Pacer replacement

[northwichcat]

I dont understand why you have said Politicians hope Pacers will last a few more years as i dont think theres much of a problem with them, as someone who travels on Class 142s regular they are doing a far better job than the Class 150s

Lucky you as all the services you travel on must have loadings no more than around 100 passengers. Services which have higher loadings and are Pacer operated suffer more from extended dwell times and poor acceleration.

If Pacers start dropping dead the rail network will be in chaos, which is why I'm saying politicians will hope they will last.

 

[Murph]

Regardless of what DMU is procured it is still foul of EU 3B standard on emmissions, so I cannot see one being ordered.

Both Cummins and Perkins have 300bhp stage IIIB or even stage IV engines advertised. The IEP has some sort of optional under floor genset. Vivarail seem to think they have some sort of automotive engine suitable for the D78s. I can't see why there couldn't be a IIIB DMU produced if the demand is there for it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Both Cummins and Perkins have 300bhp stage IIIB or even stage IV engines advertised. The IEP has some sort of optional under floor genset. Vivarail seem to think they have some sort of automotive engine suitable for the D78s. I can't see why there couldn't be a IIIB DMU produced if the demand is there for it.

The issue, it would seem, is not DMUs but large engines in a UK gauge locomotive body. But I suspect even that is solvable at a price - 23m loco with multiple, smaller engines?

Neil

 

[Murph]

The issue, it would seem, is not DMUs but large engines in a UK gauge locomotive body. But I suspect even that is solvable at a price - 23m loco with multiple, smaller engines?

Neil

Off the shelf IIIB Cummins QSK19-R. The 185s and 22x use an older version of it, so shouldn't be a problem fitting that into a new build UK-gauge DMU. It's available in horizontal config as the old ones were. It's high power for a DMU, at 750bhp, so either a de-rated version, or unpowered trailers, or not all cars running all of the time for applications where that's too much power if all cars are powered.

Perkins don't appear to actively advertise a current horizontal version of the 6.354/2006 previously used in DMUs, but they do have IIIB engines, so there's at least some possibility that they could produce something for a DMU if one of the manufacturers showed some interest. Fundamentally, they have 300bhp 6pot IIIB industrial engines (1206), and past experience of converting their engines to horizontal use.

For locos, I really think it's only a question of a builder showing willingness to place a suitably large order with one of the engine manufacturers. Multiple smaller engines could work quite well, but is there any fundamental reason why they can't apply their existing IIIB knowledge and skills to their existing larger engine designs? Sure, UK gauge is tight, but we've managed to build locos around some pretty huge engines in the past, and I find it very hard to believe that the latest emissions regs actually make it impossible if the demand is there.

 

[al.currie93]

The issue, it would seem, is not DMUs but large engines in a UK gauge locomotive body. But I suspect even that is solvable at a price - 23m loco with multiple, smaller engines?

Neil

Odd that you've said this; I have recently been toying with the idea of powered coaches hauled by a locomotive. Each coach is fitted with motors that provide assistance (1/3rd of the power to move each coach?) to the diesel locomotive which provides the bulk (2/3 in this situation) of the power to move the coaches. The result is that you have a train with the versatility and passenger comfort of a locomotive hauling coaches and a DBSO, a vehicle large enough to fit a modern engine in, but almost the acceleration of an MU from the assisted coach traction.

 

[Emyr]

Euro 3B for Non-Road Mobile Machinery applies above 130kW.
https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/eu/nonroad.php#rail

Class 142's engines output 168kW(225bhp) at 2100rpm (from which I get 563lbft or 763Nm)

---start musings
10.5 m^2 frontal area
0.5 Drag coefficient (very optimistic for a brick-shaped vehicle)
482300 kg total weight per trainset
0.0020 Coefficient of Rolling Resistance

For a speed of 75mph (33.5m/s), these figures give a required power of 438 kW plus transmission losses, meaning a 2-car pacer would only ever hit Vmax downhill...
---end musings

With modern engine technology (high-pressure/common-rail injection, hydraulically/pneumatically actuated valves, closer manufacturing tolerances, more accurate balancing of rotating parts etc)...

Could you replace one 10L engine outputting 168kw per carriage with two smaller units outputting 120kW each?

e.g Ford Duratorq 3.2L Duratorq inline-5 outputs 150 kW (200 hp) and 470 N·m (350 lb·ft), so a Rail-adapted model might be rated 125kW. (Adapted to ensure reliability under a passenger-train duty cycle).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Odd that you've said this; I have recently been toying with the idea of powered coaches hauled by a locomotive. Each coach is fitted with motors that provide assistance (1/3rd of the power to move each coach?) to the diesel locomotive which provides the bulk (2/3 in this situation) of the power to move the coaches. The result is that you have a train with the versatility and passenger comfort of a locomotive hauling coaches and a DBSO, a vehicle large enough to fit a modern engine in, but almost the acceleration of an MU from the assisted coach traction.

Eurostar sort-of does that in that the coach adjacent to each locomotive also has a powered bogie fed from the locomotive. It isn't all that bad an idea for a fixed-formation multiple unit to have one large power car with distributed power. Where it would get difficult is the size of jumper cable required (far in excess of what any autocoupler could handle) if you wanted to transmit power from a removeable locomotive to the traction motors on a multiple unit (effectively).

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Could you replace one 10L engine outputting 168kw per carriage with two smaller units outputting 120kW each?

Well, heritage DMUs did, because of the lack of available engines of a suitable size for one per power car, most of them had two bus/lorry derived engines per power car.

Neil

 

[edwin_m]

It's also the solution being put forward for the rebuilt D78, some variants of which include unpowered cars. Might be a bit more difficult on a Pacer as the layout would have to allow for a mechanical transmission, whereas electric transmission on the D78 means the engine can be anywhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Class 142's engines output 168kW(225bhp) at 2100rpm (from which I get 563lbft or 763Nm)

---start musings
10.5 m^2 frontal area
0.5 Drag coefficient (very optimistic for a brick-shaped vehicle)
482300 kg total weight per trainset
0.0020 Coefficient of Rolling Resistance

For a speed of 75mph (33.5m/s), these figures give a required power of 438 kW plus transmission losses, meaning a 2-car pacer would only ever hit Vmax downhill...

A Pacer doesn't weigh 482 tonnes - are you out by a factor of 10 here, or quoting the weight in newtons? Also a two-car set will have two engines.

 

[Chris125]

How many Class 170s will Scotrail be displacing between now and 31st December 2019? (a number please).

According to a recent post on RMWeb the new Scotrail franchise will end up returning 16 156s, 8 158s and the entire 170 fleet to the ROSCOs though a source has not yet been given for this.

Chris

 

[northwichcat]

According to a recent post on RMWeb the new Scotrail franchise will end up returning 16 156s, 8 158s and the entire 170 fleet to the ROSCOs though a source has not yet been given for this.

Chris

Abellio have given numbers for carriages released as a result of the introduction of more EMUs and HST but I think exactly which units they'll release is an educated guess based on those numbers.

 

[Emyr]

It's also the solution being put forward for the rebuilt D78, some variants of which include unpowered cars. Might be a bit more difficult on a Pacer as the layout would have to allow for a mechanical transmission, whereas electric transmission on the D78 means the engine can be anywhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


A Pacer doesn't weigh 482 tonnes - are you out by a factor of 10 here, or quoting the weight in newtons? Also a two-car set will have two engines.

Too many zeroes! Will revise that tomorrow...

 

[Wolfie]

Lucky you as all the services you travel on must have loadings no more than around 100 passengers. Services which have higher loadings and are Pacer operated suffer more from extended dwell times and poor acceleration.

If Pacers start dropping dead the rail network will be in chaos, which is why I'm saying politicians will hope they will last.

This is somewhat of an exageration. PARTS of the rail network may have severe problems (essentially Northern, part of ATW and part of GW) and other parts will likely be impacted by action taken (likely some attempt at emergency movement of DMUs if there was a problem which caused all Pacers to have to be stopped rather than small numbers, although given the contractual basis of much of the railways that might not be so easy either) to try and address the issue...

 

[northwichcat]

This is somewhat of an exageration. PARTS of the rail network may have severe problems (essentially Northern, part of ATW and part of GW) and other parts will likely be impacted by action taken (likely some attempt at emergency movement of DMUs if there was a problem which caused all Pacers to have to be stopped rather than small numbers, although given the contractual basis of much of the railways that might not be so easy either) to try and address the issue...

A nationwide impact could happen very quickly if some of Northern's passengers start transferring to the likes of Virgin and XC and those operators start reallocating which services get the most carriages. You could a 5 car Voyager departing Birmingham at a busy time instead of an 8 car one and a 5 car Voyager running a Euston-Birmingham service at a busy time instead of a 9 car Pendolino.

Most of Northern's services provide an essential part of an integrated rail network. They aren't stand alone services which can be cancelled without wider implications.

 

[Y961 XBU]

In Liverpool the Class 142s are normally booked on quieter dutys such as the Liverpool - Warrington Bank Quay Line, I have however been an a 142 thats had a full standing load in the Past and even then they have still been quick of the line

 

[Parallel]

I remember seeing on twitter a few months ago, someone tweeted ATW commenting on the squealing of the brakes from a Pacer and when would the trains themselves be getting replaced, and Arriva replied that their pacers are actually their most reliable units within their fleet!

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I remember seeing on twitter a few months ago, someone tweeted ATW commenting on the squealing of the brakes from a Pacer and when would the trains themselves be getting replaced, and Arriva replied that their pacers are actually their most reliable units within their fleet!

When they were built they brokedown alot. Now they have the more powerful Cummins engine which is very reliable.

 

[samuelmorris]

I seem to recall it being the mechanical gearboxes at fault rather than the engines themselves, but the newer and slightly more powerful engines were a necessity when upgrading them to diesel-hydraulic as per the Pacers. They themselves are probably more reliable too, nonetheless.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What was the first year when cardan shaft problems were found to be a cause of worry on the Class 142 Pacers?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

What was the first year when cardan shaft problems were found to be a cause of worry on the Class 142 Pacers?

Wikipedia says:

"Unit 142050 was the first Pacer to be fitted with Voith hydraulic transmission - initially on an experimental basis - to see if this configuration would be more reliable than the SCG mechanical gearboxes had been. In early Summer 1988, it was sent to Heaton depot (Newcastle) to work alongside the similarly troubled Class 143s, on what were considered arduous routes. The trial was considered enough of a success for all Pacers to be so converted in due course".

Hope that helps.

 

[northwichcat]

What was the first year when cardan shaft problems were found to be a cause of worry on the Class 142 Pacers?

When Northern had issues which included a serious incident at Durham when travelling at 75mph they imposed a 60mph limit on 12 of their 142s which were fitted with the same type of carden shaft. However, the RAIB report found noted a problem at low speeds:

at low speeds, the cardan shaft operates with large deflection angles and the difference in deflection angles exceeds the manufacturer’s recommended limit

http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/120702_r122012_durham.pdf

 

[Emyr]

Class 142's engines output 168kW(225bhp) at 2100rpm (from which I get 563lbft or 763Nm)

---start musings
10.5 m^2 frontal area
0.5 Drag coefficient (very optimistic for a brick-shaped vehicle)
482300 kg total weight per trainset
0.0020 Coefficient of Rolling Resistance

For a speed of 75mph (33.5m/s), these figures give a required power of 438 kW plus transmission losses, meaning a 2-car pacer would only ever hit Vmax downhill...
---end musings

A Pacer doesn't weigh 482 tonnes - are you out by a factor of 10 here, or quoting the weight in newtons? Also a two-car set will have two engines.

CORRECTION:
48,230 kg total weight per trainset (more obvious once you add a thousands separator!)
For a speed of 75mph (33.5m/s), these figures give a required power of 153kW plus transmission losses, meaning a 2-car pacer could cruise at vmax with one of each engine-pair off, like the Class 185's eco mode.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

CORRECTION:
48,230 kg total weight per trainset (more obvious once you add a thousands separator!)

482300 kg in your original posting does not equate to 48,230 kg just because you have added in the separator.

A better question to pose is would you be pleased if your salary of £48,230 per annum that you were offered at interview and accepted was entered as £482,300 per annum in error (which forever went un-noticed) when the monthly salary was paid.

 

[edwin_m]

482300 kg in your original posting does not equate to 48,230 kg just because you have added in the separator.

Emyr is responding to an error in his figures which I pointed out. The revised calculation looks good to me - I'm fortunate enough to be only a rare user of Pacers but Sprinters have similar power:weight ratios and will get to around 75mph on one engine eventually. 170s need to be downhill, probably with a following wind, to get to their 100mph maximum even if all engines are present and correct!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Patrick McLaughlin was given several opportunities today at the Select Committee hearing to amplify the plans for Pacer withdrawal.
The best he managed was to say that "everybody agrees their time is up".
The demands for something more definite were rebuffed with the customary list of new rolling stock committed by the DfT (Class 800, 700 etc)
and ensuing cascades.
They failed to ask him when the Northern ITT would be issued or what it would say.

 

[Bright Boy]

There will certainly still be some lines that will never be electrified, and will be in use long after all of the current DMUs (I think the most recent are the 185s) are life-expired. There will need to be some sort of long-term solution for long rural lines that get sub-hourly service frequencies and can never justify electrification. That, however, is hardly the point. In the short term, there are a heck of a lot of other lines that won't be electrified soon. A list of lines that will still be sparkless at the end of CP5, in the North West of England alone:

Cumbrian Coast Line, Carlisle-Barrow-Carnforth
Settle-Carlisle and Settle-Carnforth
Morecambe Branch Line, Lancaster-Heysham
Blackpool South - Kirkham and Wesham (being considered for tram conversion)
East Lancashire Line (Preston-Colne via Blackburn)
Preston-Ormskirk (connects to Merseyrail Northern Line)
Southport-Wigan
Wigan-Kirkby (connects to Merseyrail Northern Line)
Wigan-Manchester via Atherton (being considered for tram-train operation)
Manchester-Rochdale-Todmorden-Burnley (and the Calder Valley connection to Yorkshire)
Cheshire Lines Committee: Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester
Halton Curve and Warrington-Chester-Wrexham
Borderlands Line (Bidston-Wrexham)
North Wales Coast Line (Chester-Shotton-Llandudno-Holyhead)
Mid-Cheshire line (Chester-Stockport)
Chester-Crewe line (being considered for electrification)
Hope Valley Line (Manchester-Sheffield)
Buxton Line (Manchester-Buxton)
Helsby-Ellesmere Port (connects to Merseyrail Wirral Line)

.

Maybe not "in the short term" but some of the lines you have mentioned could possibly be electrified before the 185's are life expired, which could be longer than you would expect.

The Hope Valley Line (Hazel Grove - Dore) is most likely to be the first line from your list to be electrified it has already been suggested and proposed and I believe being considered.

Manchester (from Lostock Jct) - Wigan - Southport has already been proposed for electrification, also the North Wales Coast line.

Wigan - Kirby could possibly be electrified as an extension of the Merseyrail network as could Ormskirk - Preston and Ellesmere Port - Helsby.

Settle - Carlisle could be electrified for freight and WCML diversions.

Outsiders could be the Morecambe/Heysham branch might get electrified (It has before) just because of its geography and length and Preston - Colne also a possibility if the proposals to re-open Colne - Skipton come to fruition?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

J K Rowling certainly missed a trick by not writing "Harry Potter and the Newton Heath Pacers". There would be plenty of script material there...

 

[samuelmorris]

Was more thinking along the lines of Harry Potter and the prisoners of 142xxx - pick a number of your choice

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Maybe not "in the short term" but some of the lines you have mentioned could possibly be electrified before the 185's are life expired, which could be longer than you would expect.

Based on the current now-extended electrification time status of North TPE, would you like to revise your aspirational time period stated above....or has my inbuilt cynicism gone into overdrive again?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Do Turbostars meet the current crash regs? If they do and a suitable engine could be found, would there be any routes that use Pacers that a new build of Turbostars wouldn't be suitable for?

 

[edwin_m]

Do Turbostars meet the current crash regs? If they do and a suitable engine could be found, would there be any routes that use Pacers that a new build of Turbostars wouldn't be suitable for?

I doubt if Bombardier would produce you a Turbostar even if it does comply (which it probably doesn't). However they do advertise diesel options in their Aventra range.