voyager modifications

[Geezertronic]

To give better journey times along that route, HS2 trains would opperate on HS2 as far as birmingham and then some would take the classic WCML whilst the WCML south of Rugby would be served by LM trains.

Depends on the differences between the Labour HS2 and the ConLib HS2 which we should hopefully know soon... and whether double-deck trains are considered or not.

 

[route:oxford]

If you are going with the bother of building a pantograph car, why have they never bothered converting them to 7-8 car sets as well?

Another poster has pointed out that the (diesel) engines are no longer in production, and there would be want of power to accommodate 8 cars.

This is correct...

However...

On the stretch that really matters ie the EC & WC mainlines, electric engines under the addional coaches would be powered from the wires so acceleration up to 125mph wouldn't really be an issue.

For the operations under self-power ie on diversions over the S&C, Brum to Doncaster/Leeds and from South, SW and Reading to Brum... Is acceleration and operation to 125mph really that important?

 

[starrymarkb]

In SW of birmingham hill climbing is a must

 

[Geezertronic]

In SW of birmingham hill climbing is a must

I presume you are on about the Lickey Incline? The thing is that if VT wanted to add a panto coach and extra vehicles to their 221's then they would only notice performance problems running on diesel on the North Wales line and diversions

 

[WillPS]

No - just a complete rip-out and make a whole new TMS for one of the units...

Mechanically, they will couple and one set can drag another. That is all. For them to work together, communicate and whatnot, they will need to be upgraded/downgraded as required. And no-one wants to do that!!!

I am quite sure there could be something as simple as a software upgrade and maybe a modified coupler. Certainly not beyond the wit of man.

 

[Pumbaa]

I am quite sure there could be something as simple as a software upgrade and maybe a modified coupler. Certainly not beyond the wit of man.

No - its not that simple. 222s use an upgraded version of the Bombardier MITRAC system, still in use in its basic form with 375s, 376s, 377s and 171s.

The 220s/221s on the other hand use a borrowed TMS from Alstom to give them similarity to the Pendos operated by Virgin, with Bombardier stamp written on top.

Its two completely different systems, with extensive differences - noticeably selective door opening potential, driver override of GPS settings, traincrew input methods, ability to cope with chucking the train formations around. You'd have more chance of getting a 180 to talk to a 220 than you would a 222. To get the 220/222 to talk, you'd need a complete gut and rethread of the electronics system. The drive system is the same by the way, for point of complete reference.

It's also why the reforming of Meridians takes hours, the reforming of a SuperVoyagers takes much longer. The MITRAC is far superior to the Alstom kit supplied to 220s/221s.

 

[455driver]

But they look the same so therefore they must BE the same , people just don't have a clue about the intricacies of the railways!
Just to show this, how many different types of coupling are in use today on our railways, I will include the same types of physical couplings (dellner etc) that are different electrically and also the same couplings mounted at different heights?
There is the right way, the wrong way and the railway!

 

[ukrob]

But they look the same so therefore they must BE the same , people just don't have a clue about the intricacies of the railways!

Indeed. I was astonished when someone said "bodyshell is the same" as if to say that makes them compatible.

 

[HITMAN]

Depends on the differences between the Labour HS2 and the ConLib HS2 which we should hopefully know soon... and whether double-deck trains are considered or not.

Yeah, definately, I think we should have a mix of single deck and double deck trains so that wecan have services running beyond Birmingham to the north, otherwise much of the time advantage will be wasted. It would be a good idea for HS2 to enter Birmingham in tunnels from the east so that future trains to Manchester and Leeds don't have to be slowed down by having to travel via Birmingham.

Indeed. I was astonished when someone said "bodyshell is the same" as if to say that makes them compatible.

I think we should just tie them together with a bit of rope

 

[WillPS]

No - its not that simple. 222s use an upgraded version of the Bombardier MITRAC system, still in use in its basic form with 375s, 376s, 377s and 171s.

The 220s/221s on the other hand use a borrowed TMS from Alstom to give them similarity to the Pendos operated by Virgin, with Bombardier stamp written on top.

Its two completely different systems, with extensive differences - noticeably selective door opening potential, driver override of GPS settings, traincrew input methods, ability to cope with chucking the train formations around. You'd have more chance of getting a 180 to talk to a 220 than you would a 222. To get the 220/222 to talk, you'd need a complete gut and rethread of the electronics system. The drive system is the same by the way, for point of complete reference.

It's also why the reforming of Meridians takes hours, the reforming of a SuperVoyagers takes much longer. The MITRAC is far superior to the Alstom kit supplied to 220s/221s.

So, is it hardware or software? I just can't believe there is no way they could possibly interface, even in a limited capacity.

 

[455driver]

Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, its fact!
If you bother to read Pumbaa's post it is clearly hardware.
When units are ordered they are spec-ed to match that operators stock, there is no interest in standardising things as (back in the good old days) trains would be ahem borrowed, if it isn't compatible it cant be pinched, simples.
Look at Southern and their 171s, just 170s fitted with dellner 12 couplings and wired to be compatible with 377s.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The Platform 5 Combined Volume states on page 252 that the 222s can, in an emergency, couple to 220s and 221s. There are the corresponding reverse notes for the 220 / 221 sections on pages 249 and 250.

 

[ukrob]

The Platform 5 Combined Volume states on page 252 that the 222s can, in an emergency, couple to 220s and 221s. There are the corresponding reverse notes for the 220 / 221 sections on pages 249 and 250.

That is correct (and has already been mentioned in the thread I think, but I haven't checked back so forgive me if it hasn't).

A Pendolino can couple to a 220/221 in an emergency, doesn't mean it works very well though. In fact it works better than a 221 to a 222!

 

[MCR247]

That is correct (and has already been mentioned in the thread I think, but I haven't checked back so forgive me if it hasn't).

A Pendolino can couple to a 220/221 in an emergency, doesn't mean it works very well though. In fact it works better than a 221 to a 222!

A 222 & 220 can physically couple, but one would have to be dead I think

 

[Voyager 2093]

To give better journey times along that route, HS2 trains would opperate on HS2 as far as birmingham and then some would take the classic WCML whilst the WCML south of Rugby would be served by LM trains.

Seems too complicated for the average passenger who just wants to travel between A and B. Also if the Pendos where to transfer to the GWML where would they stable and where would the HSTs go?

 

[HITMAN]

Seems too complicated for the average passenger who just wants to travel between A and B. Also if the Pendos where to transfer to the GWML where would they stable and where would the HSTs go?

Yeah but what about where A is London and B is Manchester, at the moment those trains go down the WCML all the way, but between HS2 being built and it being extended to Manchester we can have trains running London to Manchester via HS2. You'd have to build a new depot I should imagine, and since it will displace HST's you could possibly use whereever they are stored?

 

[Pumbaa]

So, is it hardware or software? I just can't believe there is no way they could possibly interface, even in a limited capacity.

They cannot interface fullstop. Look at it as one train running on Windows 7, the one on Mac OS X. Not a great analogy I know, but hopefully you can see the point.

That is correct (and has already been mentioned in the thread I think, but I haven't checked back so forgive me if it hasn't).

A Pendolino can couple to a 220/221 in an emergency, doesn't mean it works very well though. In fact it works better than a 221 to a 222!

Yes it was mentioned back. I remember the trials of 221/390, some interesting results to say the least.

I don't know if a 222/22(0/1) has ever dragged one another on mainline; I know tests were done at Central Rivers (Burton-on-Trent) to prove that it could be done in emergency situations.

 

[Crossforth]

Indeed. I was astonished when someone said "bodyshell is the same" as if to say that makes them compatible.

I was asking that as I am possibly taking it on as a modelling project to convert a 220 to a 222 but I wasn't sure, apart from the cab of course, if they had the same body shell :roll:

 

[starrymarkb]

Presumable someone could specify a common coupler and protocol, so even though the trains have different systems they can still communicate (even if it's just basic engine/brake/door commands). After all I'm writing this on a PC, but the server is running a flavour of Linux but the common protocol (HTTP) means Chrome on my PC can interface with Apache on the forum server, same if I was running Android (on my phone) or OSX on my Laptop or even the Wii OS while the server could be running Solaris, OSX, BSD or Windows Server

 

[ukrob]

I was asking that as I am possibly taking it on as a modelling project to convert a 220 to a 222 but I wasn't sure, apart from the cab of course, if they had the same body shell :roll:

No need to roll your eyes. If you actually follow the thread you will see that the person who said the body shell was the same actually quoted me saying that they were not compatible, as if it was a correction.

 

[starrymarkb]

It was me, and yes re-reading I can see they it came that way. what I meant was they use the same (or at least very similar) bodyshell and traction pack. But should have expanded that the wiring is different.

Though I'd thought someone upthread meant new build 222 bodyshell with 220/1 wiring. They are mechanically similar (at least 222/220 are) but not electrically.

 

[Pumbaa]

I see what you mean about achieving a common protocol - the drive package is the same after all. Would probably require a translator unit, would be interesting to see a bloody big box put on each coupler! Until Bombardier concede they can do it though, we'll never see the two different families working together in anything more than push/pull.

 

[route:oxford]

Ok, so which has the better wiring?

220/221 or 222

 

[Pumbaa]

222 - much more versatile and flexible system.

 

[WillPS]

I see what you mean about achieving a common protocol - the drive package is the same after all. Would probably require a translator unit, would be interesting to see a bloody big box put on each coupler! Until Bombardier concede they can do it though, we'll never see the two different families working together in anything more than push/pull.

That is what I meant.

 

[ChrisCooper]

When it comes to compatability with trains there is a sliding scale between being able to physically couple (without the need for adapters of barrier coaches) to being able to run in multiple in passenger service. Phycically coupling requires the same sort of coupler. In extream cases similar but different couplers could couple in restricted circumstances (e.g a Buckeye and Tightlock, same physical design but different height), but physical compatability usually requires the same type of coupler (I'm not sure if very similar types for example a Dellner and Sharfenberg could physically couple). For anything but low speed running, brake compatability is needed. In the days of Westinghouse Automatic Air Brakes, that was a given (with the ovious exception of vacume braked stock), even if in some cases adapters might be needed for the pipes (e.g to couple the high level air pipes on EMU to the conventional pipes on a loco), but with full Electropnumatic systems it's another matter. They need to connect, and they need to be able to talk the same language. To run in multiple the multiple working systems need to be compatable, so that the engines or motors on one type can be controlled from the other type. An example that doesn't get quite this far would be two locos with different multiple working systems (say a Blue Star fitted 37 and a AAR fitted 66), they can couple, they both are braked, but one would have to be dead (or driven seperatly). To run together in passenger service you need to make sure things like door controls, alarms, PA etc will work properly in multiple. Of cource there is another level of compatability in terms of things like power supply. A 360 and a 450 might be able to work together in multiple (who knows, who cares), but oviously would have the problem that other than very short sections of line, only one could actually take power, so unless they were being used between Farringdon and City Thameslink, or one or both are DVed in the future, it's a moot point (hence who cares). Moot (or Moo, like a cows opinion). Performance compatability could be an issue too, but it's never stopped 15X types and 170s working together with differing performance for all 7 types and 3 different top speeds, but EMUs only ever seem to work with others of near identical performance.

When it comes to 25kV fitted lengthened Voyagers, whilst as has been said they would be fine under the wires (as long as the additional coaches were motored anyway), when off the wires performance would suffer greatly. Reaching 125mph isn't the problem, it's acceleration on a unit that is geared for 125mph running, and in the case of the 221 damned heavy too (thanks to the tilt gear). A HST on one powercar can reach 125mph (I've got a feeling they can, or at least close, on the level, but they could downhill) but can't climb the Lickey Incline unassisted and will stuggle up many lesser gradients, and be very slow from a stand. Since you would unlikely get any significant performance advantage under the wires (Voyagers are afterall pretty nippy and will leave most EMUs standing) then lost performance off the wires would result in increased journey times.

 

[asylumxl]

A HST on one powercar can reach 125mph (I've got a feeling they can, or at least close, on the level, but they could downhill) but can't climb the Lickey Incline unassisted and will stuggle up many lesser gradients, and be very slow from a stand

Recently while on a train to Plymouth, we experienced a rear PC failure just before Exeter. This resulted in the train no longer being able to call at Totnes as there would not be enough power available to make the incline after the station (Rattery Incline?). I guess we only made it on momentum we built up running non-stop through Totnes.

That's why I really doubt it could reach 125mph, and would never ever ever ever make it up the Lickey Incline. Even with two PCs the HST sets still take a long time to accelerate. I doubt they'd reach 125mph on all but the straightest downhill sections (e.g. Stretches of ECML).

 

[starrymarkb]

Recently while on a train to Plymouth, we experienced a rear PC failure just before Exeter. This resulted in the train no longer being able to call at Totnes as there would not be enough power available to make the incline after the station (Rattery Incline?). I guess we only made it on momentum we built up running non-stop through Totnes.

That's why I really doubt it could reach 125mph, and would never ever ever ever make it up the Lickey Incline. Even with two PCs the HST sets still take a long time to accelerate. I doubt they'd reach 125mph on all but the straightest downhill sections (e.g. Stretches of ECML).

IIRC on level track a 9 car HST balances at around 115mph

 

[asylumxl]

This isn't towards anyone atm, but... To clarify, if I wasn't clear, I was talking about an HST with one PC, before anyone tries to be pedantic .

 

[ailsa]

This isn't towards anyone atm, but... To clarify, if I wasn't clear, I was talking about an HST with one PC, before anyone tries to be pedantic .

I have read somewhere that a HST with one dead power car on level track balances around 110mph.