9 vs 10. Win again.
- Distribution; equipment beneath the train is lighter, quieter, less energy hungry and gives better acceleration.

MUs are cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, will continue with some bits failed, can still earn money with bits isolated rather than sitting on depot, provide more seats ergo more £££ per trip, maximise space etc. If LHCS was seriously financially considerable, operators would be looking at it. They're not, that speaks volumes.

 

[Nym]

Here we go again...

- Redundancy; an MU will stagger on after isolating a traction motor, whereas the Loco will fail.
- Acceleration; an MU will knock the pants off LHCS in the UK.
- Length; an 8 car LHCS with a DVT and a loco give 8 carriages of accommodation. An MU of the same length gives 10. Win. Convert the DVT to seating; still 9 vs 10. Win again.

Redundancy: Most MU Failiures have resulted in total unit failure either due to transformer failure, control system failure or traction motor failure, the latter usually damaging the control systems in the process. New electric locomotives provide two or sometimes four traction motors, providing an equal level of redundancy to any EMU. I have never known traction motor failure on an MU not result in the unit being slung and thrown out of service, and this being the only 'redundant part' above a locomotive and stock.

Acceleration: You're comparing 1980s locomotives to 2000s units, and probably more relevant, LDPE services don't stop much, so acceleration is less relevant. Shall we compare the acceleration of a 390 to that of a 92 with the same loads?

Length: In an 8 car rake, the locomotive if electric will take up 20m on the front and the rear will be formed of a DBSO carrying 2/3 of a carriage of accomadation, meaning the 'wasted space' is a total of ~28m.
In EMUs and DMUs cabinets are required at the unit ends to carry equipment, these take up at least 1m of usable passenger space in the end of each carriage, putting this at 1m that means that within your equivalent length 9 car EMU we have 18m of passenger carrying space lost, and that's only with 1m of carriage end cabinets in each carriage, as 'under the floor' is full. Equally, an MU will also have ~6 - 8m at each end of the rake for driving cabs, computers etc. (As can be seen on a pendo) totalling up to 30m of non passenger space in a 9 car rake of EMU, the same amount as on a rake with a locomotive. The difference being, if you extend the rake to 12 cars, you gain 10% more space than extending an EMU, and this can be done in a very short space of time compared to changing the length of a unit, that normally needs to be carried out overnight.

 

[Zoe]

LDPE services don't stop much, so acceleration is less relevant.

Maybe not on East Coast and West Coast but on Great Western services can stop as often as every 20 minutes.

 

[Pumbaa]

A lot of the electrical equipment 'above board' can go underneath; the majority of the Pendolino gubbins on board are tilt related, or have been shoved upstairs to make room downstairs.

Acceleration is still important; admittedly a Taurus capable loco over here would be equal, but with all the weight in one place, the MU will then take advantage of lower vehicle costs in Track Access. Currently a Pendolino is more expensive than an HST or 91+Mk4s, but when the tilt equipment disappeared... They worked out removing tilt bogies saved 4t per car, other tilt equipment 2t, then you can actually save weight further with non-tilt profiled cars... Add it up, the MU costs less to run day to day.

I haven't seen anywhere that says locos 'cannot' do regenerative braking, but I haven't seen one that can, so I'll leave that out of the equation.

I am sure currently Pendolino can run round with traction motors isolated, hopefully someone can clarify (eg Western Champion/Respite) so I'll leave that alone too.

So combining Ainsworth74s points above, we have a train that can easily be reconfigured, has more space, costs less to run and maintain... In some countries I'd agree that LHCS is still a viable option, today in the UK is not one such case.

 

[Nym]

Errrr. 91s and 92s have regenerative braking...

Theres gubbins in cabinets at every single unit, not just pendos.

Track access for an LHCS coach is MUCH lower than that of an EMU considering how much less it will weigh compared to something with all the traction equipment in it.

Not to mention the biggest elephant in the room of flexability, you can put any loco on the end of coaches suited to what you want, rather than having many smaller runs of EMU/EDMU/DMU vehicles to do each job, you have a load of coaches that can do the job and shove something on the end for what it needs, Locomotives have lower economies of scale for production than coaching stock.

 

[Pumbaa]

Thanks for that. I didn't know about 92s, but I am sure 91s are not regenerative capable.

Compare a 444 to a 450; 23m to 20m. Same stuff underneath, but more space. With the Pendolino family, less stuff with the same space. Fewer cabinets in a 444 and smaller to boot.

Granted the LHCS coach is cheaper, but loco + 8 coaches + DVT will not be cheaper than a 10 car non-tilt profiled EMU, Alstom have indicated. Granted NR have the final say, Alstom have been working on assumptions.

In case you didn't notice, the UK seems to have forgotten how to shunt in the last 15 years. Most Mk4/Mk3 sets run in a semi-fixed formation, the loco will change. It's a red-herring to say operationally they're simpler. Bombardier have already proved that you can reform a MU set in a few hours if there's a problem, not much difference between the two.

I repeat again - if LHCS was really an option, operators would be looking at. But they're not.

 

[Zoe]

I repeat again - if LHCS was really an option, operators would be looking at. But they're not.

Indeed, it seems no-one wants loco hauled stock, not the TOCs, not the DfT or Network Rail.

 

[Nym]

444s and 450s only have two motored coaches though, not all motored like the IEP Spec...

 

[anthony263]

Which off the shelf EMUs would be best suited for the routes then?

I think alstom proposed using the class 180 bodywork (or something similar) withe traction equipment from the clas 390's.

These units would also have permenant couplers to make it easier to hook up a diesel locomotive to haul the units away from the wires.

Alstom have proposed this option to replace the class 221's used by Virgin on the London - Chester/Holyhead services in addition to being an option for the Great western & east coast fleets.

 

[Pumbaa]

444s and 450s only have two motored coaches though, not all motored like the IEP Spec...

I am assuming that the IEP will be dead, and that the resulting EMU will also be not all motored, like the current Pendolino, 6 out of 9, or 7 out of 11.

 

[Zoe]

I think alstom proposed using the class 180 bodywork (or something similar) withe traction equipment from the clas 390's.

There is still the issue of what to do for the non-electrified sections. Will bi-mode versions be available and if so how is this different to the IEP?

 

[Nym]

I think alstom proposed using the class 180 bodywork (or something similar) withe traction equipment from the clas 390's.

These units would also have permenant couplers to make it easier to hook up a diesel locomotive to haul the units away from the wires.

Alstom have proposed this option to replace the class 221's used by Virgin on the London - Chester/Holyhead services in addition to being an option for the Great western & east coast fleets.

That would work... Just not on the Euston - HHD services, would need to be tilting stock for that...

 

[Pumbaa]

I think alstom proposed using the class 180 bodywork (or something similar) withe traction equipment from the clas 390's.

These units would also have permenant couplers to make it easier to hook up a diesel locomotive to haul the units away from the wires.

Alstom have proposed this option to replace the class 221's used by Virgin on the London - Chester/Holyhead services in addition to being an option for the Great western & east coast fleets.

There is still the issue of what to do for the non-electrified sections. Will bi-mode versions be available and if so how is this different to the IEP?

That would work... Just not on the Euston - HHD services, would need to be tilting stock for that...

Two different solutions being crossed wires here.

Alstom have offered 1) a mini 390 (6 cars) for use on the WCML, fully tilting with non-retractable couplers to replace the 221s, able to do EPS speeds on the WCML and get hauled by a loco on the North Wales coast and 2) a proposed Pendolino variant with a non-tilt profile, which *could* have non-retractable couplers to replace IEP, for use off the wires to Aberdeen etc.

The WC ITT Section 54 states that 221s only need be used until 2016, bidders can indicate replacement stock if they wish, and mechanisms to fund electrification of Crewe - Chester...

 

[ChrisCooper]

I haven't seen anywhere that says locos 'cannot' do regenerative braking, but I haven't seen one that can, so I'll leave that out of the equation.

76s and 77s could do regenerative braking back in the 50s. All the AC electrics can do rheostatic braking, but up until the 92s the control systems were not up to feeding regenerated AC back into the overhead. Various EMUs have had rheostatic braking, but nothing up to the Networker can regenerate for the same reason. Distributed power allows slightly more energy to be regenerated as electric braking can be used down to lower speed. Like with acceleration, on Intercity routes where stopping is infrequent (10-20mins is still infrequent) the difference will be less important.

Another issue with space is that because the underside of units is so packed (and even none powered coaches will have a transformer and other electrical equipment taking up space), other equipment which can be mounted underneath coaches has to go elsewhere, such as toilet tanks, air tanks etc. The fact that the leading 1/3 on a 125mph vehicles is a crumple zone also means more space is lost. The loco itself can be a crumple zone. To give flexability units need to be able to split, which means more cabs and more leading crumple zones, and unless a streamlined gangway can be developed, duplication of all the large bits onboard (two buffets/resteraunts, twice as many disabled toilets etc).

 

[Pumbaa]

To give flexability units need to be able to split, which means more cabs and more leading crumple zones, and unless a streamlined gangway can be developed, duplication of all the large bits onboard (two buffets/resteraunts, twice as many disabled toilets etc).

For the purposes that these units are intended, I think its safe to assume that they will operate in a fixed length. But otherwise yes I'd agree with the above, but these are negated by other benefits of MU over LHCS.