????
I like travelling on 16X and 22X series trains. The engines do not bother me at all, happy to sleep on these trains in fact. My partner (who has precisely zero interest in trains but who similarly commutes and travels around the UK), cannot tell me what is different about a Networker/Turbostar, Voyager, Desiro, Pendolino or HST, other than they look different on the inside and they are different colored on the outside, i.e. interior fit & livery. When I point out the presence of diesel engines she becomes aware of that particular noise source, but overall says it wouldnt occur to her this was any different to one that didnt have them, and when I point out we are on a train without them, is unable to identify the difference in ambient noise. Id rate her as an intelligent passenger who is not unfussy (definitely not !), but to whom the passion of the poster above appears as the ravings of an obsessive lunatic.
IEP looks a great train to me, the bi-mode seems sensible given the patchy electrification at present, and by no means any certainty over future progress. Having self contained sets must be vastly cheaper in terms of manning and logistics, which from my experience of transport systems in other industries, is always the driver of total system cost. It also seems much more efficient use of resources and time (another driver of cost), than having various fleets of locos, coaches and all trying to carry out loco changes all over the place, which we see on the Caly Sleeper and seems daft.
I think some people need to get out more, or even better, try viewing the world from the perspective of normal people.
Im sorry, but any normal person can tell the difference between engine noise and no engine noise. You cant say someone isnt normal because they can hear an engine underneath them. There are reasons people dont like underfloor engines, and you dont have to be abnormal to not like them.
All this talk of enthusiasts not being normal strikes me as idiocy.
Its like me turning round to someone who doesnt like Pacers, and saying they obviously arent normal if they dont like them. It just doesnt make sense.
Anyway, onto some very normal talk. Various fleets of locos and coaches? Nope. Only 1 type of coach, instead of the 3 types of coaches with IEP (EMU coach, bi mode coach with no diesel engine, and bi mode coach with diesel engine).
Daft loco changes with extra drivers? Now where will the majority of loco changes be taking place? Thats right, Edinburgh. Now in which station do all these affected trains change drivers at anyway? Thats right, Edinburgh. Now, thirdly, for 100 points. In which station do these effected trains sit in for nearly 10mins as it is anyway? Yep, you got it. Its Edinburgh again.
Now a few more questions for you. What is more efficient? A load of small engines, or 1 big engine? Yep, you are getting clever. Its 1 big engine, ie a loco.
What is it that the effected railway managers do not want? Yep, you really are spot on today, its the IEP.
Finally, what has been worked out to be one massive waste of money? Yep, IEP in its current form.
Anyway, as i am obviously abnormal because i can hear diesel engines, I will leave it to the people who know what they are talking about. The managers and engineers who have to deal with IEP. Oh look, they agree with me. IEP is DaFT.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Main thing is its easier to make several smaller low emmission clean engines than a single large one, though there are other advantages to distribution wuch as lower axle weight, more saloon space space, etc...
So im assuming the 68s wont comply with current regs? Youd better tell that to Mr DRS, as i have a feeling he is expecting these things to arrive.
Lower axle weight? Over the length of the train there is little difference.
More saloon space? Im lost. All these gubbins they have taken out of the loco, havent they gone and squeezed it around the passenger on the passenger coach? I thought they had. MUs have LESS saloon space. They even have to start adding extra little cubby holes to fit things in. these cubby holes being above the floor in areas that should be given over to passengers. Most panto coaches usually have lower roof lines as well. Less saloon space.
As for all this talk of locos and DVTs taking up space. Its not quite as clear cut. A third of two 23m coaches are given over to crumple zones. I make that around 15/16m. Only about 3 or 4 m less than the length of a loco.
The DVT also allows the guard to have a decent office. One which doesnt need to take up passenger space as in the pendys.
So in reality, the only extra length is the DVT. This provides fantastic luggage space, which on some trains really is needed, and also allows you to add a nice little gennie, just like Chiltern have shown. Combine this with the increased saloon space on the LHCS, and the fact engineers prefer a nice single large engine, and the fact the nice single large engine is more efficient. Id say all those benefits easily outweigh a single DVT.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I certainly agree using loco hauled coaches and a DVT- it would be a much quieter ride for a start. However, instead of having to change loco's, how about building a combined diesel and electric locomotive? Just think if you had, for example, a class 67 combined with a class 91. That would be a perfect combination (obviously, it would need to be designed from scratch though!) The question is, would there be enough room for all the equipment in one loco, and what would the RA be like?
You would still be carrying a diesel engine and fuel under the wires, but it would be useful for diversions. A ETS generator could be fitted to the DVT (like Chiltern's DVT's) for emergencies as well. Maybe the DVT could also be fitted with motors to enable the DVT to clear the line and the passengers to get off if it was to fail.
This bimode loco is just making life complicated. Have an electric loco, and a seperate diesel loco. A bimode loco would just mean you have to compromise somewhere. Also, with DRS ordering 68s, and Chiltern looking beyond 67s, surely a larger order for 68s is a wise idea, and should save a little bit of money.
The gennie in the DVT also covers the emergency engine included in the electric IEPs. The LHCS option with loco changes and DVT has everything the IEP has, and more, and doesnt have any of the drawbacks.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I certainly agree using loco hauled coaches and a DVT- it would be a much quieter ride for a start. However, instead of having to change loco's, how about building a combined diesel and electric locomotive? Just think if you had, for example, a class 67 combined with a class 91. That would be a perfect combination (obviously, it would need to be designed from scratch though!) The question is, would there be enough room for all the equipment in one loco, and what would the RA be like?
You would still be carrying a diesel engine and fuel under the wires, but it would be useful for diversions. A ETS generator could be fitted to the DVT (like Chiltern's DVT's) for emergencies as well. Maybe the DVT could also be fitted with motors to enable the DVT to clear the line and the passengers to get off if it was to fail.
This bimode loco is just making life complicated. Have an electric loco, and a seperate diesel loco. A bimode loco would just mean you have to compromise somewhere. Also, with DRS ordering 68s, and Chiltern looking beyond 67s, surely a larger order for 68s is a wise idea, and should save a little bit of money.
The gennie in the DVT also covers the emergency engine included in the electric IEPs. The LHCS option with loco changes and DVT has everything the IEP has, and more, and doesnt have any of the drawbacks.
Voyager MKII, only this time with an even more fatal design flaw, that being a bloody great big MTU 'Power Pack' hanging needlessly beneath each carriage!
hock: I really do hope that I am correct in saying that soundproofing and engine silencing has come an awfully long way since the fifties and sixties, and I hope that it has advanced from the Voyager design!
