Trains Suited To Long Distance Services With Lower Top Speed

[tbtc]

Something I don't think we've discussed before - whilst there have been plenty of comments that high speed trains should be put on lower speed lines...

• 125mph Voyagers/ Meridians on the 90mph Waterloo - Exeter service
• 125mph 180s on the 90 mph Cardiff - Holyhead service
• 125mph HSTs on the 90mph Norwich - Liverpool service
• 90mph 158s on the 75mph West Highland Line

...because people think that these trains are better suited to long distance operation, nobody seems to have suggested building 90mph/100mph trains with doors/ interiors suited to long journeys.

Since there are always going to be a lot of routes with long "end to end" journeys but that are fairly slow (whether due to line speed, number of stops, pathing...), do you think that there's a need for any "long distance" stock with a slower top speed?

Since "crumple zones" waste so much space, I think that 125mph stock is a bit of a waste on routes that its not required on.

 

[WatcherZero]

The distinction between 90mph routes and 100 mph routes seems to have faded in recent years.

 

[Manchester77]

Class 175s are a good example of the new build ones.
100 mph, intercity styled seats and doors. Maybe a new version of this could be used on some routes mentioned?

 

[tbtc]

The distinction between 90mph routes and 100 mph routes seems to have faded in recent years.

True - 100 has become the new 90 in some ways I guess.

Class 175s are a good example of the new build ones.
100 mph, intercity styled seats and doors. Maybe a new version of this could be used on some routes mentioned?

175s are a very good example - there are a few 170 routes where a 175 may be more suited (in terms of the interior "feel"). Really the 175 is the only successor to the 158 (other modern DMUs are different)

 

[starrymarkb]

Class 175s are a good example of the new build ones.
100 mph, intercity styled seats and doors. Maybe a new version of this could be used on some routes mentioned?

or the 22xxx series in Ireland

 

[transmanche]

nobody seems to have suggested building 90mph/100mph trains with doors/ interiors suited to long journeys.

Class 444 EMUs. 2+2 seating, passengers doors at each end of the carriage, 100mph max speed.

It's a shame that the 185s weren't built with the same door arrangement.

 

[Manchester77]

Really we need a new version of the 175 - 100 mph, intercity style doors maybe build say a 6 car unit with at the very least intercity style buffet trolley.

 

[Kneedown]

Since "crumple zones" waste so much space, I think that 125mph stock is a bit of a waste on routes that its not required on.

Crumple zones are not wasted space at all. Use them as luggage/cycle areas which are severely lacking on Sprinters.

 

[Yew]

Really we need a new version of the 175 - 100 mph, intercity style doors maybe build say a 6 car unit with at the very least intercity style buffet trolley.

to run on routes previously run by Mk2's (like xc stuff, and some of the longer sprinter workings?)

 

[jopsuk]

Class 444 EMUs. 2+2 seating, passengers doors at each end of the carriage, 100mph max speed.

It's a shame that the 185s weren't built with the same door arrangement.

Very much this. The 185s really should have been striaght up, 3-car (possibly 4) diesel versions of the 444 (they are afterall on the 23m, not 20m, body shell) including corridor cab ends (as they do rather a lot of operation in multiple/splitting).

 

[HSTEd]

Problem with 175s and Siemens derived units is they do not provide the operational benefits associated with Sprinters (SP speed limits) as well as being rather heavier, Siemens units especially, with the associated increased track wear and fuel burn problems.

Really you need some sort of end door Sprinter, a 158 with more power.

What about putting a Cl172 engine and transmission into old 158 body shells, if people really are serious about keeping them on past DDA?
If they end up scrapped relatively soon you will have a bunch of modern Turbostar compatible transmissions rather than bespoke traction equipment.

 

[starrymarkb]

Problem with 175s and Siemens derived units is they do not provide the operational benefits associated with Sprinters (SP speed limits) as well as being rather heavier, Siemens units especially, with the associated increased track wear and fuel burn problems.

Really you need some sort of end door Sprinter, a 158 with more power.

What about putting a Cl172 engine and transmission into old 158 body shells, if people really are serious about keeping them on past DDA?
If they end up scrapped relatively soon you will have a bunch of modern Turbostar compatible transmissions rather than bespoke traction equipment.

Can't speak for the Diesels (and its not really a good comparison given that the Siemens unit is super powered compared with the Turbostar - IIRC Bombardier were going to put a bigger drive engine and secondary engine for hotel power in their offer to TPE)

But to shock HSTEd.
The Siemens 450 is LIGHTER then a Bombardier 377

 

[northwichcat]

• 125mph Voyagers/ Meridians on the 90mph Waterloo - Exeter service
  [*]125mph 180s on the 90 mph Cardiff - Holyhead service
  [*]125mph HSTs on the 90mph Norwich - Liverpool service
• 90mph 158s on the 75mph West Highland Line

Not sure about all the routes listed here but the two middle routes could exceed 90mph in places if faster stock was used.

...because people think that these trains are better suited to long distance operation, nobody seems to have suggested building 90mph/100mph trains with doors/ interiors suited to long journeys.

Is 90mph stock replacing 90mph stock actually a good idea for the long term? If speed limits get raised then 90mph stock will be a barrier to additional services being introduced.

Wouldn't it be better to replace 75mph stock with 90mph stock with good acceleration and 90mph stock with 110mph stock?

 

[tbtc]

Not sure about all the routes listed here but the two middle routes could exceed 90mph in places if faster stock was used

100mph (or faster) may be possible between Cardiff - Holyhead or Norwich - Liverpool, but it depends on paths/ stops etc too

Is 90mph stock replacing 90mph stock actually a good idea for the long term? If speed limits get raised then 90mph stock will be a barrier to additional services being introduced.

Wouldn't it be better to replace 75mph stock with 90mph stock with good acceleration and 90mph stock with 110mph stock?

The CP5 electrification plans and EGIP will mean some 100mph stock spare (TPE 170/185s, LM 170s, FSR 170s, EMT HSTs/222s) plus potentially some Voyagers spared by "baby Pendolini" / electrification of the gaps between Manchester and Southampton.

Whilst some of these will be used to provide more capacity on existing routes, there'll be more 100mph stock spare than there will be 75/90mph stock spare.

 

[northwichcat]

EMT HSTs/222s) plus potentially some Voyagers spared by "baby Pendolini" / electrification of the gaps between Manchester and Southampton.

We don't really know for certain on those.

The Voyagers and 222s may well have pantographs added and stay on their existing routes. You might say they'll be no need for them to do that but look at Virgin and Birmingham-Scotland, they aren't happy using EMUs due to a lack of diversionary electrified routes but if they had dual powered units they could have used the electrics except when they were being diverted.

There is nothing stopping the HST locos getting replaced by either electric locos or by diesel locos more suitable for local/regional services if the HST carriages are refurbished to be DDA complaint.

 

[HSTEd]

Can't speak for the Diesels (and its not really a good comparison given that the Siemens unit is super powered compared with the Turbostar - IIRC Bombardier were going to put a bigger drive engine and secondary engine for hotel power in their offer to TPE)

Yes, they were going to, but this was the era when the Class 170 weighed in at roughly 45t a vehicle and had 422hp, whereas now the Class 172 weighs in at something on order of 42t per vehicle and has 485hp. That is an improvement from 9.3hp/t to 11.5hp/t, which is rather impressive.

For comparison the Class 185 weighs in at around 56t per vehicle with its mighty QSK-19 rated for 750hp. This gives it a power to weight ratio of roughly 13.39hp/t. In short, the Turbostar family has wiped out somewhere on order of a half of the advantage that the Class 185 held at the time.

Once you account for the usability of MU and SP differentials by the 172 you erase any significant operational advantages to the 185s, and by using the Turbostars you avoid having to pay extra maintenance costs to keep a line as a 100mph speed limit rather than an MU or SP100 speed limit.

But to shock HSTEd.
The Siemens 450 is LIGHTER then a Bombardier 377

Well a 3-car Cl377 unit is 131t roughly and a 4-car one is roughly 171t, so a Class 377 vehicle has to weigh in at roughly 40t, remember the figures are distorted for the Cl377's general weight as they have transformers (which may or may not be in the general weight depending on what subclass it is) which are not present in the Class 450s.

A Class 450 weighs in at roughly 170t for the 4 cars (42.5t each roughly) , so the Electrostar probably still wins.

 

[Waverley125]

tbf a lot of those lines-Liverpool to Norwich in particular, could be 125 in many places. While Norwich-Peterborough would require LC removal & complete relaying of Ely-Peterborough over the fens, the rest is all main line. Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester-Stockport-Sheffield-Chesterfield-Nottingham-Grantham should definitely be 125 all the way through, or as high as is possible

 

[MCR247]

I doubt you're going to get Liverpool - Nottingham to 125 and even if you did it isn't quite as simple as upgrading a line to 125 and expecting there to be capacity to allow a 125 run for as much as possible

 

[tbtc]

I doubt you're going to get Liverpool - Nottingham to 125 and even if you did it isn't quite as simple as upgrading a line to 125 and expecting there to be capacity to allow a 125 run for as much as possible

Precisely.

Upgrading a route to 125mph capable doesn't mean everything can run at that speed - especially given that the routes I'm talking about in this thread are ones with fairly regular stops or have to deal with a lot of freight paths.

Far too much attention is focussed on increasing 100mph services to something faster, when the real problem us getting slower trains up to 75/ 100mph.

The question is, how do we deal with these long slow services? At the moment there's going to be nothing apart from 175s with a longer distance layout (doors etc) apart from 125mph stock (which would be a waste of time on something like Manchester - Pembroke)

 

[Manchester77]

We really need a train like the 185 but longer, intercity door arrangement and maybe larger first class area(?)
Or a diesel version of the 444?

 

[172212]

A class 158 would be perfect for the line speeds you're referring to. Or maybe a class 170

 

[nick.c]

All the options discussed so far are multiple-units. Why not be really radical and go for loco haulage. We're talking about journeys where passengers will be on the train for quite some time - comfort is therefore at a premium. Why not an ultra-light version of the Eurolight loco - perhaps a 4 axle bo-bo with 2000hp weighing in at around 60t and push / pulling a rake of 5 or 6 articulated coaches - with a driving cab at the other end? Perhaps eventually the diesel unit could be swapped for a fuel-cell?

 

[ainsworth74]

Network Rail aren't to keen on articulated trains so that could be an issue. You then have all the other MU v LHCS arguments such as flexibility, reliability, acceleration, track access costs and various other things.

 

[transmanche]

All the options discussed so far are multiple-units. Why not be really radical and go for loco haulage. We're talking about journeys where passengers will be on the train for quite some time - comfort is therefore at a premium.

London-Norwich is a shorter journey than London-Weymouth - and comparable to London-Poole or London-Portsmouth. And if a 444 is good enough for those journeys, it's good enough for London-Norwich!

 

[northwichcat]

The question is, how do we deal with these long slow services? At the moment there's going to be nothing apart from 175s with a longer distance layout (doors etc) apart from 125mph stock (which would be a waste of time on something like Manchester - Pembroke)

This solution works very well on the Renfe MD routes:

http://translate.google.co.uk/trans...a=X&ei=nstYUJ-tLuql0QWe_IDwCw&ved=0CDYQ7gEwAg

It's a 100mph diesel train that copes well with hill climbing and curvy track without a loud engine noise or squealing on bends. When I travelled on one in 2010 I thought it felt very much like an upgraded version of the class 175.

 

[notadriver]

Well a 3-car Cl377 unit is 131t roughly and a 4-car one is roughly 171t, so a Class 377 vehicle has to weigh in at roughly 40t, remember the figures are distorted for the Cl377's general weight as they have transformers (which may or may not be in the general weight depending on what subclass it is) which are not present in the Class 450s.

A Class 450 weighs in at roughly 170t for the 4 cars (42.5t each roughly) , so the Electrostar probably still wins.

I know a 378 is lighter and tips the scales at 160 tons. It also seems to have more power than a typical Electrostar.

 

[notadriver]

London-Norwich is a shorter journey than London-Weymouth - and comparable to London-Poole or London-Portsmouth. And if a 444 is good enough for those journeys, it's good enough for London-Norwich!

I wonder how much time could be shaved off the London to Norwich trip using 360s instead of the loco hauled stock.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

If units are destined to be used permanently on lines with slower line speeds, they could, when overhauled, or built, have their gear ratios lowered, thus giving a max speed of say 90 or 100mph. This would then give a lot more power at the lower speeds, and a faster service!

 

[Oswyntail]

I hate to say it, but the Voyagers are about ideal in theory for these sort of routes. Acceleration sufficient to make up for multiple station stops, speed to take advantage of any possibility for higher speed running, and not to block main line runners where necessary. Leaving aside the known problems (length, mainly) they were a perfect upgrade from the HSTs, which, in turn, upgraded those characteristics over the somewhat clapped out LHCS.

 

[sprinterguy]

I hate to say it, but the Voyagers are about ideal in theory for these sort of routes. Acceleration sufficient to make up for multiple station stops, speed to take advantage of any possibility for higher speed running, and not to block main line runners where necessary.

I am inclined to agree: I strongly feel that in their design and layout the Voyagers are very much a regional train, not an Intercity one, which is why they are so widely derided on the Crosscountry routes they are expected to serve at present.