Stupid idea- putting a pantograph on HSTs

[Comstock]

I'm pretty sure this is a very silly idea, but hear me out.

The HST is a diesel electric loco? Its diesel engine doesn't power the wheels directly but powers a generator?

Given that a fair bit of the HSTs operation, certainly on the Midland Mainline, is under wires, why not put a pantograph on the HST and just start the diesel engine when needed? That would certainly improve emissions at St Pancras and potentially give the train a few more years?

Even if it was practical, it's probably too late in the life cycle to make it worthwhile, and if it was easy it would have been done years ago?

 

[NSEFAN]

The traction motors do not operate directly on 25kV. Heavy transformer equipment is needed to step down the 25kV overhead supply. With older generations of equipment, this probably would push the axle weight up too much (reducing the route availability of the power car). With modern lighter equipment this might not be so bad, but then as you say the power cars are well towards the end of their design life cycle, so it's unlikely to be financially viable to make such a conversion.

As with "class 60s on passenger services", it's a case of it being cheaper and easier to buy a modern, off-the-shelf unit which can do what's needed more cheaply and efficiently than hacking an old train.

 

[najaB]

I'm pretty sure this is a very silly idea, but hear me out.

You're right, it is a silly idea.

As NSEFAN points out the problem is converting the 25kV into something the motors can use. This requires a bulky transformer and quite a bit of electronics. HST power cars are notable for the fact that they are quite compact, so there simply isn't the space for the gubbins which would be needed. They also don't have a traction power bus running the length of the set so you would need to convert both power cars, doubling the cost.

 

[TimboM]

Of course there is already one (all yellow) HST with a pantograph fitted. Sort of.

 

[CosherB]

Just buy a bi-mode IEP. End of.

What is it with these hair-brained technical schemes of late?!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Just buy a bi-mode IEP. End of.

What is it with these hair-brained technical schemes of late?!

There's always been hare-brained schemes, such as diesel versions of 442s for the WoE and Pompey-Cardiff lines. They're just online now...

 

[TimboM]

What is it with these hair-brained technical schemes of late?!

I think a lot of them are 'could you...?' posts rather than 'would you...?' - pointless discussions for some in the forum community, but interesting hypothetical questions for others.

I think it's also a factor of currently having large quantities of - on the face of it are (or were until they got stored and started rusting) - unused locomotives and rolling stock sitting around with uncertain futures, with more to be added as new traction/rolling stock arrives. e.g. 60s, 67s, 70s, 90s, 92s, 442s plus soon to be available HSTs, 225s etc.

The reality that those who like any/all of the above have to come to terms with is most will end up as razor blades, which for some of the above will be a waste of some very capable machines/stock and for some will be a good thing.

I'd also wonder if a few years ago people posting about effectively re-building 47s (into 57s), 73s (into 73/9s) and making HSTs into parcel trains would have been in the 'hair-brained technical schemes' list!

 

[duffield]

Just buy a bi-mode IEP. End of.

What is it with these hair-brained technical schemes of late?!

There's nothing wrong at all with discussing 'hare-brained schemes' (note: not 'hair-brained'!) as an interesting 'thought experiment'.
Just think of the question as being posed with the caveat 'This almost certainly isn't practical, but it could be interesting to discuss the technical issues anyhow'. Also, for those of us who are less knowledgeable about rolling stock, even though we may have a gut feeling that it's impractical, it may be very interesting to know *exactly* why it is technically or financially impractical.

 

[AndrewE]

I think a lot of them are 'could you...?' posts rather than 'would you...?' - pointless discussions for some in the forum community, but interesting hypothetical questions for others.

I think it's also a factor of currently having large quantities of - on the face of it are (or were until they got stored and started rusting) - unused locomotives and rolling stock sitting around with uncertain futures...

The reality that those who like any/all of the above have to come to terms with is most will end up as razor blades, which for some of the above will be a waste of some very capable machines/stock and for some will be a good thing.

I would say it is also due to the fact that new stock seems to take several years to arrive, and even then the current orders might not be enough if any passenger growth occurs - and on top of that we have some appallingly overcrowded lines now (the first to come to mind is Liverpool-Newcastle, especially around the peak hours.)

Given that there seems to be the ability to scrub up rolling stock for heritage or other use and the fact that quite a few old and not-so-old locos keep being re-instated after mothballing I think it is a very sensible question, even if some of the practicalities are not obvious to the uninitiated.

 

[EveningStar]

Not such a crazy idea. Was mooted in the 1980s following failure of the APT programme and reportedly BR even went out to tender for conversion of a small tranche. However, got no further than that before BR instead started design work on a concept that paved the way for the class 390 (think concept even had the class 390 designation class 390, although will have to look through some old Modern Railway's for confirmation).

 

[najaB]

Not such a crazy idea. Was mooted in the 1980s following failure of the APT programme and reportedly BR even went out to tender for conversion of a small tranche.

That seems surprising given that neither the ECML or GWML were electrified so there wasn't much under the wires running. Where did they plan to use them?

 

[Deepgreen]

There's nothing wrong at all with discussing 'hare-brained schemes' (note: not 'hair-brained'!) as an interesting 'thought experiment'.
Just think of the question as being posed with the caveat 'This almost certainly isn't practical, but it could be interesting to discuss the technical issues anyhow'. Also, for those of us who are less knowledgeable about rolling stock, even though we may have a gut feeling that it's impractical, it may be very interesting to know *exactly* why it is technically or financially impractical.

Exactly - yet again there are those who choose to involve themselves in threads that seem not to be to their liking with the apparent sole intention of sneering. However, as this is a discussion forum, almost anything goes. It's very simple; if a thread doesn't interest or appeal, don't belittle the OP; simply move on to threads more to your liking.

 

[AndrewE]

That seems surprising given that neither the ECML or GWML were electrified so there wasn't much under the wires running. Where did they plan to use them?

Wasn't it always planned that the income from the WCML was to be used to electrify the ECML? That would have been an option for their use.

 

[najaB]

Wasn't it always planned that the income from the WCML was to be used to electrify the ECML? That would have been an option for their use.

But they were needed on the ECML because it wasn't electrified... *circular argument error*

 

[Bertie the bus]

There's nothing wrong at all with discussing 'hare-brained schemes' (note: not 'hair-brained'!) as an interesting 'thought experiment'.
Just think of the question as being posed with the caveat 'This almost certainly isn't practical, but it could be interesting to discuss the technical issues anyhow'. Also, for those of us who are less knowledgeable about rolling stock, even though we may have a gut feeling that it's impractical, it may be very interesting to know *exactly* why it is technically or financially impractical.

It’s not really an interesting thought experiment and there is very little knowledge to be gained. A locomotive is just a metal casing and obviously you can put whatever you want inside providing it fits. As we have overhead AC electric locomotives, diesel locomotives, AC electro-diesels, DC electro-diesels and in the past DC electric locomotives (both overhead and 3rd rail) then they are all feasible.

The fact it is taking Porterbrook/Brush over 1 year to convert a 319 into a bi-mode 319 pretty much proves that somebody just saying something on a forum isn’t going to provide much insight.

 

[philthetube]

Just buy a bi-mode IEP. End of.

What is it with these hair-brained technical schemes of late?!

Not a scheme, just a question

 

[CosherB]

The OP has answered their own 'question' in the first and last sentence of their original post!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If you don't like the harmless but wibbly threads on this forum, you could always subscribe to WNXX... I'm sure there's less wibble on there!

 

[D365]

Thing is, a lot of the time it gets misconstrued as actual proposals, or it gets in the way of industry news. The most annoying thing is when several posters start very similar discussions in the space of a few months or even weeks.

 

[BananaRepublic]

......following failure of the APT programme ,,,,,,,got no further than that before BR instead started design work on a concept that paved the way for the class 390 (think concept even had the class 390 designation class 390....)....

BR's plan for the WCML, in the late 80's and early 90's, was the IC250 project.
This consisted of Class 93 locos and 26 metre long Mk5 coaches.

Development work was terminated (along with all their other train projects) in the run up to privatisation.
The subsequent void left by cancelling the replacement, was filled later on with Virgin's order for the Class 390 Pendolino.

 

[Swanny200]

I did often wonder why they never did offer an electric version of the HST but in hindsight it would need so much internal gubbins to run, it wouldn't look like an HST.

I also have wondered (slightly off topic I know) why on some of these lines where diesels are running under the lines for a full distance why they didn't just utilise what at the time were some of the still useful 86 or 87's that ended up rotting away along with a DVT, unless they were not compatible, or was it a speed, weight and RA issue?

 

[GrimShady]

Not such a crazy idea. Was mooted in the 1980s following failure of the APT programme and reportedly BR even went out to tender for conversion of a small tranche. However, got no further than that before BR instead started design work on a concept that paved the way for the class 390 (think concept even had the class 390 designation class 390, although will have to look through some old Modern Railway's for confirmation).

Actually they went as far as ordering 5 prototype electric HSTs and then shortly after canceled them.

 

[GrimShady]

Im sure I remember seeing drawings of an electric HST some where online.

 

[D1009]

If were are insisting on continuing to go bi-mode mad, surely it would make more sense to add a transformer/pantograph coach to the Voyager fleet, as suggested by Ian Walmsley in the February Modern Railways, reviving an idea from some years ago.

 

[TimboM]

The fact it is taking Porterbrook/Brush over 1 year to convert a 319 into a bi-mode 319 pretty much proves that somebody just saying something on a forum isn’t going to provide much insight.

Not to mention the c.2 years it's taken Brush to convert a loco designed to haul long-distance sleeper trains into a loco that can... well... haul long-distance sleeper trains (more reliably).

 

[Stow]

The simplest solution would be to make a bi-mode set by sticking an electric loco on one end. Given this has been done before with MkIV sets should be much easier than trying to fit a pan to an HST...

Might end up being a bit slow North of Bedford though.....

If you did want to do it though, my solution would be to create a MKIII trailer (or buy a MkV trailer) with pan and transformer with a power jumper connection to the power car(s)

 

[AndrewE]

But they were needed on the ECML because it wasn't electrified... *circular argument error*

I presume you mean "not needed."

It's not a circular argument at all.
1 you are short of money (as BR always was)

2 the WCML is generating a good enough income to (just about) subsidise the electrification of the ECML

3 You can't really afford a new fleet of electric rolling stock but you do have the trains operating it now...

I would say it was a no-brainer to at least consider whether you could adapt your existing fleet to run on the new power supply. Build a few pairs of electric HST power cars and then take a couple or 4 HST power cars out of service in turn for conversion and Bob's your uncle! (apart from getting 25kV from one pantograph to the other power car).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If you did want to do it though, my solution would be to create a MKIII trailer (or buy a MkV trailer) with pan and transformer with a power jumper connection to the power car(s)

That sounds like a combination of the monitoring pantograph on the NMT, and the experimental hybrid HST (Project Hayabusa). Both use(d) converted TGS vehicles IIRC.

 

[43096]

Actually they went as far as ordering 5 prototype electric HSTs and then shortly after canceled them.

4 power cars ordered, which would have been classified as Class 90 (before the 87/2 build became Class 90).

 

[43096]

That sounds like a combination of the monitoring pantograph on the NMT, and the experimental hybrid HST (Project Hayabusa). Both use(d) converted TGS vehicles IIRC.

It is also utterly pointless. The OP had it right in the first two words of the thread title.

Perhaps we should have a "Daft/Stupid/What-if Ideas" thread where all these things can go (442 ideas, HST ideas, Class 60s etc etc etc)?