Stupid idea- putting a pantograph on HSTs

[broadgage]

As others have stated, the problem is not the pantograph itself but the heavy and bulky transformer.
The transformer would probably fit into the seldom used luggage van area of the power car, but the weight is likely excessive and might require structural alterations and would increase the axle loading.

Another possibility would be to remove the diesel engine, alternator and related equipment from one power car and make it a pure electric.
Probably doable but now underpowered on diesel.

And as I said elsewhere on these forums, the rail industry is moving away from loco hauled coaches (of which HSTs are in effect a type) and have decided that short DMUs are the future.

 

[najaB]

I presume you mean "not needed."

It's not a circular argument at all.

It is if you're converting existing HSTs from the ECML to run on the WCML. If they are new-build then the circle is broken.

 

[AndrewE]

It is if you're converting existing HSTs from the ECML to run on the WCML. If they are new-build then the circle is broken.

Please just read my post. I'll try to explain it again...

In the '80s the WCML was working well. The WCML was generating the money that could electrify the ECML, however money was still short. It might therefore have been worth exploiting the existing ECML rolling stock to run (on the ECML) with electric power cars (built into the HST power car bodies) to keep within a tight budget.

What is so difficult about that?

 

[rebmcr]

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?

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)

Unfortunately, HST carriages don't have the wiring for locos.

 

[najaB]

What is so difficult about that?

Nothing. It was a comprehension failure on my part.

I was reading it as convert the HSTs to electric operation to use on the WCML in order to generate the cash to electrify the ECML. In which case the question would be - what is running on the ECML in the meantime.

 

[AndrewE]

Nothing. It was a comprehension failure on my part.

I was reading it as convert the HSTs to electric operation to use on the WCML in order to generate the cash to electrify the ECML. In which case the question would be - what is running on the ECML in the meantime.

OK, I was beginning to wonder whether I had missed out a fundamental step in the logic, or was overlooking /not stating a basic premise that I assumed was understood by all.

Keep posting!
A

 

[Bald Rick]

It might therefore have been worth exploiting the existing ECML rolling stock to run (on the ECML) with electric power cars (built into the HST power car bodies) to keep within a tight budget.

That was (almost) the plan. But the railways were all powerful regions in those days. The plan in the early 80s was to use the 'cash cow' of the WCML to then electrify the MML. However three things happened in 1981-1983.

1) the rather lengthy dispute about DOO on the first part of the MML electrification project
2) the rather more disruptive dispute about flexible rostering for drivers
3) Sectorisation

The first put a big hole in the benefits case for the MML Electrification, delaying further stages (much longer than anyone thought, as it turns out)

The second put a huge hole in BR finances, delaying major capital investment (for example, the MML electrification)

The third brought InterCity together as one common management team for service and investment planning.

Had the first two not happened, we would most probably have had an electrified Midland Main Line by 1986. You can choose to blame ASLEF for that if you wish.

However given that the first two did happen, the third then came into play. The InterCity sector planners did some work which showed that electrifying the ECML to Leeds and Newcastle was a better return on investment than the MML to Sheffield. So, as the MML Electrification beyond Bedford had not started, the priorities were changed in 1983? The ECML project was authorised in 1984 by Government and was based on:

Existing HST trailers
A new build of Class 89 locos
Pairs of HST power cars (or some other loco) to do the Newcastle - Edinburgh and beyond stretch.
A batch of approx 30 Class 87/2 locos to run freight, sleepers, newspaper and postal services. (These subsequently went to the WCML)

The pilot Class 89 was ordered at the same time as electric HST power cars, although as has been said by others the latter were cancelled, presumably as no-one had a home for them.

It was only when in the latter stages of the authorisation process that electrification to Edinburgh was confirmed, and it was after the project was authorised that the Class 91s and Mark IVs were separately proposed and authorised. That, and some rather different working practices / possession regimes, is why the electrification was ready some time before the trains. (Compare to today).

 

[daikilo]

If we go back to the original question starting the thread "Stupid idea- putting a pantograph on HSTs" the answer is unclear.
1) It seems that an electric version of the HST was considered at one point
2) takng existing stock and electrifying it rather than new build would be a logical study
3) However, was the ECML looking for bi-mode or full electric
4) Then the technical issue of integrating a 25kV supply into the drive train downstream of the alternator of presumably 2 locomotives.

From what I have been able to find, your question was very relevant at one point but the adaptation cost and probably downtime was shown as uncompetitive with new build. The situation today is completely different with HSTs potentially becoming available. The question should be whether such a conversion would now make opportunity sense. If I owned the trains I would do that study.

p.s. I have always been told that no question is stupid, but not checking first whether the answer is available doesn't make friends. That said, I think your question asked today merits a thought-through answer or (renewed) investigation.

 

[EveningStar]

To confirm, Railway Magazine from November 1983 has a news article announcing the order for four electric HSTs and the class 89. However, the electric HSTs were rumoured for some time as discussed in various Practice & Performances's. Whether these were new builds or conversions is unclear, although I do recall Roger Ford in Modern Railways (for which my back numbers are not so easily to hand, so cannot right now give the attribution) commenting that conversion was more complicated than taking out the engine and adding a few sparky bits.

 

[Master29]

The HST has been such a stalwart over the years. Not as daft as it sound in theory but practice of course another matter entirely. 10 years ago an HST mark 2 bi mode wouldn`t have been such a bad idea looking at the current situation.

I know it`s an entirety different concept but some years ago there is a story that the USAF wanted a replacement for their aging C130 transport aircraft and they asked Lockheed if they could find a computer generated replacement. They came up with the identical C130 design, hence the C130J 2nd generation around today, identical almost to the original. Perhaps a bit of a tall story but who knows. Yes, I know completely unrelated to railways in the UK but could the principal have been the same. We`ll never know.

 

[AndrewE]

The HST has been such a stalwart over the years. Not as daft as it sound in theory but practice of course another matter entirely. 10 years ago an HST mark 2 bi mode wouldn`t have been such a bad idea looking at the current situation.

I know it`s an entirety different concept but some years ago there is a story that the USAF wanted a replacement for their aging C130 transport aircraft and they asked Lockheed if they could find a computer generated replacement. They came up with the identical C130 design, hence the C130J 2nd generation around today, identical almost to the original. Perhaps a bit of a tall story but who knows. Yes, I know completely unrelated to railways in the UK but could the principal have been the same. We`ll never know.

If it ain't broke, why fix it?
I think a lot of us (and other non-enthusiast travellers) would not be disappointed by another build of Mk IIIs for lines where max-125 long-distance limited-stop services run! (and hence the grief of some over the potential scrapping of the 442s?)

 

[zn1]

at the time BR knew what they wanted, what was required, they were still smarting over APT and were working to incorporate the knowledge learnt in to a new project and the APT was modified and re-emerged in Non Tilt mode and rebadged as intercity 225.

I do recall plans for electric HST myself there were drawings done of them, plans made etc..

89001 was being proven and should have been grabbed and made a squadron to supplement the class 90

trouble was BR was being readied for being sold to breakers yard for private operation so the electric HSTs never happened. although the "225s" have never operated in anger over 125mph.

class 89 was and should have been a smart no brainer choice, a much better loco than class 90,

thats the closest i suspect we will ever the electric 125 concept ever have going.

BR was dying, and it knew in 1987 it would be no more..so it did what it could..BR bought some brilliant squadrons the networkers, class 319-323, the 60s(although they were a bit of trouble at first) class 92 which today are still not fully utilised even though they are fine electric tractors.

BR also had a superb ace in her sleeve...DERBY RTC ....its something the privatisied railway of britains network today is seriously lacking...the ORR needs an RTC..not dozens of specialists all around the country..its needs a UK research and development centre of excellence and it needs it yesterday

 

[dubscottie]

One big problem with the 89..

It was too high and was banned from Euston for that reason. (Liverpool Lime St as well I think)

I remember some electric HST plan from many years back. If I recall right, it involved removing the diesel and replacing it with a electric motor that would drive the existing alternator. (In effect a giant motor-gen set).

It could work of both AC & DC. I think it was suggested for the Gatwick route but what killed it off was that electrical equipment would need major cooling or the lot could go up in smoke!

OT, but I find it funny that ScotRail is getting HST's.. 30 years after Chris Green first suggested it!

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Would it not be as simple as taking the stepped down voltage and applying it to the traction system at the point the alternator chucks out anyway? Surely this would trick the HST to believing the electricity was coming from the alternator anyway and draw what it needed from the transformer in much the same way - but reverse of - the 319D planning to apply the electrical power generated into the 750v power bus thereby tricking that into thinking its om the juice rail?

(Remember this is theoretical...)

The thread has certainly thrown up some fascinating history regarding the 89, electric HST and the proposed electriification programme. Maybe not such a dumb question after all...

 

[DarloRich]

A fair question to ask in 1984 but perhaps not quite so pressing in 2017.

 

[Comstock]

A fair question to ask in 1984 but perhaps not quite so pressing in 2017.

Sure. I don't seriously expect this to happen. But I still think there is a point there. What is the sense in running a dirty aging diesel engine to produce electricity when there is electricity flowing just feet above the top of the train.

I hope it never happens, but just suppose we get another 1973 oil embargo. I wonder how quickly the boffins would be able to gerry rig something to keep the railways running, and save precious diesel for the unelectrified sections of the route. It wouldn't be particularly neat or efficient, but I wonder if it could be done?

 

[Deepgreen]

Would it not be as simple as taking the stepped down voltage and applying it to the traction system at the point the alternator chucks out anyway? Surely this would trick the HST to believing the electricity was coming from the alternator anyway and draw what it needed from the transformer in much the same way - but reverse of - the 319D planning to apply the electrical power generated into the 750v power bus thereby tricking that into thinking its om the juice rail?

(Remember this is theoretical...)

The thread has certainly thrown up some fascinating history regarding the 89, electric HST and the proposed electriification programme. Maybe not such a dumb question after all...

Exactly! Can we please not treat new/-ish posters as idiots if they ask what even they class as dumb questions - a 'discussion forum' is just that - if you don't find a thread interesting, then don't spend time on it, which includes denigrating it! Not aimed at anyone in particular, by the way, but you know who you are...

 

[najaB]

I hope it never happens, but just suppose we get another 1973 oil embargo.

Unconventional oil and the growth of renewables has made that less of a threat than it used to be. If prices go up the shale oil taps will open again.

 

[Deepgreen]

Unconventional oil and the growth of renewables has made that less of a threat than it used to be. If prices go up the shale oil taps will open again.

Not really - prices/availability can change more or less overnight as the subject of political whim, but new railway motive power that uses alternative fuels takes many years to introduce.

 

[najaB]

Not really - prices/availability can change more or less overnight as the subject of political whim, but new railway motive power that uses alternative fuels takes many years to introduce.

Prices can change quickly, true. But one of the consequences of the embargoes in the 1970s was that Western countries increased the sizes of their reserves which means that refiners are buying oil further and further into the future so a drop in production today won't have an impact for months down the line.

And I think you are underestimating the effect of non-conventional oil. There is a lot of shale oil (particularly in the US) which is ready to be extracted with very little lead time, certainly before we start to see mass fuel shortages.

OPEC is also a lot less unified than it was in the 1970s and there is a lot of oil being produced in non-OPEC countries which makes the likelihood of an embargo even less likely and reduces any potential impact unless the non-OPEC countries can be persuaded to join the embargo. And we saw how long it took to get them to agree to a ~10% cut to try and raise prices.

 

[Deepgreen]

Prices can change quickly, true. But one of the consequences of the embargoes in the 1970s was that Western countries increased the sizes of their reserves which means that refiners are buying oil further and further into the future so a drop in production today won't have an impact for months down the line.

And I think you are underestimating the effect of non-conventional oil. There is a lot of shale oil (particularly in the US) which is ready to be extracted with very little lead time, certainly before we start to see mass fuel shortages.

OPEC is also a lot less unified than it was in the 1970s and there is a lot of oil being produced in non-OPEC countries which makes the likelihood of an embargo even less likely and reduces any potential impact unless the non-OPEC countries can be persuaded to join the embargo. And we saw how long it took to get them to agree to a ~10% cut to try and raise prices.

Agreed, but I was really looking at the lead time to introduce motive power to the railways which can use anything other than conventional fuel. Obviously shale oil doesn't fall into this category, and no doubt Trump, among others, will happily bulldoze any environmental objections anyway!

 

[najaB]

Agreed, but I was really looking at the lead time to introduce motive power to the railways which can use anything other than conventional fuel.

Oh, well in that case you're completely correct - introducing new traction is a multi-year effort as we're seeing presently.

 

[DarloRich]

Sure. I don't seriously expect this to happen. But I still think there is a point there. What is the sense in running a dirty aging diesel engine to produce electricity when there is electricity flowing just feet above the top of the train.

I hope it never happens, but just suppose we get another 1973 oil embargo. I wonder how quickly the boffins would be able to gerry rig something to keep the railways running, and save precious diesel for the unelectrified sections of the route. It wouldn't be particularly neat or efficient, but I wonder if it could be done?

I agree it is an interesting what if question if one without, in the case, an obvious long term application.

Exactly! Can we please not treat new/-ish posters as idiots if they ask what even they class as dumb questions - a 'discussion forum' is just that - if you don't find a thread interesting, then don't spend time on it, which includes denigrating it! Not aimed at anyone in particular, by the way, but you know who you are...

Cant be aimed at me - i treat everyone as idiots.

Agreed, but I was really looking at the lead time to introduce motive power to the railways which can use anything other than conventional fuel. Obviously shale oil doesn't fall into this category, and no doubt Trump, among others, will happily bulldoze any environmental objections anyway!

but you don't need new locomotives - you refine the shale oil to produce "standard" fuels by adding hydrogen and removing impurities.

 

[Deepgreen]

I agree it is an interesting what if question if one without, in the case, an obvious long term application.



Cant be aimed at me - i treat everyone as idiots.



but you don't need new locomotives - you refine the shale oil to produce "standard" fuels by adding hydrogen and removing impurities.

Which is why I wrote that shale oil does not fall into the category of alternative fuels.

 

[DarloRich]

Which is why I wrote that shale oil does not fall into the category of alternative fuels.

oh - well we are in agreement then

 

[Great_Western]

Could you not put the panto and transformer in one end of a MK3? It would take up usable space, and is a solution looking for a problem but...

 

[GrimShady]

Exactly! Can we please not treat new/-ish posters as idiots if they ask what even they class as dumb questions - a 'discussion forum' is just that - if you don't find a thread interesting, then don't spend time on it, which includes denigrating it! Not aimed at anyone in particular, by the way, but you know who you are...

I agree!

 

[Jack Hay]

Could you not put the panto and transformer in one end of a MK3? It would take up usable space, and is a solution looking for a problem but...

Nobody seems to have mentioned the testing of the class 91s, which took place by removing one HST power car from an ECML set and putting the 91 in its place. Apparently the control systems are compatible enough that this could be done without difficulty. The resulting electric-diesel combination MU ran in passenger service for some time. So the answer to the original question is simple. It can be done, and was done, by replacing one power car with a 91. This makes a very cheap bi-mode as well as an electric HST.

 

[rebmcr]

Nobody seems to have mentioned the testing of the class 91s, which took place by removing one HST power car from an ECML set and putting the 91 in its place. Apparently the control systems are compatible enough that this could be done without difficulty. The resulting electric-diesel combination MU ran in passenger service for some time. So the answer to the original question is simple. It can be done, and was done, by replacing one power car with a 91. This makes a very cheap bi-mode as well as an electric HST.

It only worked with the HST remote controlling the 91 as a push-pull, it could never provide diesel traction power, nor be controlled from the 91's cab.

 

[najaB]

This makes a very cheap bi-mode as well as an electric HST.

What was the performance like off the wires when it was just the HST power car working?

(Psst... I know the answer, just wondering if Jack Hay does.)

Edit:

It only worked with the HST remote controlling the 91 as a push-pull, it could never provide diesel traction power, nor be controlled from the 91's cab.

Oh, damn. You spoiled it.