MTU to supply diesel powerpacks for Intercity Express Programme

[HSTEd]

We have stated that single engines are more energy efficient than smaller ones, and although in some cases MU's have greater acceleration, its not that important on IC routes, and is uaually down to the MU's being overpowered and thirsty. More thrifthy DMU's sunce as 168's have lower eacceleration than a 67 and 6 coaches on IC routes.

While the engine itself might be more energy efficient, you are carrying 30+t of traction weight around that is effectively dead weight and would be unneccesary in a multiple unit formation.

The thirstiness of DMus is as you say primarily down to the fact that multiple units are far higher powereda nd can thus accelerate at rates that loco hauled sets can only dream of.

168s are hamstrung by thier hydraulic gearboxes that limit acceleration performance, as I understand it they likely consume rather less fuel than a 67 hauled 6 coach formation as well, since a 6 car 168 would have only 2400hp compared to the 3000+ of the Class 67.

If they had electric transmissions however it is highly likely they would easily beat the Class 67 in acceleration thanks to superior power to wieght ratio and a superior amount of tractive effort/tonne of train.

 

[DarloRich]

Loco hauled services with loco changes are just too complicated to operate reliably these days

Why? Why are they any more complicated than they were when cross country trains used to change locomotives at Birmingham? If both the diesel and electric locomotives are designed with the same control interface with the carriage it should just be a case of swapping them over. if designed in form the outset it should cause no trouble.

rather than ~12-20t of diesel engines/fuel for the entire route, most of which is under electric traction with its reduced energy use.

But do you have reduced energy consumption? The train is ~12-20t heavier than it needs to be. That is more weight to carry about, more weight to speed up and slow down and more weight to move. This is going to need to draw more power from the grid meaning more power must be generated.

However, my real concern is that passenger comfort will come roughly bottom in the list of deliverables in the contract. We will get a Voyager/Pendo specification rather than an HST/MKIV specification with all the problems that entails for long distance travel.

but i am not normal so who cares what i think. I must be some Luddite troll living in a cave because i happen to think that modern doesn't always mean better.

 

[HSTEd]

Why? Why are they any more complicated than they were when cross country trains used to change locomotives at Birmingham? If both the diesel and electric locomotives are designed with the same control interface with the carriage it should just be a case of swapping them over. if designed in form the outset it should cause no trouble.

You have to either have a locomotive sit around in the station blocking off a platform or you have to path lots of light locomotives moving around all over the place through your station throats.
There are a lot more trains moving around than there were in the days when loco swaps were normal.

But do you have reduced energy consumption? The train is ~12-20t heavier than it needs to be. That is more weight to carry about, more weight to speed up and slow down and more weight to move. This is going to need to draw more power from the grid meaning more power must be generated.

But instead of the train being 12-20t heavier over the entire route, you have a train that is 80t heavier over the diesel section (since you now have two entirely seperate traction systems, one in the EMU and one in the Loco), this means that overall you end up worse off using a locomotive to drag the EMU than just having a bi mode EMU.
Extra tonne-mileage under electric power is less deleterious than tonne-mileage under diesel power as the electrics have access to cheaper energy and regenerative braking, both of which reduce the costs of hauling the diesel engines substantially.

 

[DarloRich]

You have to either have a locomotive sit around in the station blocking off a platform or you have to path lots of light locomotives moving around all over the place through your station throats.
There are a lot more trains moving around than there were in the days when loco swaps were normal.

That isn't a real reason, You can over come this with some minor infrastructure works and sensible planning. Lets be honest how many changes are we talking about? How many through trains are there form London to Inverness/Aberdeen/ Fishgaurd/ Penzance?

But instead of the train being 12-20t heavier over the entire route, you have a train that is 80t heavier over the diesel section (since you now have two entirely seperate traction systems, one in the EMU and one in the Loco), this means that overall you end up worse off using a locomotive to drag the EMU than just having a bi mode EMU.
Extra tonne-mileage under electric power is less deleterious than tonne-mileage under diesel power as the electrics have access to cheaper energy and regenerative braking, both of which reduce the costs of hauling the diesel engines substantially.

I am not suggesting you have a EMU at all. I am suggesting a DVT, a rake of coaches and an engine.

One engine that changes. Once. A diesel locomotive that has more than one purpose, a mixed traction engine if you will.

 

[tbtc]

Why? Why are they any more complicated than they were when cross country trains used to change locomotives at Birmingham?

It worked in the past.

But there's hardly enough platform space / paths through the tunnels for the current level of services.

Finding time/ space for locos to join/ split from trains in New Street in 2012? Nightmare.

 

[ainsworth74]

That isn't a real reason, You can over come this with some minor infrastructure works and sensible planning. Lets be honest how many changes are we talking about? How many through trains are there form London to Inverness/Aberdeen/ Fishgaurd/ Penzance?

You can then go the other way and say, why should we spend £x millions to accommodative loco changes on a few trains per day when we could just use the same train throughout and turn on the engines where needed?

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes in a diesel multiple unit you do lose a little bit of saloon space (mostly headroom) compared to an Electric multiple, displaced equipment from the underfloor is mostly moved to the roof and a small electronics cabinet though that requirement has shrunk hugely over the years from minaturisation of electronics and traction motors are now routinely mounted within the bogies themselves further reducing space requirements, however on a diesel-electric locomotive your losing 30-40% of the entire driving cars passenger carrying space on each end to the engine and fuel storage as its not underfloor mounted.

If you want to see how much space is taken up by the same engine power in locomotive form look no further than the UK light.

http://www.vossloh-innotrans.com/media/downloads/pdfs/vrv/Vossloh_UKLIGHT_us.pdf

That is all lost saloon space.

 

[Yew]

Yes in a diesel multiple unit you do lose a little bit of saloon space (mostly headroom) compared to an Electric multiple, displaced equipment from the underfloor is mostly moved to the roof and a small electronics cabinet though that requirement has shrunk hugely over the years from minaturisation of electronics and traction motors are now routinely mounted within the bogies themselves further reducing space requirements, however on a diesel-electric locomotive your losing 30-40% of the entire driving cars passenger carrying space on each end to the engine and fuel storage as its not underfloor mounted.

If you want to see how much space is taken up by the same engine power in locomotive form look no further than the UK light.

http://www.vossloh-innotrans.com/media/downloads/pdfs/vrv/Vossloh_UKLIGHT_us.pdf

That is all lost saloon space.

Dpt forget the 'cabinets' full of equiipment at each end of every car, that soon adds up to more lost space than a locomotive. Over a 9 car MU you have 16m of space taken up by these, add this to the 1/3 of a carriage thats empty at the front and you have a loco, add it to the 1/3rd at the back, and all the extra luggage space needed, and you have your DVT

 

[ryan125hst]

Yes in a diesel multiple unit you do lose a little bit of saloon space (mostly headroom) compared to an Electric multiple, displaced equipment from the underfloor is mostly moved to the roof and a small electronics cabinet though that requirement has shrunk hugely over the years from minaturisation of electronics and traction motors are now routinely mounted within the bogies themselves further reducing space requirements, however on a diesel-electric locomotive your losing 30-40% of the entire driving cars passenger carrying space on each end to the engine and fuel storage as its not underfloor mounted.

If you want to see how much space is taken up by the same engine power in locomotive form look no further than the UK light.

http://www.vossloh-innotrans.com/media/downloads/pdfs/vrv/Vossloh_UKLIGHT_us.pdf

That is all lost saloon space.

So, going back to my bimode locomotive idea, if you were to somehow squeeze a transformer and rectifier in the loco, and add a pantograph on top, you now how a loco that can run on OLE from Kings Cross to Edinburgh, then drop the pantograph, start the engine, and run to Inverness.

If i'm looking at this correctly, this loco is more powerful than the class 67's but less powerful than the 91's. If you were able to match or exceed the performance of a class 91 when running on electric, than you would have a winning locomotive in my opinion. Whether it is actually physically possible or not is another question altogether!

By the way, what are these class 68's being designed for. I notice that they can supply Head End Power (or ETS).

 

[WatcherZero]

Their being designed for hybrid passenger locomotives/light freight work, would appeal to those (mostly OAO) currently running rakes pulled by a 67 or 43. Virgin were looking at them for dragging baby pendos beyond the wires. For example running from Euston-Chester on their own then being coupled to the locomotive to continue to Holyhead.

 

[DarloRich]

It worked in the past.

But there's hardly enough platform space / paths through the tunnels for the current level of services.

Finding time/ space for locos to join/ split from trains in New Street in 2012? Nightmare.

You wouldn't be doing it in New Street though would you. It would be done at the extremities not in the centre. I simply suggested Birmingham as the place i saw it happen most often. i Could have said Carstairs or Edinburgh.

 

[HSTEd]

Dpt forget the 'cabinets' full of equiipment at each end of every car, that soon adds up to more lost space than a locomotive. Over a 9 car MU you have 16m of space taken up by these, add this to the 1/3 of a carriage thats empty at the front and you have a loco, add it to the 1/3rd at the back, and all the extra luggage space needed, and you have your DVT

The third of a carriage space at the front and rear of the train is not simply empty, it can be used for luggage storage and kitchens if required, so saying that you have to have that and then claiming that the same space on a loco hauled formation can be used for baggage is disengenuous.

Also 1m at each of every carraige is a rather inaccurate figure these days, as I understand there is only 1 cabinet on an entire two coach DMU in the Class 172 series, and since traction motors on multiple unit motor bogies are inside the bogie frame itself, the amount of equipment to be squeezed in beneath the sole bar has shrunk drastically even for electric transmissions.

Additionally, you are now assuming that the 9 coach EMU will have nine motor vehicles and thus nine traction cabinets, a Class 220 could have the same amount of power as a Eurolight with only 5 power vehicles, not nine.

Also as to loco hauled formations.... they are, I'm afraid, just too slow for main line use these days, the acceleration demonstrated by the Cl390 and especially the Cl395 shows the future.

 

[DarloRich]

You can then go the other way and say, why should we spend £x millions to accommodative loco changes on a few trains per day when we could just use the same train throughout and turn on the engines where needed?

touche
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also as to loco hauled formations.... they are, I'm afraid, just too slow for main line use these days, the acceleration demonstrated by the Cl390 and especially the Cl395 shows the future.

Frankly I don’t really care about what boffins or mandarins think or the science behind it. What concerns me greatly is that the journey experience on these new trains will not be as good as the trains the replace. Why does the poor paying passenger come so far down the list of deliverables that they barely register? Why is that comfort has to suffer in the face of modernity and stock utilisation and yield management and high capacity interiors and “at seat” catering?

I find it sad that we have not been able to produce a better train than one we produced 30-40 years ago. Why can’t Britain today produce something better than blokes in shed in Derby and Crewe in the 1970’s? Why can’t we have the benefits of all this wondrous new unitisation AND passenger comfort? I know that I seem like some terrible cave dwelling luddite for not getting on board with the modern world and embracing the modern means best mantra that some of you believe in but I simply think that there is another way. I am all for progress when it actually is progress. We have might have cleaner, lighter, greener more efficient engines and trains that are easier to maintain but from a passenger prospective things have not improved, they have regressed.

It is my belief that these new trains will simply exacerbate this trend. They will, no doubt, be miracles of modern engineering but the interior will be speced poorly and lack comfortable facilities for the long distance traveller. I appreciate this has yet to be decided upon but going on past history how do you think it will look? My guess is they will look very much like the Voyager and Pendolino.

Make me a new train as comfortable as the MKIII or MKIV and I will be a fan, until then..........

 

[jon0844]

Frankly I don’t really care about what boffins or mandarins think or the science behind it. What concerns me greatly is that the journey experience on these new trains will not be as good as the trains the replace. Why does the poor paying passenger come so far down the list of deliverables that they barely register? Why is that comfort has to suffer in the face of modernity and stock utilisation and yield management and high capacity interiors and “at seat” catering?

I don't think the poor paying passenger will suffer that much. And at seat catering is probably the best idea, for people who might just want a drink or snack because they got food earlier at M&S or Upper Crust, or one of the many other pretty decent establishments at the station.

And if there are stations with a crap offering of food/drink for passengers, perhaps it makes more sense to install decent facilities at these stations, rather than to try and offer everything on loads of trains (with loads of staff required) when many people won't use them enough to make a profit.

I am sure that if the buffet car was making stacks of cash, they'd be in no danger of being closed. Nobody would write off easy profit.

With people sitting in their seat, pulling out their iPad/laptop and perching it on the table/seat back tray to waste away their travel time (thus not really looking around the inside of the train at all), how many will want to get up to walk to a shop? The most will be a trip to the toilet, which means many people would probably prefer a toilet in every coach than anything else - even if these take up valuable space.

For first class, or a 'club class' offering, you could offer a more enhanced at-seat service to order food from a smaller kitchen, and there's nothing to say that with Wi-Fi on the train, orders couldn't be sent by the person pushing the trolley through standard to the kitchen, in order to offer up a wider selection of items (that will be brought to the seat later on).

I still think that unless doing a very long journey, many people will simply bring their own food and drink on the train.

 

[DarloRich]

But the trolleys are, frankly, rubbish. Often they have nothing but tepid tea and a kit kat to offer.

Should we not be aiming to make the experience as pleasant as possible for the passenger? Should we not be aiming as high as possible rather than settling for the lowest common denominator? If the trolley is the way of the future then can we try and make it the best trolley service we can? Can we at least have a charging base to warm the tea urn up please! London to Newcastle or Edinburgh with only a trolley is a LONG way! London to Aberdeen or Inverness would be like a Captain Scotts journey back form the south pole!

Now I am not suggesting we return to the days of Coronaton but can we not aim a touch higher?

I justthink we, as an industry, could (and perhaps should) do better

 

[Chris125]

You have to either have a locomotive sit around in the station blocking off a platform or you have to path lots of light locomotives moving around all over the place through your station throats.
There are a lot more trains moving around than there were in the days when loco swaps were normal.

The problem with this argument is that its now turned out that several of the WCML bidders including virgin proposed to replace the Voyagers with Baby Pendolino's pushed/pulled by loco's off the wires - it might not be ideal, but its clearly not as impractical as the DfT tried to make out.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

The problem with this argument is that its now turned out that several of the WCML bidders including virgin proposed to replace the Voyagers with Baby Pendolino's pushed/pulled by loco's off the wires - it might not be ideal, but its clearly not as impractical as the DfT tried to make out.

Chris

That is because no bi-mode units are available.

EMU drags are probably superior to using a DMU throughout, but a bi-mode unit beats it easily, simply because the fuel costs of running diesel all the way are enormous, but you don't have such enormous fuel costs using bi-modes.

 

[starrymarkb]

But the trolleys are, frankly, rubbish. Often they have nothing but tepid tea and a kit kat to offer.

Should we not be aiming to make the experience as pleasant as possible for the passenger? Should we not be aiming as high as possible rather than settling for the lowest common denominator? If the trolley is the way of the future then can we try and make it the best trolley service we can? Can we at least have a charging base to warm the tea urn up please! London to Newcastle or Edinburgh with only a trolley is a LONG way! London to Aberdeen or Inverness would be like a Captain Scotts journey back form the south pole!

Now I am not suggesting we return to the days of Coronaton but can we not aim a touch higher?

I justthink we, as an industry, could (and perhaps should) do better

But would the passengers be willing to pay for it? Look at the airline industry where things have become a race to the bottom in economy because the passengers will not pay for anything more then the minimum. Some try offering additional things included but if its a few £ more then Ryanair then a lot will chose Ryanair (and then pay more for snacks on board). You could argue that this sort of passenger should be left to Buses/Megabus/National Express/Easyjet/FlyBE but then you are leaving the railway open to criticism about being out of reach of the common man

 

[tbtc]

You wouldn't be doing it in New Street though would you. It would be done at the extremities not in the centre. I simply suggested Birmingham as the place i saw it happen most often. i Could have said Carstairs or Edinburgh.

Apologies for using the example that you gave as my example to argue against then.

 

[mbonwick]

That is because no bi-mode units are available.

No, its because Virgin et al believe bi-mode is a terrible idea.

 

[Yew]

The third of a carriage space at the front and rear of the train is not simply empty, it can be used for luggage storage and kitchens if required, so saying that you have to have that and then claiming that the same space on a loco hauled formation can be used for baggage is disengenuous.

Thats odd, what is all that empty space in the back of a HST...

then put the kitchens in the first third of the dvt .

 

[jopsuk]

incidentally, the first ~1/4 of the APT-P driving cars had no passenger acommodation

 

[DarloRich]

But would the passengers be willing to pay for it? Look at the airline industry where things have become a race to the bottom in economy because the passengers will not pay for anything more then the minimum. Some try offering additional things included but if its a few £ more then Ryanair then a lot will chose Ryanair (and then pay more for snacks on board). You could argue that this sort of passenger should be left to Buses/Megabus/National Express/Easyjet/FlyBE but then you are leaving the railway open to criticism about being out of reach of the common man

The passengers pay for it now and the companies seem to manage. Prices won’t come down if buffets are removed. All that will happen is the TOC shareholders make more money and more people get the sack.

Like I have said why should we always accept the lowest possible service and comfort as a good thing? I appreciate that diverting from the mantra of everything new is good is frowned upon but I don’t care. We can and should be doing better with this train as we will be stuck with it for a long time.

The design of the train is wrong and I will bet my house that the interior design isn’t very good when we see it.

Apologies for using the example that you gave as my example to argue against then.

No need to apologise

 

[Peter Sarf]

What we are worrying about is the few trains that go beyond the wires. The economy is that most of the journey is made under the wires so dragging lots of small diesel engines attached to coaches under the wires is wasteful compared to the shorter journey beyond the wires. We used to have 12-car EMUs going from Waterloo to Bournemouth where a class 33 (diesel LOCOMOTIVE) was waiting in front of them to take 4 or 8 cars on to Weymouth. The 33 then pushed them back to Bournemouth where they jouned the rest of the EMU, dropped the 33 (still at the country end) and sped off to Waterloo. We did that 40 years ago and it worked. But we did not leave the diesal loco on the train all the way to/from Waterloo so why would we want to do that with lots of small diesel engines.

REALITY CHECK. What we are worrying about is the few trains that go beyond the wires. BUT why oh why is it that MORE THAN HALF THE FLEET have to be bi-mode ?. Its not just services that go beyond the wires that will be wastefully lugging around diesel engines and fuel for the majority of their journey under the wires. Its MOST of the other services that never stray beyond the wires that are going to suffer this bad economy.

HSTs and Mark3 coaches hauled by electric locos was designed in the mid 1970s and today is STILL more ambient than 390s and 220/221/222s built a lot more recently !. I accept the electric multiple units are the way forward but that does not mean diesel multiple units are the way forward for intercity.

 

[jon0844]

I'd like to see how Chiltern does with its business class, or First does with its intermediate class.

Yes, some people will want the extras - without paying for first class. If they want the romance of, say, Eurostar for that holiday to Scotland or something, maybe they'll want some nice food, and a glass of wine.

But as rail travel is now accessible to so many people, probably many more are not interested in anything but a seat and maybe a power socket and Wi-Fi. They ate at the station, or brought something on board, or they can wait until they arrive.

So, TOCs have to cater for both. And there's probably more people who don't want anything than do. I've got no figures for that, other than seeing how few people walk to the shop on the trains I use with buffet cars, or buy anything from the trolley when it comes through.

Perhaps the tea is awful and they don't want a KitKat, or else they're just not interested. Despite the fact you might want a freshly cooked meal, and I'd probably want that too on a weekend leisure trip where the holiday begins from the minute I board the train - but rail travel isn't that special to everyone anymore. Why would it be when they might travel so regularly that they know how to occupy themselves and not go hungry/thirsty.

 

[Wath Yard]

I'm sure a lot of enthusiasts moaned when the MTUs were fitted to the HSTs because they were too quiet, and now MTUs are going to be fitted to IEPs...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem with this argument is that its now turned out that several of the WCML bidders including virgin proposed to replace the Voyagers with Baby Pendolino's pushed/pulled by loco's off the wires - it might not be ideal, but its clearly not as impractical as the DfT tried to make out.

Chris

But they all lost. Anyone can come up with a losing bid.

 

[tbtc]

I'm sure a lot of enthusiasts moaned when the MTUs were fitted to the HSTs because they were too quiet, and now MTUs are going to be fitted to IEPs...

You mean the enthusiasts getting upset about the end of the nice loud Valentas, how it was the end of an era to lose that nice loud sound?

All those YouTube clips lusting about how good it sounded "opening up" etc?

Yeah, some of them are now the ones complaining about bi-mode.

Funny old world

 

[transmanche]

We used to have 12-car EMUs going from Waterloo to Bournemouth where a class 33 (diesel LOCOMOTIVE) was waiting in front of them to take 4 or 8 cars on to Weymouth. The 33 then pushed them back to Bournemouth where they jouned the rest of the EMU, dropped the 33 (still at the country end) and sped off to Waterloo.

Not quite. It was a 4-REP (Class 432 EMU) which pushed one or two 4-TC units. At Bournemouth the 33 would take one or both 4-TCs onto Weymouth.

The 4-TCs were just unpowered coaching stock converted from mk1 coaches, with a driving cab at each end. Whilst the 4-REPs had to generate 3,200hp and were heavier than a Class 450 unit (which is faster and only generate 2,000 hp).

So on the Bournemouth-Weymouth bit, it really was just diesel haulage of coaching stock. Whilst on the Weymouth-London bit, you lost the benefits of EMU distributed traction.

 

[Chris125]

But they all lost. Anyone can come up with a losing bid.

True, but i really dont think it hinged on the choice of rolling stock.

Chris

 

[Peter Sarf]

Not quite. It was a 4-REP (Class 432 EMU) which pushed one or two 4-TC units. At Bournemouth the 33 would take one or both 4-TCs onto Weymouth.

The 4-TCs were just unpowered coaching stock converted from mk1 coaches, with a driving cab at each end. Whilst the 4-REPs had to generate 3,200hp and were heavier than a Class 450 unit (which is faster and only generate 2,000 hp).

So on the Bournemouth-Weymouth bit, it really was just diesel haulage of coaching stock. Whilst on the Weymouth-London bit, you lost the benefits of EMU distributed traction.

Point is we did not waste electric power to lug one or more diesel engines on the larger part of the journey (Waterloo-Bournemouth). The 4-REP is half way to an electric loco and that got left behind at the end of the electric part - so perhaps even better than a whole EMU going beyond the electric part ?.

Grinds me down that the majority of routes/services IEP will serve are wholly electric so are never going to need diesel power but will still be lumbered with the extra weight of diesel engines that cannot be kept pureley for the non-electrified part of a DIFFERENT route.