Speculation: Class 222 to GW in the long term?

[tbtc]

Yes. A big mistake if you ask me, one that IEP looks set to make which is one reason why I'm set against it. If you want the acceleration of an EMU then, unless you're service is very infrequent, the line should be electrified so you can have an EMU, the fuel ecconomy of Voyagers probably makes them alot more expensive to run, meaning the investment in OHLE would probably pay for itself quicker than replacing IC125s

When Voyagers were being designed, there was no chance of electrifying the whole Cross Country route.

Even now, with the optimism of the CP5 announcement (etc), there's no chance of seeing the gaps between Doncaster/Moorthorpe and Cornwall filled in (plus Aberdeen - Edinburgh) for at least a decade.

Voyagers were a reasonable answer to the time that they were built - speeding up routes that looked like they would always be diesel. Ideally we'd have electrified everything, but the Cross Country network is always going to be problematic to do that on (compared to the relatively "self contained" other main lines)

 

[jimm]

Yes. A big mistake if you ask me, one that IEP looks set to make which is one reason why I'm set against it. If you want the acceleration of an EMU then, unless you're service is very infrequent, the line should be electrified so you can have an EMU, the fuel ecconomy of Voyagers probably makes them alot more expensive to run, meaning the investment in OHLE would probably pay for itself quicker than replacing IC125s. The cost of running 22xs means they aren't really suitable for anything other than the Intercity routes they are presently used on, but they don't provide sufficent comfort or capacity to be suitable were they are.

Sorry, I forgot the seating capacity issue in my eagerness to rid ourselves of the impending doom IEP will bring about if it isn't rationalised. As for E-Voyager being dead, I know, but note the passage from NYM that I was quoting when I said that: "there is also the small matter that electrodieseling the 222 fleet is significantly more viable if combined with a transfer to GW than it is for the 220 / 221 fleet with XC. If anyone cares then I'll post up more details." Just because bi-mode 221s and 220s have been declared unviable it doesn't mean bi-mode 222s have been also.

I do however have to ask you, would you rather have 8/9-car bi-mode class 222 units on the Cotswolds line or the have the 5-car IEP DfT is planning to foist on the Cotswolds line. A 5-car IEP, by the way, will have around 250 standard class seats and 60 First class I believe. A 8-car 222 might not have as many seats as an IC125, but it'd have more seats than the IEP bi-modes you'd get otherwise.

I know that. Again, check the context of my words. To rephrase what I was saying: if you put bi-mode 222s on the Cotswolds line, the IEP order needn't include ANY bi-modes and instead can be all pure-electric IEPs (and I clarified that, by 'pure'-electric, I meant no 'donkey engine').

If the TDM is that problematic it needs work. However, is it really that bad? While the mrk4 rakes are semi-permanently-coupled, the 91 is not fixed to the set. Sometimes, I think, the 91 is swapped at Kings Cross between workings. How many different DVTs has the class 91 in 'Flying Scotsman' livery run with since the 'Flying Scotsman' livery was applied?

Agreed, or (better yet?) a dual-voltage 5-WES (aka class 442), perhaps in 3-car or 4-car formations rather than the 5-car sets of 442/444. Similarly I think TransPennineExpress should have OHLE-powered 444/442-type units, and the north-Wales coast if it is electrified. Portion-working should not be done with units that don't have end-gangways in my opinion, anything that lacks end-gangways should be long enough that you don't need to run it in multiple (another reason why I don't like Voyagers and short IEPs).

Agreed. The last applies to a lot of other lines though, including TPE where the 185s currently are. Somebody should have built a load more 158s/159s instead of 170s and 185s.

Isn't CP6 a bit late to replace Pacers? Unless they are given a dispensation to work for a year or two extra, they will have to have the access-for-all mods by the end of 2019. If anyone has invested in said mods for the Pacers they will be here to stay for some time.

I agree, multiple revenue protection staff for longer trains regardless of corridor connections would be useful. However, doubling-up catering staff is unecessary if there are through corridor-connections and the ability to move passengers between units on-the-move (if they are in the wrong portion on a portion-worked service or one unit is full and standard while there are plenty of seats in the other) is, in my opinion, crucial.

Do you actually have anything new to contribute to any discussion about IEP or related matters? You keep repeating yourself time after time after time, in thread after thread after thread, so others have to repeat themselves time after time after time pointing out the flaws in your arguments.

tbtc has already dealt with the point about acceleration of the 22x family and 180s.

It's nothing to do with eagerness - just your obsessive hatred for bi-mode IEPs, which, rather like high-accelerating 125mph dmus, are a consequence of their time - in this case that we can't electrify the entire network all in one go - so in the meantime there have to be ways to keep services going where they straddle electrified and non-electrified routes.

What on earth makes you think there is any difference between a 222 and 220 when it comes to trying to use overhead electric power? The kit under the floor is the same and that's where the issues and costs which killed the 220 notion lie.

I'm getting really fed up with having to point out that FGW - and likely the other bidders for the aborted GW franchise - have questioned the proposed all five-car bi-mode fleet, not least because of the loads on peak Cotswold (and Cheltenham) services and the GW invitation to tender showed DafT is willing to listen to ideas on alternative formations, so the odds are there will be longer formations, precisely because the operators know full well they will need to have them - the remaining single-line sections on the Cotswold Line mean flooding the route with five-car formations in the peak instead is not an option - the paths aren't there - and the short platforms mean 2x5-car formations can't be used.

Bluster all you like, a donkey engine is the shunting/get out of an area where electric power has been lost engine for the straight-electric sets, not the main power plant engines for use when bi-modes are running on diesel.

The issue with TDM is well known, long-standing and has resulted in locos being unplugged from the coaches as little as possible, outside normal maintenance requirements, for 20-odd years now.

I really can't be bothered to repeat all the things I have said previously about through corridors, and the way revenue protection and catering have been arranged for 20 years between London and Oxford on coupled pairs of Turbos, where one goes on to/comes from the Cotswold Line. The sky has not fallen in as a result, nor will it with pairs of bi-modes in use.

 

[The Ham]

Yes. A big mistake if you ask me, one that IEP looks set to make which is one reason why I'm set against it. If you want the acceleration of an EMU then, unless you're service is very infrequent, the line should be electrified so you can have an EMU, the fuel ecconomy of Voyagers probably makes them alot more expensive to run, meaning the investment in OHLE would probably pay for itself quicker than replacing IC125s. The cost of running 22xs means they aren't really suitable for anything other than the Intercity routes they are presently used on, but they don't provide sufficent comfort or capacity to be suitable were they are.

The problem is that the current routes that the 222's are used on ARE being electrified, hense the speculation about them going elsewhere. Short of scrapping them, the most likely use for them is running the services to Cornwall where they would be a stop gap measure until the whole line can be electrified, proberbly towards the end of the working life of the 222's

I do however have to ask you, would you rather have 8/9-car bi-mode class 222 units on the Cotswolds line or the have the 5-car IEP DfT is planning to foist on the Cotswolds line. A 5-car IEP, by the way, will have around 250 standard class seats and 60 First class I believe. A 8-car 222 might not have as many seats as an IC125, but it'd have more seats than the IEP bi-modes you'd get otherwise.

Slight correction on numbers a 5 coach IEP is currently shown as having 270 standard seats and 45 first class seats. As others have suggested this may be reconfiggered; for example it could be that the doubled up 5 coach trains (pure electric) run to Wales, with 9 coach bimodal trains running on the Cotswolds line.

Agreed, or (better yet?) a dual-voltage 5-WES (aka class 442), perhaps in 3-car or 4-car formations rather than the 5-car sets of 442/444. Similarly I think TransPennineExpress should have OHLE-powered 444/442-type units, and the north-Wales coast if it is electrified. Portion-working should not be done with units that don't have end-gangways in my opinion, anything that lacks end-gangways should be long enough that you don't need to run it in multiple (another reason why I don't like Voyagers and short IEPs).

One of the problems with your suggestion of doing away with potion workings is that oftern there are not enough paths to allow two seperate trains to run over part of the route (oftern into London), but there is a need for higher speed trains to maximise the number of paths availiable. Yes when the 22x's where built they were seen as a good thing, however time has overtaken them and so there is a need for a change. Yes IEP could fall into the same trap, however there are going to be a lot more of them and so the shorter form trains can always be moved to other routes whilst being replaced by a new IC pure EMU (maybe even more electric IEP's). It may well be that we also see more 110mph trains which allow the use of end gangways.

Agreed. The last applies to a lot of other lines though, including TPE where the 185s currently are. Somebody should have built a load more 158s/159s instead of 170s and 185s.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, again at the time they were seen as a good thing.

Isn't CP6 a bit late to replace Pacers? Unless they are given a dispensation to work for a year or two extra, they will have to have the access-for-all mods by the end of 2019. If anyone has invested in said mods for the Pacers they will be here to stay for some time.

Either is possible, however neither would be a problem. If they get dispensation for a year or two then there is no need to spendd money on them and it allows time for further electrification. Conversly if money is spent on them and they stay for another period of time (let's say 5 years) than it allows more time for lines to be electrified and/or provides the possibility of more rolling stock for lines which may well need it (remember that NR's growth figuers are 2.5% per year and growth is much higher than that at the moment).

I agree, multiple revenue protection staff for longer trains regardless of corridor connections would be useful. However, doubling-up catering staff is unecessary if there are through corridor-connections and the ability to move passengers between units on-the-move (if they are in the wrong portion on a portion-worked service or one unit is full and standard while there are plenty of seats in the other) is, in my opinion, crucial.

If you have a train with the possibility of 250 people seated on the train then you are likely to need to have less catering staff than if the train could have 500 people seated on the train, regardless of if the train has corridor conections or not. Given that this thread is talking about train services to Cornwall, where the trains are pretty much full from London to Exeter and often to Plymouth, then having extra catering staff is an advantage. It also means that people would be more inclided to use the catering services if all of them can walk to a bufet in up to 3 coaches (7 coach 222) or up to 2 coaches (5 coach 222) rather than up to 5 coaches as at present.

Also most people will book a seat for IC train services if they are traveling any sort of distance and so there is less likely to be empty half of a train while the other half is jam packed. This could be further aided by booking as many seats in the country half of the train as possible (assuming running out of London), so that the commutors fill up the "emptier" half when they all jump on at the last minute.

Given the time required to split a train it is more than possible for the train staff to identify those passengers in the wrong portion and aid them into the right portion for their journey. Espicially as this happens up and down the network on a daily basis already.

 

[Goatboy]

Also most people will book a seat for IC train services if they are traveling any sort of distance and so there is less likely to be empty half of a train while the other half is jam packed.

In theory yes but as anyone who has travelled on a double Voyager will tell you in practice you end up with a comfortable and lightly loaded unit and a wedged and packed unit.

 

[Rhydgaled]

we can't electrify the entire network all in one go - so in the meantime there have to be ways to keep services going where they straddle electrified and non-electrified routes.

Indeed, but building new trains specifically designed for the task of keeping partially-electrified INTERCITY services going will lead to either:

• Delay of eventual full-electrification of the routes in question or
• Expensive-to-run Intercity units to cascade and nowhere such a train is really suitable (same problem that's exists with Voyagers)

Much better, in my opinion, to use old, existing, diesel-powered trains* that are suitable for the task but closer to retirement. That way, there is more incentive to get the wires up as quickly as possible and when they do go up the full benifits can be realised, rather than keeping most of the disadvatages of diesel for 30+ years by ordering new bi-modes.

* Possible options include:

• Intercity 125 continuation
• Push-pull LHCS with a loco-swap at limit of wires (if TDM's a problem, why can't it be fixed?) (electric locos could be new, existing diesel take over at end of wires, diesel locos can then be retired if wires go up)
• IEP pure-electrics with diesel-loco haulage beyond wires (old diesel locos, which can then be retired if wires go up)
• Class 222 bi-modes if NYM is right about there being a case for them despite there not being one for 220s/221s

As I see it, the bi-mode option looks better for the Cotswolds line, IC125s for Plymouth/Penzance/Taunton/Exeter and loco-hauled EMUs for the others.

What on earth makes you think there is any difference between a 222 and 220 when it comes to trying to use overhead electric power? The kit under the floor is the same and that's where the issues and costs which killed the 220 notion lie.

As I said in my previous post, NYM suggested that things might be different with 222s. I had assumed e-Meridian was as dead as e-Voyager, but NYM's post got me all excited that it might not be dead after all.

Bluster all you like, a donkey engine is the shunting/get out of an area where electric power has been lost engine for the straight-electric sets, not the main power plant engines for use when bi-modes are running on diesel.

I KNOW THAT, what I want from IEP is pure-electric units. 'Pure-electric' meaning no diesel engines at all, not even the 'donkey engine' for shunting/OHLE-failures.

Slight correction on numbers a 5 coach IEP is currently shown as having 270 standard seats and 45 first class seats. As others have suggested this may be reconfiggered; for example it could be that the doubled up 5 coach trains (pure electric) run to Wales, with 9 coach bimodal trains running on the Cotswolds line.

Yes, it may be reconfigured, but until it is done I can do no better than assume the published numbers and base my criticisms on them. The most recent published plans I've seen are for no 'pure-electrics' and a mix of 5-car bi-mode and 9-car psudeo-electric sets.

If bi-mode 222s are as dead as bi-mode 221s/220s then I think the IEP fleet should be reconfigured to consist solely of 9-car 'pure-electrics' (instead of the 9-car psudeo-electrics in the published plans) and a minimal number of bi-modes of at least 7-car length. Prefrably, there would be some alternative to bi-mode on the Cotswolds line and all IEPs could be 9-car pure-electrics.

One of the problems with your suggestion of doing away with potion workings is that oftern there are not enough paths to allow two seperate trains to run over part of the route (oftern into London)

Are we talking Waterloo - Exeter or GWML? If the former, I don't suggest doing away with portion working, just that any new units should have gangways like the present 158s/159s. Portion working is great in my opinion, just not if you can't walk between units while the train is moving.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, again at the time they were seen as a good thing.

Why would a surburban DMU with poor-acceleration (which a class 170 is, according to what I've picked up on this fourm) be considered a good thing? Surely acceleration matters more if you are making more stops, meaning if anything the 170s should have EMU-acceration and 220s should accelerate more slowly.

Given that this thread is talking about train services to Cornwall, where the trains are pretty much full from London to Exeter and often to Plymouth, then having extra catering staff is an advantage. It also means that people would be more inclided to use the catering services if all of them can walk to a bufet in up to 3 coaches (7 coach 222) or up to 2 coaches (5 coach 222) rather than up to 5 coaches as at present.

I don't get that argument. Of course a shorter train will mean passengers having less distance to walk to a buffet. However, given that you just said the trains are full, a shorter train is the last thing you want. Shorter units are less likely to provide the more-substantial standard of catering (from a kitchen/buffet) that longer-distance passengers are more likely to require. Do 5-car 22xs have kitchens/buffet or is it only a trolley service, the 5-car IEP floor plan seemed to be trolley-only.

Also most people will book a seat for IC train services if they are traveling any sort of distance and so there is less likely to be empty half of a train while the other half is jam packed. This could be further aided by booking as many seats in the country half of the train as possible (assuming running out of London), so that the commutors fill up the "emptier" half when they all jump on at the last minute.

That might limit the damage a little I suppose. My grandmother and I have a theroy that many passengers with reservations often don't bother finding their resevered seat if they can get a seat otherwise. I still would hope both units ran the full-length of the service though, in case passengers cut it fine and jump on at the nearest door which happened to be the wrong unit.

Given the time required to split a train it is more than possible for the train staff to identify those passengers in the wrong portion and aid them into the right portion for their journey. Espicially as this happens up and down the network on a daily basis already.

If you provide enough time between the train arriving and the first portion departing to make it a connection that would work. In theroy however with 158s, 377s etc. the guard(s) can make sure everyone is in the correct portion before the split-station and the detached units can depart in less time than would be required for a safe connection.

 

[The Ham]

Indeed, but building new trains specifically designed for the task of keeping partially-electrified INTERCITY services going will lead to either:

• Delay of eventual full-electrification of the routes in question or
• Expensive-to-run Intercity units to cascade and nowhere such a train is really suitable (same problem that's exists with Voyagers)

Much better, in my opinion, to use old, existing, diesel-powered trains* that are suitable for the task but closer to retirement. That way, there is more incentive to get the wires up as quickly as possible and when they do go up the full benifits can be realised, rather than keeping most of the disadvatages of diesel for 30+ years by ordering new bi-modes.

* Possible options include:

• Intercity 125 continuation
• Push-pull LHCS with a loco-swap at limit of wires (if TDM's a problem, why can't it be fixed?) (electric locos could be new, existing diesel take over at end of wires, diesel locos can then be retired if wires go up)
• IEP pure-electrics with diesel-loco haulage beyond wires (old diesel locos, which can then be retired if wires go up)
• Class 222 bi-modes if NYM is right about there being a case for them despite there not being one for 220s/221s

Basicly all the argurments agains those points have been covered serveal times over in IEP threads, so I'm not going to repeat them here. Anyone want to bring up HS2 while were at it?

As I see it, the bi-mode option looks better for the Cotswolds line, IC125s for Plymouth/Penzance/Taunton/Exeter and loco-hauled EMUs for the others.

So bi-modal is fine for the Cotswolds line, just not bi-modal IEP? The problem with bi-modal 222's running on the Cotswolds line is that they would only require a few of them and it would basicly be a micro fleet which would require an additional depot to maintain them.

Yes, it may be reconfigured, but until it is done I can do no better than assume the published numbers and base my criticisms on them. The most recent published plans I've seen are for no 'pure-electrics' and a mix of 5-car bi-mode and 9-car psudeo-electric sets.

Yes they maybe reconfiggered to allow more/less seating, however the point I was making was that your numbers didn't tally with the draft layouts (which what we have to go on), not that they would be good/bad with that number of seats.

The only reason that the elcetric IEP is not "pure electric" as you state is that it has one reserve diesel engine. Again the argements for/against have ben covered enough elsewhere.

If bi-mode 222s are as dead as bi-mode 221s/220s then I think the IEP fleet should be reconfigured to consist solely of 9-car 'pure-electrics' (instead of the 9-car psudeo-electrics in the published plans) and a minimal number of bi-modes of at least 7-car length. Prefrably, there would be some alternative to bi-mode on the Cotswolds line and all IEPs could be 9-car pure-electrics.

Until the next franchise is anounced the configerations of the IEP lengths is all speculation and not really relevant to this thread, other than to say a 7 coach IEP will have more seating than a 7 coach 222. Also the problem with medium length trains (7 or 8 coaches) is that it then makes it difficult to pair them up, resulting in capacity problems between Lodon & Oxford.

Are we talking Waterloo - Exeter or GWML? If the former, I don't suggest doing away with portion working, just that any new units should have gangways like the present 158s/159s. Portion working is great in my opinion, just not if you can't walk between units while the train is moving.

Neither, both. Basicly I was being general about portion workings.

Why would a surburban DMU with poor-acceleration (which a class 170 is, according to what I've picked up on this fourm) be considered a good thing? Surely acceleration matters more if you are making more stops, meaning if anything the 170s should have EMU-acceration and 220s should accelerate more slowly.

they are not pacers!

I don't get that argument. Of course a shorter train will mean passengers having less distance to walk to a buffet. However, given that you just said the trains are full, a shorter train is the last thing you want. Shorter units are less likely to provide the more-substantial standard of catering (from a kitchen/buffet) that longer-distance passengers are more likely to require. Do 5-car 22xs have kitchens/buffet or is it only a trolley service, the 5-car IEP floor plan seemed to be trolley-only.

OK, let's make this simple.

Two trains joined up with two buffets would attract more people to use them. One long train would need more staff, so what is wrong with two trains.

That might limit the damage a little I suppose. My grandmother and I have a theroy that many passengers with reservations often don't bother finding their resevered seat if they can get a seat otherwise. I still would hope both units ran the full-length of the service though, in case passengers cut it fine and jump on at the nearest door which happened to be the wrong unit.

If you provide enough time between the train arriving and the first portion departing to make it a connection that would work. In theroy however with 158s, 377s etc. the guard(s) can make sure everyone is in the correct portion before the split-station and the detached units can depart in less time than would be required for a safe connection.

There would be no need for the full conection time, as the "change" would be from on part of a platform to another.

The problem comes when you are trying to thread 90/100mph trains (which can have coridoor sonections) in amoungst 125mph trains (which can't). Which either results in less train slots or slowing everything down.

 

[tbtc]

Indeed, but building new trains specifically designed for the task of keeping partially-electrified INTERCITY services going will lead to either:

• Delay of eventual full-electrification of the routes in question or
• Expensive-to-run Intercity units to cascade and nowhere such a train is really suitable (same problem that's exists with Voyagers)

Much better, in my opinion, to use old, existing, diesel-powered trains* that are suitable for the task but closer to retirement. That way, there is more incentive to get the wires up as quickly as possible and when they do go up the full benifits can be realised, rather than keeping most of the disadvatages of diesel for 30+ years by ordering new bi-modes.

* Possible options include:

• Intercity 125 continuation
• Push-pull LHCS with a loco-swap at limit of wires (if TDM's a problem, why can't it be fixed?) (electric locos could be new, existing diesel take over at end of wires, diesel locos can then be retired if wires go up)
• IEP pure-electrics with diesel-loco haulage beyond wires (old diesel locos, which can then be retired if wires go up)
• Class 222 bi-modes if NYM is right about there being a case for them despite there not being one for 220s/221s

Let me get this right - you don't want to build bi-mode IEP (where the engines can be easily removed at a later date to convert them to "full" EMUs) as it'd be a waste of resources (the engines can then be added to other IEPs to provide "reserve" diesel engines in new IEPs, or you can move the bi-mode trains onto other partially electrified lines)...

...so instead you want to build new diesel locos (that would have virtually no use once further lines are electrified) and don't see that as a waste of resources?

(unless you have ideas about dusting down Class 37s or asking France for our 58s back, there really aren't sufficient spare diesel locos nowadays, unless you decimate freight companies)

 

[Zoe]

the engines can then be added to other IEPs to provide "reserve" diesel engines in new IEPs

Are the emergency engines for the electric IEP the same as the engines that will be used to power the when off the wires bi-mode IEP?

 

[ainsworth74]

Are the emergency engines for the electric IEP the same as the engines that will be used to power the when off the wires bi-mode IEP?

As far as I'm aware the EMU IEP will use the same power pack as the bi-mode IEP. There'll just be one of them rather than several.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I KNOW THAT, what I want from IEP is pure-electric units. 'Pure-electric' meaning no diesel engines at all, not even the 'donkey engine' for shunting/OHLE-failures.

Well lets satisfy your preferences and sacrifice having a flexible unit that won't get stranded and will be able to complete shunt moves on un-electrified sections of track increasing flexibility further.

Why does it need to be pure electric? Why can't it have a back up system used in emergencies? Give me a good reason?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As far as I'm aware the EMU IEP will use the same power pack as the bi-mode IEP. There'll just be one of them rather than several.

The single IEP power pack will be the MTU 12V 1600 R80L rated at 700kW - hardly a "donkey engine" .
One is to be fitted on electric IEPs, three to five on bi-modes.
For comparison the Cummins QSK19 in Class 180/185/22x is rated at 560kW.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...werpacks-for-intercity-express-programme.html

 

[The Ham]

Are the emergency engines for the electric IEP the same as the engines that will be used to power the when off the wires bi-mode IEP?

This news story seams to say that they are:
http://www.globalrailnews.com/2012/09/20/mtu-to-deliver-e200m-iep-engine-contract/

The new rolling stock will consist of a mix of electric and bi-mode trains, which will enable them to run on both electrified and non-electrified routes. All trains will be fitted with at least one 700kW MTU Powerpack with Series 1600 12-cylinder engine, providing self-rescue capability and hotel power for the electric trains.

 

[HSTEd]

So a 5-car bi-mode IEP will be convertible into three electric IEPs by construction of the additional vehicles?

If we are committing to IEP type trains in the long term this sounds like a good plan.

 

[Yew]

So a 5-car bi-mode IEP will be convertible into three electric IEPs by construction of the additional vehicles?

If we are committing to IEP type trains in the long term this sounds like a good plan.

Good, IF the follow up order if taken up, and the life of the IEP can match the new carriages. (or maybe make complete sets, that can then be split up within the fleet, and reassembled to remain the last IEP's in service) Of course this good, is assuming that the IEP is a pleasant train to travel on, which could be a pretty big assumption

 

[tbtc]

So a 5-car bi-mode IEP will be convertible into three electric IEPs by construction of the additional vehicles?

If we are committing to IEP type trains in the long term this sounds like a good plan.

Plus a five coach bi-mode could "easily" be converted to a nine coach "pure electric".

Its not like Voyagers where we are stuck with the original order (without being able to modify/ improve)

 

[The Ham]

The single IEP power pack will be the MTU 12V 1600 R80L rated at 700kW - hardly a "donkey engine" .
One is to be fitted on electric IEPs, three to five on bi-modes.
For comparison the Cummins QSK19 in Class 180/185/22x is rated at 560kW.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...werpacks-for-intercity-express-programme.html

Even not allowing for any new engines, 2x5 coach bimodal IEP's (2x3 engines) could be converted to a 9 coach bimodal (5 engines) and a 5 to 9 coach electric (1 engine) just by the insertion of extra coaches. Even if the engines are difficult to remove and put on other coaches the process could still happen, but there would be the need for 3x5 coach bimodals to get enough central coaches with engines on to make up a 9 coach bimodal.

Such flexibility could allow for the IEP fleet to expand to cover more of the IC network as more of it is electrified without the need to build more engines, which gets around the problem which many DMU's currently have.

This is aided by the fact that as the IEP's are likely to be running on electric for at least some of the time each day and as such it is likely that the enginees will last longer than those on normal DMU's.

Which means that it is likely that if the 222's do go to GW it is likely that they could well be repaced by IEP as more of the network is electrified.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Well lets satisfy your preferences and sacrifice having a flexible unit that won't get stranded and will be able to complete shunt moves on un-electrified sections of track increasing flexibility further.

Why does it need to be pure electric? Why can't it have a back up system used in emergencies? Give me a good reason?

Having a diesel engine on board, even if it is hardly used, sacrifices many of the benifits of electrification (many of which relate to avoiding drawbacks of diesel power).

For example:

• Higher power-to-weight ratio, resulting in, among other things, faster acceleration - compromised unless you use more power to compensate for the weight of the diesel engine
• Lower build cost - sacrificed
• Lower maintance costs - sacrificed
• Reduced environmental pollution - this is the most important of electrification's many benifits in my view - compromised due to the impact of the weight of diesel engine and fuel.
• Lower running costs - compromised due to the impact of the weight of diesel engine and fuel.

For something which is only going to be used very occasionally, except perhaps in depots, I don't think it is worth sacrificing many of the benifits of electrification for. I surmise that the rail industry agrees with me on this based on the fact that (as far as I know) no electric train in Britain has a 'donkey engine', unless you count the 3rd-rail electro-diesel locos but I think the diesel engine on them is intended to be used rather more often than IEP's. Even on the ECML, where the wires apparently are more prone to falling down, the IC225s haven't been fitted with a diesel engine for hotel power.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Having a diesel engine on board, even if it is hardly used, sacrifices many of the benifits of electrification (many of which relate to avoiding drawbacks of diesel power).

For example:

• Higher power-to-weight ratio, resulting in, among other things, faster acceleration - compromised unless you use more power to compensate for the weight of the diesel engine
• Lower build cost - sacrificed
• Lower maintance costs - sacrificed
• Reduced environmental pollution - this is the most important of electrification's many benifits in my view - compromised due to the impact of the weight of diesel engine and fuel.
• Lower running costs - compromised due to the impact of the weight of diesel engine and fuel.

For something which is only going to be used very occasionally, except perhaps in depots, I don't think it is worth sacrificing many of the benifits of electrification for. I surmise that the rail industry agrees with me on this based on the fact that (as far as I know) no electric train in Britain has a 'donkey engine', unless you count the 3rd-rail electro-diesel locos but I think the diesel engine on them is intended to be used rather more often than IEP's. Even on the ECML, where the wires apparently are more prone to falling down, the IC225s haven't been fitted with a diesel engine for hotel power.

That's because it is the first of its kind in the UK (ish). If we took your attitude that no other stock has it we would still be using rocket and little wooden carriages!

Well we will have to disagree. The environmental issue with it will barely be noticeable in the grand scheme of things when considering a whole life cost. Again one engine isnt going to make much difference to the power to weight ratio or indeed the weight. 1 heavier carriage isn't going to make a huge difference. I think you are very much overstating the problems associated with 1 diesel engine. Your points are valid for Bi-Mode but not the donkey engine.

 

[Nym]

Bearing in mind this donkey engine is going to be of the order of betweeen 300kW and 500kW, one really can't expect much movment from it; more that it would be able to maintain HVAC, Lighting, Train Systems etc, and if this can be classed as a safety critical fallback supply, then the mass of batteries required for control systems backup can be reduced (although I dowbt this).
However, if batteries only need to keep control gear going with a lot of equipment on loadshed, then batteries won't need to be as good, and passenger enviroment can be massively improved in times of disruption, maintaining full lighting, HVAC and keeping the compressors running is almost essential nowerdays in terms of comfort.
If one knocks off the HVAC then movment may be able to be obtained with only 400kW.
For context a 9 car 390 has 5100kW of motors, (5950kW on an 11 car).

 

[ainsworth74]

Bearing in mind this donkey engine is going to be of the order of betweeen 300kW and 500kW

According to information up thread it will be 700kW so does someone feel like providing a source so we can work out which is right

 

[Nym]

And how large is a 700kW generator?

Voyagers are fitted with 560kW gennerators and there isn't much space left under the cars, so how can one fit a 700kW one?

 

[jimm]

Even on the ECML, where the wires apparently are more prone to falling down, the IC225s haven't been fitted with a diesel engine for hotel power.

But after the frequent episodes of trains being stranded for hours on end when the wires have come down, the Government wants something done to enable trains to escape, which is where the idea of fitting this diesel engine came from. Maybe you find the idea of sitting staring at the same bit of countryside for hours on end while waiting for a diesel loco to be sent to the rescue from somewhere miles away exciting. Most people don't.

And speaking of diesels, surely running a locomotive with a whacking great 3,000-plus horsepower engine in light engine mode for many miles in such circumstances is equally, if not more, environmentally disastrous than having a small engine on board able to shift the train a short distance to reach a piece of catenary with electric current in it? Or am I just being far too logical and practical for you?

Much better, in my opinion, to use old, existing, diesel-powered trains* that are suitable for the task but closer to retirement. That way, there is more incentive to get the wires up as quickly as possible and when they do go up the full benifits can be realised, rather than keeping most of the disadvatages of diesel for 30+ years by ordering new bi-modes.

* Possible options include:
Intercity 125 continuation
Push-pull LHCS with a loco-swap at limit of wires (if TDM's a problem, why can't it be fixed?) (electric locos could be new, existing diesel take over at end of wires, diesel locos can then be retired if wires go up)
IEP pure-electrics with diesel-loco haulage beyond wires (old diesel locos, which can then be retired if wires go up)
Class 222 bi-modes if NYM is right about there being a case for them despite there not being one for 220s/221s

As I see it, the bi-mode option looks better for the Cotswolds line, IC125s for Plymouth/Penzance/Taunton/Exeter and loco-hauled EMUs for the others.

I'm really tired of being told by someone who has apparently never been anywhere near the Cotswold Line what they see as being better for it. Please stop, especially when, without the IEP, there is no bi-mode option to begin with. Any 22x-based solution - for the zillionth time - will never ever have the seating capacity to cope with existing peak loads, west or east of Oxford - a station where traffic has doubled since 1997-98, much of that increase being to/from Reading and London - never mind offering any ability to deal with future growth. And that would apply to the notion of using 22xs anywhere else in GW-land as well.

 

[sprinterguy]

And how large is a 700kW generator?

Voyagers are fitted with 560kW gennerators and there isn't much space left under the cars, so how can one fit a 700kW one?

Well, they must have found a way, as the 700kW power plant is what is going to be fitted to the IEPs, both electric and Bi-mode versions alike. I have seen absolutely no evidence that the diesel engine fitted to the IEP will be "between 300kW and 500kW".

Diesel engine technology moves on, and as it does it seems to me that it becomes possible to fit larger power plants into a similar area as a smaller, older unit: There was a time when even the 750hp power unit fitted to Voyagers, Meridians and the like would be unthinkable for locating beneath the floor, when the Southern Region "Thumpers" needed an entirely separate engine compartment, above the floor, to accommodate a 600hp power unit and during the same time period the majority of high powered (Around 3000hp) diesel locomotives utilised two smaller power units to generate this power due to both weight and space constraints.

 

[Rhydgaled]

And how large is a 700kW generator?

Voyagers are fitted with 560kW gennerators and there isn't much space left under the cars, so how can one fit a 700kW one?

On the WNXX fourm there are those who have said that tall passengers will have to mind their heads due to an unusally high floor to accomadate the 700kw engines.

What was it you were saying about bi-mode 222s?

 

[Nym]

On the WNXX fourm there are those who have said that tall passengers will have to mind their heads due to an unusally high floor to accomadate the 700kw engines.

What was it you were saying about bi-mode 222s?

Significantly more viable than Bi-Mode 220s or 221s as a lot of the issues I previously stated many moons ago tend to go away.

For example, 222s use Bombardier systems, not Alstom ones, the longer units and longer formations on the GW allow for two or three transformer coaches as well, that would not be possible due to XC's network as a 6 and 7 car fleet would mean no more double units.

 

[Rhydgaled]

But after the frequent episodes of trains being stranded for hours on end when the wires have come down

....

And speaking of diesels, surely running a locomotive with a whacking great 3,000-plus horsepower engine in light engine mode for many miles in such circumstances is equally, if not more, environmentally disastrous than having a small engine on board able to shift the train a short distance to reach a piece of catenary with electric current in it? Or am I just being far too logical and practical for you?

I'm sorry, 'frequent episodes'? I just don't think the wires fall down nearly often enough to justify throwing a multitude of the benifits of electrification in the bin. Are the new 350s and 377s to have 'donkey-engines'? Does any railway in mainland Europe, or indeed anywhere, have EMUs with 'donkey-engines' (as opposed to bi-modes, I know there are some of them in Europe)?

Any 22x-based solution - for the zillionth time - will never ever have the seating capacity to cope

...

And that would apply to the notion of using 22xs anywhere else in GW-land as well.

Neither will 5-car IEPs. My opinion is that 22xs on GW IC services is far from a great idea, but given that the Coltswolds line is 5-car IEP teritory otherwise I would say that if any GW IC route must have 222s that'd be the best route for them (provided they come in at least 7 or 8 car lengths to beat the seating capcity of the IEP alternative). Really, on GW, a 222 would only be fit to replace long-distance class 150 workings or perhaps a 5/6-car 222 would have more seats than a 3-car 158? but they look like a better option than IEP to me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Significantly more viable than Bi-Mode 220s or 221s as a lot of the issues I previously stated many moons ago tend to go away.

For example, 222s use Bombardier systems, not Alstom ones, the longer units and longer formations on the GW allow for two or three transformer coaches as well, that would not be possible due to XC's network as a 6 and 7 car fleet would mean no more double units.

Thank you.

 

[jimm]

I'm sorry, 'frequent episodes'? I just don't think the wires fall down nearly often enough to justify throwing a multitude of the benifits of electrification in the bin. Are the new 350s and 377s to have 'donkey-engines'? Does any railway in mainland Europe, or indeed anywhere, have EMUs with 'donkey-engines' (as opposed to bi-modes, I know there are some of them in Europe)?

Neither will 5-car IEPs. My opinion is that 22xs on GW IC services is far from a great idea, but given that the Coltswolds line is 5-car IEP teritory otherwise I would say that if any GW IC route must have 222s that'd be the best route for them (provided they come in at least 7 or 8 car lengths to beat the seating capcity of the IEP alternative). Really, on GW, a 222 would only be fit to replace long-distance class 150 workings or perhaps a 5/6-car 222 would have more seats than a 3-car 158? but they look like a better option than IEP to me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Thank you.

Well we could go through all the incidents on the ECML and WCML over the years but that would be very boring.

I don't know about emus in europe, but several of the most recent designs of electric locomotives being offered by leading European manufacturers are fitted with 'donkey' engines. And there are hundreds of bi-mode units in France, not 'some'.

You really don't read what other people post, do you? Or you never seem able to remember it, even if you do. I mentioned the following just two days ago, after mentioning it several times elsewhere on this forum in recent months, but let's try again.

FGW have questioned the idea of there just being five-car IEP bi-modes, given current growth in traffic, and it is clear that message had got through, even at DafT - something I keep mentioning but you keep ignoring. I have been in the room during a speech by Mark Hopwood where he mentioned this issue in the context of current loadings on five-car 180s, again something I have previously mentioned. No-one in their right mind would suggest using a five-car IEP on a peak-hour Cotswold Line express (except you, because it seems to justify your 'opinion'), yet another reason why FGW have raised the issue with DafT. Any sort of 22x formation will not do the job either - full stop.

The shambles that is the franchising process has put back any efforts to make headway on rearranging the fleet but the preparatory work for longer bi-mode formations has been done by Hitachi anyway.

And thank Nym all you like - no serious work has been done on the notion of a 222 bi-mode. It is no more a runner than the 220 proposal, where serious design work was actually carried out.

As for the stuff about the floors and people hitting their heads, the floor in a 180 is higher than a Mk3 but I have yet to hit my head inside a 180. Clearly I must try harder.

What's your next reason for not buying bi-modes going to be? That we shouldn't get them because each one will be followed around everywhere by its own little rain cloud?

 

[ainsworth74]

On the WNXX fourm there are those who have said that tall passengers will have to mind their heads due to an unusally high floor to accomadate the 700kw engines.

Did they actually have a source for that or were they just stating an opinion?

And how large is a 700kW generator?

Voyagers are fitted with 560kW gennerators and there isn't much space left under the cars, so how can one fit a 700kW one?

No idea. Hence why I'd like someone to come up with a source for either claim made so far. Though the 700kW one seems more credible so far.

 

[Nym]

And thank Nym all you like - no serious work has been done on the notion of a 222 bi-mode. It is no more a runner than the 220 proposal, where serious design work was actually carried out.

Really? You work at Bombardier do you?

I find it very hard to believe that no concept work has been carried out for the addition of PTSO/PTFO coaches to the 222 fleet...

PS: Even if you do work for Bombardier, theres still a very good chance that you wouldn't know if a feasability had been carried out or not.

 

[jimm]

Really? You work at Bombardier do you?

I find it very hard to believe that no concept work has been carried out for the addition of PTSO/PTFO coaches to the 222 fleet...

PS: Even if you do work for Bombardier, theres still a very good chance that you wouldn't know if a feasability had been carried out or not.

Do you work at bombardier?

Do you know if concept work on a 222 has been carried out?

Do you actually have any evidence that a 222 bi-mode is any more credible than the clearly dead in the water 220 bi-mode?

And if you want to know what the 700kw MTU powerpack for IEP looks like, go here http://www.mtu-online.com/japan/pre...mages/cHash/d80e54016f174fbb726c9d6b2a33061f/ and click on the download link next to the second picture down