Question regarding turning Class 68 engines off

[putabidin]

Ok Here Goes. This procedure is for Marylebone..

Thats the start sequence, now depending on how much air is in the Main Reservoir can determine how long the engine will sit at idle. The ETS needs to be running to enable the coach lighting and air conditioning and other services to function

Would I be right in saying that because it can take up to 10 minutes for the pressure to build, that is the reason that it has to idle for at least that long?

In other words, even if it is up to full in 2 minutes, it still has to run the 10 minutes because you don't know how long it's going to take until you have started the engine?

I'm not being very clear, but I hope you understand.

 

[t_star2001uk]

Would I be right in saying that because it can take up to 10 minutes for the pressure to build, that is the reason that it has to idle for at least that long?

In other words, even if it is up to full in 2 minutes, it still has to run the 10 minutes because you don't know how long it's going to take until you have started the engine?

I'm not being very clear, but I hope you understand.

I think i understand. As the air system is an unknown (we do not know how much air is there) so worst case scenario it could be a long idle time to charge the main reservoir. There is also charging the brake pipe and overcharging to equalize the braking system We also need time to make sure that all of the coaches cut in as well.

 

[putabidin]

I think i understand. As the air system is an unknown (we do not know how much air is there) so worst case scenario it could be a long idle time to charge the main reservoir. There is also charging the brake pipe and overcharging to equalize the braking system We also need time to make sure that all of the coaches cut in as well.

Can you conceive of any way that the downtime could be maximised. Do you think there is any way that the Start Sequence could be tweaked so that anything not related to the above could be done first and the actual engine start up took place a little further into the sequence, say 10 minutes before departure?

Would it be reasonable to ask Chiltern to look at this?

That would enable some of the locos staying for over 15 minutes to have at least a period of shutdown. Even 5 minutes of peace makes a difference.

 

[najaB]

Would it be reasonable to ask Chiltern to look at this?

That would enable some of the locos staying for over 15 minutes to have at least a period of shutdown. Even 5 minutes of peace makes a difference.

While I can empathise with your situation, I suspect the answer would be 'No'. There's nearly always a reason why procedures are written in the order that they are and if there was a way to safely shorten them it's likely that they would have done it already if only to save on fuel burn.

Still, there's no harm in asking.

 

[t_star2001uk]

Can you conceive of any way that the downtime could be maximised. Do you think there is any way that the Start Sequence could be tweaked so that anything not related to the above could be done first and the actual engine start up took place a little further into the sequence, say 10 minutes before departure?

Would it be reasonable to ask Chiltern to look at this?

That would enable some of the locos staying for over 15 minutes to have at least a period of shutdown. Even 5 minutes of peace makes a difference.

Unfortunately the start sequence has already had a lot of fat trimmed from the manufacturers sequence. The sequence we use was written in house amd approved by the manufacturer..

 

[CosherB]

Can you conceive of any way that the downtime could be maximised. Do you think there is any way that the Start Sequence could be tweaked so that anything not related to the above could be done first and the actual engine start up took place a little further into the sequence, say 10 minutes before departure?

Would it be reasonable to ask Chiltern to look at this?

That would enable some of the locos staying for over 15 minutes to have at least a period of shutdown. Even 5 minutes of peace makes a difference.

You are now sounding pretty desperate.

 

[GB]

Can you conceive of any way that the downtime could be maximised. Do you think there is any way that the Start Sequence could be tweaked so that anything not related to the above could be done first and the actual engine start up took place a little further into the sequence, say 10 minutes before departure?

Would it be reasonable to ask Chiltern to look at this?

That would enable some of the locos staying for over 15 minutes to have at least a period of shutdown. Even 5 minutes of peace makes a difference.

You can't charge or test the brake system without the compressor running. The compressor won't run without the engine running. Starting the engine is already down the list on the order of things.

Remember also, the time listed is just the prep time. It can be minutes more before the train actually departs.

 

[putabidin]

You are now sounding pretty desperate.

Probably because I am, on behalf of the locals at Marylebone. Clutching at straws.

Now that you've all (well mostly) been helpful, I understand the procedures and restrictions a little better, let me look at the long term and seek your advice (or maybe I should start a new thread. Don't forget I am a novice at rail matters).

Full electrification is way, way in the distance.

Should the residents aim be to try to campaign for partial electrification, say just of the lines in and out of London's built up area?

Would that enable future leasing contracts to be for trains which can run on both electric and diesel power, depending on the availability of the overhead cables?

I believe such dual modo locos exist and run in the US and South Africa and are also being developed in India.

La La Land??

 

[Roast Veg]

Electrification works can't happen without good justification of works, which means a significant stretch has to be covered not just London to, say, West Ruislip. The closest place where it might be justifiable looks like Oxford to me, though even the Oxford to Bicester section is now not getting wires immediately.

 

[JN114]

Probably because I am, on behalf of the locals at Marylebone. Clutching at straws.

Now that you've all (well mostly) been helpful, I understand the procedures and restrictions a little better, let me look at the long term and seek your advice (or maybe I should start a new thread. Don't forget I am a novice at rail matters).

Full electrification is way, way in the distance.

Should the residents aim be to try to campaign for partial electrification, say just of the lines in and out of London's built up area?

Would that enable future leasing contracts to be for trains which can run on both electric and diesel power, depending on the availability of the overhead cables?

I believe such dual modo locos exist and run in the US and South Africa and are also being developed in India.

La La Land??

As I've already advised you, fighting for some kind of procedural change or infrastructure investment isn't going to get far. The costs involved getting those kind of things changed - even in the medium term are far more than a company like Chiltern are going to shell out for just because some local residents aren't happy with the noise.

The avenue you should be pursuing is getting Chiltern to fund improvements to sound insulation and screening.

 

[najaB]

The avenue you should be pursuing is getting Chiltern to fund improvements to sound insulation and screening.

I agree - the costs of new locomotives will be tens of millions, electrification will be into the hundreds of millions. Better soundproofing or anti-noise devices will cost tens of thousands.

 

[t_star2001uk]

Soundproofing will then be a whole new can of worms. What with planning consent, then there will be inevitable objections that a sound barrier has spoilt the view...

 

[najaB]

Soundproofing will then be a whole new can of worms. What with planning consent, then there will be inevitable objections that a sound barrier has spoilt the view...

I more had the affected resident's homes in mind rather than the station.

 

[putabidin]

Soundproofing will then be a whole new can of worms. What with planning consent, then there will be inevitable objections that a sound barrier has spoilt the view...

An improvement and extension of the current, rather meagre, acoustic barrier is something the residents will achieve. Though I'm not sure whether this is the responsibility of the franchisee or Network Rail.

The mitigation or elimination of the effects of diesel pollution in London is the long term aim. Current Greater London Authority policies have turned to address this in a major way.

So far they have prioritised mainly vehicular emissions. Efforts to get them to include the NOx emissions from rail in their calculations are now under way.

 

[455driver]

Soundproofing will then be a whole new can of worms. What with planning consent, then there will be inevitable objections that a sound barrier has spoilt the view...

Yep, the same residents who complained about the noise will then complain about the view being ruined!

Just look at Ufton Nervert where the residents (and pretty much everyone else) wanted a new bridge so that the level crossing could be closed permanently but some of the residents then vetoed the idea because a bridge would spoil their view! :roll:

After going through many appeals etc the bridge eventually opened 12 years (and 4 more deaths) after the collision.

 

[putabidin]

I agree - the costs of new locomotives will be tens of millions, electrification will be into the hundreds of millions. Better soundproofing or anti-noise devices will cost tens of thousands.

DRS have Class 88s on their books. Am I totally wrong, but isn't that the type of train about which I conjectured? When the current leasing agreement for the 68s comes to an end (2021) couldn't the new leasing contract be for these 88s, or some alternative loco in the electro-diesel sector?

Cost of locos shouldn't be the problem.

Yes partial electrification would be expensive. I'm hoping that such infrastructure investment may come as a result of the pressure from the Green lobby.

HS2 and Heathrow are also expensive !

Soundproofing is cosmetic, but necessary, and is achievable in the short term.

 

[najaB]

DRS have Class 88s on their books. Am I totally wrong, but isn't that the type of train about which I conjectured.

The Class 88 isn't a true bimode locomotive. I think it has less than a quarter of the power available on diesel as it does on electric.

 

[furnessvale]

They could always electrify into Marylebone and then use the class 92s.

They should be quiet enough!

 

[Elecman]

They could always electrify into Marylebone and then use the class 92s.

They should be quiet enough!

Indeed such quiet electric lcomotives.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The Class 88 isn't a true bimode locomotive. I think it has less than a quarter of the power available on diesel as it does on electric.

I tend to think of the 88's engine for being more for operating in customer sidings which won't be electrified, with them switching to electric mode when leaving the customer siding and onto NR metals

 

[Roast Veg]

The class 88 is not a last mile locomotive, and has a significant enough power rating on diesel to examine its use on passenger services.

 

[putabidin]

Yep, the same residents who complained about the noise will then complain about the view being ruined!J

Not in his case. You are talking middle of a densly poplated area. The view is the station. I, myself, love watching the movement of the trains, passengers and staff.

An improved acoustic barrier might well absorb some of the low level vibration; a great help.

Unfortunately we are looking at blocks of flats and 4 storey estates. Short of extending the canopies to cover the whole station, which would give rise to trapping the emissions in an enclosed space, there is little we can do to help those living above the first (or maybe second) storey.

No, we have to look at solutions which are more in line with current thinking on diesel pollution. Get rid of it wherever we can.

 

[43096]

The class 88 is not a last mile locomotive, and has a significant enough power rating on diesel to examine its use on passenger services.

Utter nonsense. It may be more than last mile for freight, but not for passenger. Output on diesel is roughly comparable with a Class 20, but take off ETH requirements and it'll be staggering like an asthmatic ant with heavy shopping. There's no passenger services where such a loco would meet the necessary performance requirement for both pathing and journey times.

 

[najaB]

Utter nonsense. It may be more than last mile for freight, but not for passenger. Output on diesel is roughly comparable with a Class 20, but take off ETH requirements and it'll be staggering like an asthmatic ant with heavy shopping.

I love the analogy. Looking on Wikipedia (yes, I know) the diesel power output is c. 950hp. That pretty close to what the Class 802 has per powered car and is clearly not enough for a locomotive hauling several passenger cars if it's going to make headway against a stiff wind.

 

[putabidin]

The class 88 is not a last mile locomotive, and has a significant enough power rating on diesel to examine its use on passenger services.

Wikepedia
"This is effectively a diesel locomotive with auxiliary electric motors (or connections to the existing traction motors), usually operating from 750 V DC third rail where non-electric traction is banned (e.g. EMD FL9, GE Genesis P32AC-DM, EMD DM30AC). The primary function for these models is to provide a "one-seat ride" (a rail trip that doesn't require a transfer to a different train) between the electrified and non-electrified sections of a rail system or to allow trains to run through tunnels or other segments of track where diesel locomotives are generally prohibited due to their production of exhaust; such locomotives are used for certain trains servicing the New York City terminals of Grand Central Terminal and Penn Station, as the various rail tunnels into Manhattan have exhaust restrictions. Once out of the tunnels, the engines are started and operation is as a normal diesel locomotive."

This is what I am seeking to achieve for Marylebone. Does such a train exist in the UK? If it does, couldn't third rail be introduced from. say Wembley Park?
Would it, in fact, do away with the need for idling of the diesel engine in the station?

 

[JN114]

Wikepedia
"This is effectively a diesel locomotive with auxiliary electric motors (or connections to the existing traction motors), usually operating from 750 V DC third rail where non-electric traction is banned (e.g. EMD FL9, GE Genesis P32AC-DM, EMD DM30AC). The primary function for these models is to provide a "one-seat ride" (a rail trip that doesn't require a transfer to a different train) between the electrified and non-electrified sections of a rail system or to allow trains to run through tunnels or other segments of track where diesel locomotives are generally prohibited due to their production of exhaust; such locomotives are used for certain trains servicing the New York City terminals of Grand Central Terminal and Penn Station, as the various rail tunnels into Manhattan have exhaust restrictions. Once out of the tunnels, the engines are started and operation is as a normal diesel locomotive."

This is what I am seeking to achieve for Marylebone. Does such a train exist in the UK? If it does, couldn't third rail be introduced from. say Wembley Park?
Would it, in fact, do away with the need for idling of the diesel engine in the station?

It's Technically feasible yes, but it will cost 100s of millions of pounds! Who is going to pay for it? Network Rail is financially strained as it is; complaints about the price of rail are at the highest they've ever been. Central government are trying to reduce the financial burden of the railway on treasury funds. So where is the money going to come from?

 

[CosherB]

Wikepedia
"This is effectively a diesel locomotive with auxiliary electric motors (or connections to the existing traction motors), usually operating from 750 V DC third rail where non-electric traction is banned (e.g. EMD FL9, GE Genesis P32AC-DM, EMD DM30AC). The primary function for these models is to provide a "one-seat ride" (a rail trip that doesn't require a transfer to a different train) between the electrified and non-electrified sections of a rail system or to allow trains to run through tunnels or other segments of track where diesel locomotives are generally prohibited due to their production of exhaust; such locomotives are used for certain trains servicing the New York City terminals of Grand Central Terminal and Penn Station, as the various rail tunnels into Manhattan have exhaust restrictions. Once out of the tunnels, the engines are started and operation is as a normal diesel locomotive."

This is what I am seeking to achieve for Marylebone. Does such a train exist in the UK? If it does, couldn't third rail be introduced from. say Wembley Park?
Would it, in fact, do away with the need for idling of the diesel engine in the station?

As others have already postulated, you meed to focus on the "tens of thousands" solutions first to have any hope of improvements in the medium term. Trying to influence national infrastructure policy and multi-national corporate strategy will get you nowhere fast.

 

[najaB]

This is what I am seeking to achieve for Marylebone. Does such a train exist in the UK? If it does, couldn't third rail be introduced from. say Wembley Park?

Third rail is a dead end. There is an automatic presumption against new third-rail installations due to their inefficiency and the hazard they present to staff and trespassers. While it is vaguely possible that there might be extensions/infill of existing third rail networks it's a safe bet that there won't be any new routes added.

 

[Elecman]

"

This is what I am seeking to achieve for Marylebone. Does such a train exist in the UK? If it does, couldn't third rail be introduced from. say Wembley Park?
Would it, in fact, do away with the need for idling of the diesel engine in the station?

not a chance, there will be no NEW 3rd rail electrification as it is effectively banned by the ORR under Safety considerations, even minor infill schemes would struggle to be authorised.

 

[t_star2001uk]

EMD FL9: An old design using third rail as well as diesel. ( Think class 73)
GE Genesis P32AC-DM: From what i can read this is a standard diesel electric loco.
EMD DM30AC: Third rail and diesel. Again think class 73

From what i can read the class 88 running on its diesel engine has roughly 20% of the power in electric mode. So the difference is 3750hp for a 68 and 950hp for an 88 on diesel.