Intercity Express Programme going ahead

[RobShipway]

Your not asking for much are you?

Chris

Ahhh........ no. But as the old saying goes, 'If you don't ask, you don't get!'

 

[Pumbaa]

Is it too much to ask for a comfy seat without a QSK19F rumbling under you?

Passenger Focus surveys last year had EMT 222s as the best Intercity train, better than EC and GW HSTs... Most passengers don't give a monkeys where the engine is. I'd wager as long as they have a seat, they're happy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Zoe, if you wanted you could use underfloor engines on services from Paris to Beijing if you really wanted. But it doesnt mean it is the right thing to do. Virgin introduced DMUs, but that wasnt the correct thing to do.

As shown, the amount of lost space in a HST isnt much more than an MU. This is worth it for the extra comfort you get.

I think it was Pumbaa who said MUs are cheaper to run and maintain. This is untrue. Efficiency wise, LHCS is more efficent than say a 7 car DMU. For electrics, efficiency would be about the same.
As for maintenance. It goes without saying that having one of something is better than having 7 of something, even if they are smaller.

Also, LHCS has similar track access charges to MUs when you get to about 8 coaches.

I've already pointed out that the new EMU Alstom are proposing would have lower access charges than LHCS.

Maintenance wise - the smaller packages of equipment allow them to be swapped out easily, and an set of motors/engines/components can be swapped out overnight for overhaul, allowing the train to run in service the next day. It's not that easy with a loco. If you have a massive pool of spare locos, then yes it could be done, but that's no-where near as economical. 7 diesel engines admittedly are less efficient, electrics are higher, not about the same. Bombardier and Siemens did a joint project for German ICE, they found distributed traction in their new high-speed trains was 33% more efficient, better for acceleration, less noise pollution and etc etc etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thanks

And yes, I have... But some people are stuck in their ways...

Not saying I'm not here, but I don't resort to illogical arguments.

So illogical that all the operators are wrong too? The only consistent shortcomings with DMU/EMUs today could be made with any train (interior design and ride) and that can be solved by better design.

If any operator in the UK orders more LHCS other to keep their current fleet going (a la Sleeper) I will eat my entire hat collection.

 

[HSTEd]

Comparing a seven coach Cl222 with a rake of LHCS is not really fair, as the Cl222 under the normal course of things would have superior power to weight and tractive effort to weight ratios.

Start isolating gensets if you want a fairer comparison.

 

[ainsworth74]

So illogical that all the operators are wrong too?

This really. People keep arguing backwards and forwards about how LHCS is better than MUs and vice versa but this seems to ignoring the fact that all the future inter-city rolling stock on the continent and here is MUs. There must be a reason for it other than just to annoy enthusiasts. I would instead put forward this it's for the reasons outlined by Pumbaa.

 

[tbtc]

This really. People keep arguing backwards and forwards about how LHCS is better than MUs and vice versa but this seems to ignoring the fact that all the future inter-city rolling stock on the continent and here is MUs. There must be a reason for it other than just to annoy enthusiasts. I would instead put forward this it's for the reasons outlined by Pumbaa.

It's noticeable that for all the "locos don't take up much additional space" and "a seven coach train is more efficient for loco hauled" that the ten/twelve coach EMUs proposed for Thameslink and Crossrail have never even considered loco haulage.

 

[Nym]

It's noticeable that for all the "locos don't take up much additional space" and "a seven coach train is more efficient for loco hauled" that the ten/twelve coach EMUs proposed for Thameslink and Crossrail have never even considered loco haulage.

Thats because the're not LDPE services...

 

[sprinterguy]

It's noticeable that for all the "locos don't take up much additional space" and "a seven coach train is more efficient for loco hauled" that the ten/twelve coach EMUs proposed for Thameslink and Crossrail have never even considered loco haulage.

That's not a truly fair comparison though because the Thameslink and Crossrail commuter EMUs have no need for 1/3 of a carriage crumple zones like Intercity units do, the trains will be using every available inch of the platforms, whereas the stations served by long distance services often have platform length to spare and the far superior acceleration and deceleration of distributed traction MUs will be a massive benefit for the regular stop-start nature of Crossrail and Thameslink.

I don't think that anyone is advocating the wholesale application of locos and hauled stock in every possible scenario. It mainly just applies to long distance services, where I don't see why a loco hauled alternative would be that much worse than the EMU equivalent. Although if train designers could just get their act together regarding the specification of train layouts for modern long distance MUs, something that seems to have been lacking in the past ten or so years, then I'd have no preference either way, particularly in the case of EMUs.

 

[tbtc]

That's not a truly fair comparison though because the Thameslink and Crossrail commuter EMUs have no need for 1/3 of a carriage crumple zones like Intercity units do, the trains will be using every available inch of the platforms, whereas the stations served by long distance services often have platform length to spare and the far superior acceleration and deceleration of distributed traction MUs will be a massive benefit for the regular stop-start nature of Crossrail and Thameslink.

I don't think that anyone is advocating the wholesale application of locos and hauled stock in every possible scenario. It mainly just applies to long distance services, where I don't see why a loco hauled alternative would be that much worse than the EMU equivalent. Although if train designers could just get their act together regarding the specification of train layouts for modern long distance MUs, something that seems to have been lacking in the past ten or so years, then I'd have no preference either way, particularly in the case of EMUs.

I appreciate it's not comparing "apples with apples", but I found it odd that I'd not even seen some suggestion of these ten/twelve coach trains running like that.

In fact, I can't think of the last build of trains that loco-hauled was even a contender for(?).

 

[Pumbaa]

In fact, I can't think of the last build of trains that loco-hauled was even a contender for(?).

WC replacement that was buried with the advent of privatisation.

 

[jopsuk]

Though even that was, as with the EC electrics, to have been loco+carriages+DVT fixed formations (so MU in operational style)

 

[Zoe]

I seem to remember that Virgin did consider locomotive hauled stock for longer distance cross country services but in the end decided to go for a uniform fleet of DMUs.

 

[tbtc]

I seem to remember that Virgin did consider locomotive hauled stock for longer distance cross country services but in the end decided to go for a uniform fleet of DMUs.

This gets mentioned from time to time (including a claim of 67s...), but I've never seen any evidence - can anyone shed light?

 

[sprinterguy]

This gets mentioned from time to time (including a claim of 67s...), but I've never seen any evidence - can anyone shed light?

If I get time I'll have a go at digging out the relevant issue of Modern Railways (The Uni library has a vast stash of them going back 25 years) from about ten years ago and scan the relevant article. Fixed formation loco hauled sets were certainly considered for Crosscountry before a uniform fleet of 220s and 221s were procured instead. IIRC the order would have been for 34 sets, not sure how long they were supposed to be though.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Though even that was, as with the EC electrics, to have been loco+carriages+DVT fixed formations (so MU in operational style)

and where exactly has anyone suggested otherwise? No-one is suggesting traditional loco haulage with the need to run around, something that has not seen widespread use since Cross Country had it's locos replaced, and something that hasn't been a feature of a new passenger train since the 87s were introduced in the 70s. The use of driving trailers brings a major advantage of MU operation to hauled stock, i.e the ability to reverse without running around.

 

[87015]

This gets mentioned from time to time (including a claim of 67s...), but I've never seen any evidence - can anyone shed light?

There were definately drawings in ned news etc at the time (who were and still are very chummy with Virgin) for a variety of LHCS options - including single cabbed 67s much like the Zurich S-Bahn locos.

 

[sprinterguy]

Right, the relevant issues of Modern Railways have been dug out (There's an hour of my life that I'm never going to get back!). I'm having some problems with the scanning element of the procedure, but suffice to say that reference is made to an order of locos and hauled stock for Crosscountry in Modern Railways Informed Sources April 1998, May 1998, February 1999 and in "The Voyager Story" in the April 2000 issue. The details are as follows:

The Virgin Crosscountry fleet replacement was announced in March 1998. It consisted of 36 single-ended class 67/1 (Later amended speculatively to class 68) locos and 140 new carriages in four carriage formations, giving 35 rakes. Forty three 4-car tilting Super Voyagers were also specified.

Bombardier were the preferred bidder for this order and would have built the Voyagers and loco hauled carriages, while construction of the class 68s would have required some sort of close liason with Alstom who built the 67s.

The bid was amended in Dcember 1998 to resemble what we now know: The loco hauled sets were replaced by 34 non-tilting Class 220 Voyagers, the class 221 Super Voyager order was extended to forty four trains and forty of them were stretched to five carriages.

So in some ways we were incredibly lucky with the Crosscountry train order we actually ended up with: The initial order was made up entirely of four carriage trains! It would have been fascinating to have seen what the opinion of Crosscountrys' loco hauled trains would have been when they became plagued by the same problems of overcrowding that affected the Voyagers due to their short length, and if Bombardier had come up with a similarly poor internal layout for their loco hauled stock.

 

[tbtc]

Right, the relevant issues of Modern Railways have been dug out (There's an hour of my life that I'm never going to get back!). I'm having some problems with the scanning element of the procedure, but suffice to say that reference is made to an order of locos and hauled stock for Crosscountry in Modern Railways Informed Sources April 1998, May 1998, February 1999 and in "The Voyager Story" in the April 2000 issue. The details are as follows:

The Virgin Crosscountry fleet replacement was announced in March 1998. It consisted of 36 single-ended class 67/1 (Later amended speculatively to class 68) locos and 140 new carriages in four carriage formations, giving 35 rakes. Forty three 4-car tilting Super Voyagers were also specified.

Bombardier were the preferred bidder for this order and would have built the Voyagers and loco hauled carriages, while construction of the class 68s would have required some sort of close liason with Alstom who built the 67s.

The bid was amended in Dcember 1998 to resemble what we now know: The loco hauled sets were replaced by 34 non-tilting Class 220 Voyagers, the class 221 Super Voyager order was extended to forty four trains and forty of them were stretched to five carriages.

So in some ways we were incredibly lucky with the Crosscountry train order we actually ended up with: The initial order was made up entirely of four carriage trains! It would have been fascinating to have seen what the opinion of Crosscountrys' loco hauled trains would have been when they became plagued by the same problems of overcrowding that affected the Voyagers due to their short length, and if Bombardier had come up with a similarly poor internal layout for their loco hauled stock.

Thanks for that, genuinly fascinating stuff that, cheers

 

[Lampshade]

So we could have had 4-car LHCS on XC and 9 car 222s on MML? :roll:

I can just imagine the arguments now - "They should be putting engines under the floor now to allow more space for passengers".

 

[Wolfie]

Passengers don't want to be put above the motor though. Class 222 Meridians were apparently considered for the West of England service but First Great Western managing director, Mark Hopwood, is reported as saying 'stakeholders did not find this acceptable, as they did not like the underfloor diesel engines and cramped interiors of those trains'.

Yet FGW operated, and are about to again, Class 180s which used EXACTLY the same engine in pretty much the same location.....

Are Meridios really any more cramped than 180s?

 

[Nym]

Much!

180s are actually reasonably plesent, even when the're being operated by Northern.

 

[sprinterguy]

I much prefer 180s to the Voyager and Meridian family of trains. Not only is the internal layout markedly better, with better seat to window alignment, more seats around tables and not such a fixation with vast disabled toilets, but it seems to me (admittedly I travel on Voyagers and Meridians a lot more often than I do Adelantes) that the soundproofing between the engine and the passenger saloon is much better too on a 180.

 

[HSTEd]

Im not convinced, they arent really that much better and the Cl180s have a hydraulic transmission which means they can never do anything but burn diesel.

Oh and at high power outputs the tables shake side to side like mad (for some reason they aren't fixed to the side of the carriage).
And I had a seat with a power socket that was behind the table support so I couldn't use it.

 

[Lampshade]

222s aren't bad at all, it's only the joined up seating meaning passengers can't see ahead that makes them appear cramped - which is no big deal at all at a table seat.

Voyagers aren't too bad, although the seat backs are too high and does there really need to be a disabled toilet in EACH carriage? hock:

180s are probably the best post-privatisation intercity train from a passenger perspective though.

 

[Yew]

Haha, try putting something on a hst table (at least on emt) when it passes another one at speed, whole sod of the train moves

 

[Hydro]

The only real problem I had with the one time I used a GC 180 was the shaky table which was cripplingly annoying.

Other than that, internally it was streets ahead of any 220/1/2. Less internal vibration at idle and low revs, better interior space and quieter. Just fix a damn bracket between the coach side and the table underside.

Couple of posters on WNXX seem to tout the idea of a 390 traction package under a 180 style body as a better alternative to the currently mooted IEP, and it makes sense to me.

 

[junglejames]

I've already pointed out that the new EMU Alstom are proposing would have lower access charges than LHCS.

Maintenance wise - the smaller packages of equipment allow them to be swapped out easily, and an set of motors/engines/components can be swapped out overnight for overhaul, allowing the train to run in service the next day. It's not that easy with a loco. If you have a massive pool of spare locos, then yes it could be done, but that's no-where near as economical. 7 diesel engines admittedly are less efficient, electrics are higher, not about the same. Bombardier and Siemens did a joint project for German ICE, they found distributed traction in their new high-speed trains was 33% more efficient, better for acceleration, less noise pollution and etc etc etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So illogical that all the operators are wrong too? The only consistent shortcomings with DMU/EMUs today could be made with any train (interior design and ride) and that can be solved by better design.

If any operator in the UK orders more LHCS other to keep their current fleet going (a la Sleeper) I will eat my entire hat collection.

Maintenance is cheaper with locos. Smaller engines may bve easier to change over, but this is in the event of a total failure this happens usually. How about pure maintenance. The loco is cheaper. Id certainly prefer to maintain 1 large engine instead of 7/8 smaller engines. A lot less work.

As for Alstom and Siemens little project, do you know for sure what they were comparing against? Companies are very good at doing these little comparisons to suit them. Its only later you realise they were comparing new of one item against old of another. I hope they werent comparing their EMUs against old locos?
Acceleration wise yes MUs are quicker, but i dont care about acceleration. We are on about Intercity services here. Acceleration does not matter much. Ive yet to hear any passengers complain about the acceleration of their 225 set that they are travelling on.
Noise pollution. Rubbish. It goes without saying that MUs are louder across the whole length of the train except for where the loco is. Even then, for diesels, the MU will probably be just as loud as the loco. A small engine will need to be very high revving for 125mph operation. A large loco engine doesnt need to be high revving, so will actually be quite quiet. For example Im pretty sure A HST power car is quieter than a single coach of a 22x.

Anyway, the important areas are inside the coaches, and LHCS is definitely quieter there. You can provide all these surveys you want about who prefers what, but do you know what questions were asked, and what the participants were thinking of when they answered? Do you know if the participants voting for 222s had experience of decent LHCS stock?

If you want a fair test, get 1000 people, and let them all experience both types. 222s, then a decent set of LHCS. Lets say Mk4s. They must experience both types when underway. You have to ensure everybody knows it is just the noise they are comparing, and you have to ask them which train was the most pleasant environment based on the noise.

Now you will have a fair picture.

A good way of looking at it though. Why do you see no firm proposals for DMU operated sleepers? Sleepers being the train where the best environment is needed. Its because DMUs dont provide the best environment, and operators know they wouldnt get away with it.

As for why operators arent going for LHCS. Its because manufacturers dont like building Locos and stock, and because it is Mainly because you cant get both built in the same factory. Its down to short term gain and ease of manufacture.

I can accept that you like to sit onboard a vibrator of a 22x, and i have no problems with that. Its probably very enjoyable for you. However it doesnt get away from the fact that unpowered coaches provide a better atmosphere. Both space wise (due to the extra equipment in the passenger areas as mentioned by Nym), and due to the quietness.
Oh, and one of the shortcomings of MUs cannot be overcome with better design. Sorry, 2 problems. Both of the problems ive just mentioned.

 

[Pumbaa]

Couple of posters on WNXX seem to tout the idea of a 390 traction package under a 180 style body as a better alternative to the currently mooted IEP, and it makes sense to me.

The '180' style body is an easier way of saying 'non-tilting Pendolino derivative from Alstom's existing Pendolino family'. And yes I'm sure you've noticed, Tony Miles is well briefed on the current offerings.

Someone else today (not on WNXX) has signalled that Angel are hands down refusing to accept IEP and are pushing hard for Alstoms product. DfT have already approached Porterbrook and Eversholt, both of which said 'NO' to any part financing of IEP.

 

[Temple Meads]

Voyagers aren't too bad, although the seat backs are too high and does there really need to be a disabled toilet in EACH carriage? hock:

In a HST it would be just about acceptable, but it robs vital seating space in Voyagers!

 

[ChrisCooper]

I'm not sure if it's ever been confirmed, but the 3 disabled toilets on the Voyagers is usually put down to the fact that they were originally going to have 3 classes, like planes (which can have 4 or 5 classes even) and that each class needed a disabled toilet. The 3 class idea was abandoned before delivery, but by that time it was too late to amend the spec. The 3 class idea I'm fairly sure is true, although I've not seen concrete evidance of it. The second part about one toilet per class seems odd though considering how many trains have first class but only one accessible toilet, including many times where the disabled toilet is not accessible from first class (or any toilet for that matter without passing through standard class).

 

[Pumbaa]

Maintenance is cheaper with locos. Smaller engines may bve easier to change over, but this is in the event of a total failure this happens usually. How about pure maintenance. The loco is cheaper. Id certainly prefer to maintain 1 large engine instead of 7/8 smaller engines. A lot less work.

Oh you'd prefer it would you? EMT maintain their 222s at Derby Etches Park at an all-in cost much lower than the HST fleet at Neville Hill. For comparison, man hours are higher at Derby but component costs higher at NH. The 222 fleet is also twice the size (27 trains compared to 12 HSTs). Allowing for the differing age of the fleet, the cost would (according to EMTs fleet director in an interview for electrification study, reproduced in 2 differing publications) still be lower

As for Alstom and Siemens little project, do you know for sure what they were comparing against? Companies are very good at doing these little comparisons to suit them. Its only later you realise they were comparing new of one item against old of another. I hope they werent comparing their EMUs against old locos?

They were comparing them against their own recent products in Europe. A handy chart and table of comparison figures.

Acceleration wise yes MUs are quicker, but i dont care about acceleration. We are on about Intercity services here. Acceleration does not matter much. Ive yet to hear any passengers complain about the acceleration of their 225 set that they are travelling on.

You may not care, operators do. Whats the point of having any power if you can't put it down when it starts to drizzle? Distributed traction yields consistent performance benefits day in day out. Any high end energy consumption benefits from one loco are offset as soon as conditions are anything but perfect.

Noise pollution. Rubbish. It goes without saying that MUs are louder across the whole length of the train except for where the loco is. Even then, for diesels, the MU will probably be just as loud as the loco. A small engine will need to be very high revving for 125mph operation. A large loco engine doesnt need to be high revving, so will actually be quite quiet. For example Im pretty sure A HST power car is quieter than a single coach of a 22x.

Really? This 2006 study in Ireland gives the following noise levels for a heavy DMU, a light DMU and a diesel locomotive for procurement on new stock:

Light DMU
Stationary (all engines idling) - 70.9
Full throttle at 50mph - 78.1

Heavy DMU
Stationary (all engines idling) - 72.0
Full throttle at 50mph - 78.8

Diesel locomotive
Stationary (all engines idling) - 80
Full throttle at 50mph - 88

All measurements are given in dBA.

Following this study, and considering other aspects including vibration, energy consumption and public safety, the option for DMU was taken. Locomotive hauled stock was the first option to be dumped (surprise surprise).

Anyway, the important areas are inside the coaches, and LHCS is definitely quieter there. You can provide all these surveys you want about who prefers what, but do you know what questions were asked, and what the participants were thinking of when they answered? Do you know if the participants voting for 222s had experience of decent LHCS stock?

Of course I don't. We can split hairs for a long time over the methods used, but the industry standard survey is accepted by all parties. Apart from you it seems.

If you want a fair test, get 1000 people, and let them all experience both types. 222s, then a decent set of LHCS. Lets say Mk4s. They must experience both types when underway. You have to ensure everybody knows it is just the noise they are comparing, and you have to ask them which train was the most pleasant environment based on the noise.

True, at the moment I don't disagree that a MK3 is quieter than 222 carriage. I would argue that the noise levels are already at the same level than a MK4 in a 390 car for example, and seeing as no-one is going to build any more DMUs, this is the argument worth concentrating on.

A good way of looking at it though. Why do you see no firm proposals for DMU operated sleepers? Sleepers being the train where the best environment is needed. Its because DMUs dont provide the best environment, and operators know they wouldnt get away with it.

Aside from the fact that we are reluctant to keep our sleepers going, I agree that a DMU sleeper would be undesirable. An EMU sleeper on the other hand I think is perfectly acceptable.

As for why operators arent going for LHCS. Its because manufacturers dont like building Locos and stock, and because it is Mainly because you cant get both built in the same factory. Its down to short term gain and ease of manufacture.

Err, what? Take a browse of any recent album from Krefeld or Bruges, take a look through the Innotrans factory. Plenty of locos being churned out for freight or for systems where locos are still a good idea. Give any manufacturer enough money and they'll build you what they want.

I can accept that you like to sit onboard a vibrator of a 22x, and i have no problems with that. Its probably very enjoyable for you. However it doesnt get away from the fact that unpowered coaches provide a better atmosphere. Both space wise (due to the extra equipment in the passenger areas as mentioned by Nym), and due to the quietness.
Oh, and one of the shortcomings of MUs cannot be overcome with better design. Sorry, 2 problems. Both of the problems ive just mentioned.

Very gracious of you. I refer you to my previous point of the 444s to answer the first problem, and with better design more still can be put underneath. You also forget that any coaching stock has a similar cabinet at each end including banks of relays for the circuits on board each individual coach.

So to answer your sum points;

- External noise (on DMUs) is lower.
- Internal noise (on both EMU and DMU) can be overcome on better interior design. With EMUs we are pretty much there.
- Equipment is stored wherever on both MU and coaching stock. Look to both the 222 and 444 for examples of where it has been done well. And the 172s actually for a modern example, just one cabinet no deeper than 2 seats for the entire 2 coach train.

And again I implore you; if I am spouting a load of nonsense, then so is the entire industry. An entire collection of operators, engineers, financiers and passengers cannot be wrong (I will admit the "everyone can't be wrong" mantra falls down on closer inspection when applied to say, the Great War, but not for a dynamic and constantly evolving industry).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thanks for that, genuinly fascinating stuff that, cheers

Also see the bottom of this page: http://www.therailwaycentre.com/Recognition Pictures Loco/Artists_loco.html
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not sure if it's ever been confirmed, but the 3 disabled toilets on the Voyagers is usually put down to the fact that they were originally going to have 3 classes, like planes

Correct. At the bottom of this page:

http://www.therailwaycentre.com/Recognition Pictures Loco/Artists_emu.html

Are the standard and 'luxury' class drawings from Virgin. First is missing. Admittedly it is for the Pendolino, but the same concept was being applied to their new trains for XC.