Bombardier designs 125mph bi-mode for UK market

[hexagon789]

New Street to Derby is mainly 125 mph and Bristol to Bridgwater is having (or has had?) a speed increase to 110 mph I believe, both diesel sections.

Birmingham to Derby has a couple of 90/HST 125 sections and Bristol to Exeter has a 7-mile (?) 110 section.

 

[InOban]

Thanks for all that information. I appreciated that much of the route between Derby and Birmingham looked ideal for 125, but the schedule didn't seem to have been speeded up significantly.

I was suggesting longer units because the 4/5 vehicle voyagers are ridiculously short for intercity services, and traffic along the NE/SW axis has grown to the point where a longer set would be appropriate. I thought that everyone agreed that underfloor engines are unacceptable for longer journeys.

 

[47802]

Thanks for all that information. I thought that everyone agreed that underfloor engines are unacceptable for longer journeys.

Only in the eyes of some posters on here, and 800's are good enough to make it a redundant argument in my view.

 

[xotGD]

I would advocate a rake of coaching stock with an electric locomotive on one end and a diesel locomotive on the other. Why fit all of the gubbins inside or underneath the passenger carrying vehicles?

 

[Dave1987]

Only in the eyes of some posters on here, and 800's are good enough to make it a redundant argument in my view.

Yes but those tend to be people with rose tinted glasses when the 800’s come to mind. People I know who have traveled on class 800’s from Paddington have told me there is a distinct difference in noise levels between traveling in OHLE mode to then when the Diesel engines fire up. They are whisper quiet on the OHLE, but not when the engines fire up. Reading comments from this forum you would get the impression that you could not tell when the engines fire up on a class 800 which is certainly not the case. Therefore i take any arguments on here with regards to the 800’s with a massive pinch of salt as their are huge biases in place in people’s opinions.

 

[Domh245]

Yes but those tend to be people with rose tinted glasses when the 800’s come to mind. People I know who have traveled on class 800’s from Paddington have told me there is a distinct difference in noise levels between traveling in OHLE mode to then when the Diesel engines fire up. They are whisper quiet on the OHLE, but not when the engines fire up. Reading comments from this forum you would get the impression that you could not tell when the engines fire up on a class 800 which is certainly not the case. Therefore i take any arguments on here with regards to the 800’s with a massive pinch of salt as their are huge biases in place in people’s opinions.

Well, duh. Reducing the engine noise to nothing would be quite the engineering achievement, but getting it as low as they have, especially compared to the likes of the voyagers is impressive. Additionally there have been plenty of comments about the engines kicking in with quite a kick, so you'd notice them starting up anyway.

Why fit all of the gubbins inside or underneath the passenger carrying vehicles

Because if you have a railway where you need to maximise capacity as much as you can (which we do) and you have platform lengths that you can't increase (as is the case at st pancras) you can't waste platform length on non-passenger areas.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes but those tend to be people with rose tinted glasses when the 800’s come to mind. People I know who have traveled on class 800’s from Paddington have told me there is a distinct difference in noise levels between traveling in OHLE mode to then when the Diesel engines fire up. They are whisper quiet on the OHLE, but not when the engines fire up. Reading comments from this forum you would get the impression that you could not tell when the engines fire up on a class 800 which is certainly not the case. Therefore i take any arguments on here with regards to the 800’s with a massive pinch of salt as their are huge biases in place in people’s opinions.

Having been on one I found it barely noticeable. There are a lot of issues with them, but that isn’t really one.

The main issue the engines cause is the high floor, when I think all new stock should be built for level boarding at standard UK platform height with a moving step. It’s not a big design change but the benefits are huge.

 

[squizzler]

I am puzzled about the implication that the train would have engines under the cars as per class 800. Firstly that market is owned by hitachi and why would anyone want to buy a possible orphan fleet? Secondly, the aventra is an EMU and we were led to believe the packaging of componentry made no allowance for diesel.

I would therefore expect the obvious way to produce a bi mode aventra would involve a power car of some sort, either at the end or in line like the FLIRT.

Regarding tilt on the WCML, the latest bombardier double deck cars on SBB have an active suspension allowing 1 or 2 degree tilt and I presume bombardier could add this feature to the bogies, allowing modest uplift in cornering speed.

 

[hwl]

the aventra is an EMU and we were led to believe the packaging of componentry made no allowance for diesel.

I would therefore expect the obvious way to produce a bi mode aventra would involve a power car of some sort, either at the end or in line like the FLIRT.

I don't know who lead you but they are every wrong - It is very easy to adapt the power electrics for diesel / battery / fuel cell rafts but you would need the length underneath on the 24m bodyshells to fit the rafts. Hardly that much different to DEMUs like Voyagers or Meridian they have built before.

 

[xotGD]

Because if you have a railway where you need to maximise capacity as much as you can (which we do) and you have platform lengths that you can't increase (as is the case at st pancras) you can't waste platform length on non-passenger areas.

St Pancras seems to cope well enough with an HST powercar at each end of a train.

Meanwhile maxing out on train length is hardly a problem for Cross country.

 

[krus_aragon]

I would advocate a rake of coaching stock with an electric locomotive on one end and a diesel locomotive on the other. Why fit all of the gubbins inside or underneath the passenger carrying vehicles?

Distributed traction is one good reason. (Better acceleration, less wheelslip...)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't know who lead you but they are every wrong - It is very easy to adapt the power electrics for diesel / battery / fuel cell rafts but you would need the length underneath on the 24m bodyshells to fit the rafts. Hardly that much different to DEMUs like Voyagers or Meridian they have built before.

True, but the 22x series was not designed in Derby.
The Aventras we have seen are very much dedicated EMUs.
There are other bi-mode designs (Stadler, Alstom etc) with longer operational experience.

 

[Domh245]

True, but the 22x series was not designed in Derby.
The Aventras we have seen are very much dedicated EMUs.
There are other bi-mode designs (Stadler, Alstom etc) with longer operational experience.

Derby's experience (or lack thereof) isn't exactly a showstopper. They'll be able to call on experience from all over Bombardier's empire, including brugges who built the 22xs, and whichever french office designs all of their bi-mode units for France. The comments about other existing bi-modes manufacturers seems rather pointless. Only Hitachi manufacture new bi-modes for the UK, although stadler have got theirs in the offing as well. And of course bombardier have been building bi-modes for France since the mid 2000s in the shape of the AGC

 

[hwl]

Derby's experience (or lack thereof) isn't exactly a showstopper. They'll be able to call on experience from all over Bombardier's empire, including brugges who built the 22xs, and whichever french office designs all of their bi-mode units for France. The comments about other existing bi-modes manufacturers seems rather pointless. Only Hitachi manufacture new bi-modes for the UK, although stadler have got theirs in the offing as well. And of course bombardier have been building bi-modes for France since the mid 2000s in the shape of the AGC

...and the Aventra has lifted plenty of lessons from AGC (positive to repeat and negative not to use e.g. modular transformer design) as well as older electrostar...

 

[43096]

Distributed traction is one good reason. (Better acceleration, less wheelslip...)

More weight over the driving axles - such as on a locomotive or power car - also helps with reducing wheelslip.

 

[Dave1987]

More weight over the driving axles - such as on a locomotive or power car - also helps with reducing wheelslip.

Very much so. I’ve had old school drivers tell me that ‘back in the day’ there was no issue with wheel slip at all when you had a heavy loco with the powered wheels on it. Distributed traction is not answer to all problems even if the DFT believe it to be so.

 

[D365]

I’ve had old school drivers tell me that ‘back in the day’ there was no issue with wheel slip at all when you had a heavy loco with the powered wheels on it.

But there is an issue with track wear....

 

[Dave1987]

But there is an issue with track wear....

Ow indeed but the cante blanche attitude that distributed traction is the solution to all problems is false.

 

[HSTEd]

Very much so. I’ve had old school drivers tell me that ‘back in the day’ there was no issue with wheel slip at all when you had a heavy loco with the powered wheels on it. Distributed traction is not answer to all problems even if the DFT believe it to be so.

Given that locomotives have historically included ever more equipment designed specifically to stop wheelslip from occuring - I somehow doubt the assertion that there was never any problem with it.

 

[James James]

Regarding tilt on the WCML, the latest bombardier double deck cars on SBB have an active suspension allowing 1 or 2 degree tilt and I presume bombardier could add this feature to the bogies, allowing modest uplift in cornering speed.

They don't...

At least not yet: the current deliveries do not have tilt enabled: the plan was always to have the trains running normally first, then add the tilt. (If Bombardier can't get the tilt working eventually, then they pay a fine.) The trains are already hugely delayed, and I imagine dealing with the tilt is the last thing on their minds - it's unclear what the current plan is anyhow.

(Now, if the UK could adjust their platforms and loading gauge to fit some of those double deckers, that would probably solve capacity issues... but with that level of investment they'd probably also finish electrifying the whole country too.)

 

[Chris125]

I just can't understand why certain posters on here are all for reducing the speed and getting rid of the Tilt just because HS2 will be in place. As if these locations not served are then going to accept the further slap in the face of having their services slowed down for some supposed reliability thing.

A viable business case for a new generation of tilting trains post-HS2 looks unlikely, to say the least.

 

[The Ham]

A viable business case for a new generation of tilting trains post-HS2 looks unlikely, to say the least.

I've suggested before (in the West Coast Franchise thread) that a new order of 6 coach tilting trains this side of HS2 could be beneficial. The reasons for this are:
- WCP being able to partly replace their 221's
- WCP maybe being able to run extensions to some of their services which currently start/end at Birmingham
- WCP maybe being able to run more services to Liverpool (either as part of the above and/or by splitting services to Manchester
- WCP maybe being able to run to other places, such as extending one of their Manchester services northwards and include Bolton onto their network
- WCP could then run shorter units after HS2 opens and/or more services that split on route to provide more paths for other services on the WCML (for instance Manchester may have 2tph after HS2, but these are paired with services to Liverpool over the southern part of the WCML, which means that London could gain two additional commuter/semi fast services which it couldn't otherwise have)

Yes it could be that this means that there's too many units, but then it could be that others (open access operators and XC to babe a few) could then use the existing 390's which are then no longer needed by WCP.

As an example by 2026 XC should be able to run Reading to Manchester by 390, with the possibly (depending on funding for the conversion of 3rd rail between Basingstoke and Southampton and for the electrification of Reading to Basingstoke) of being able to get Southampton. This would require between 9 and 11 units depending on extent of the service.

That could mean a straight 1 for 1 replacement of 20 existing units (10*221's and 10*390's) for the new 6 coach units.

20*6 is 120 coaches which is a good sized order so that the costs per coach aren't too high. It also means that there's still scope for some 125mph services after about 2040 when the 390's may need to be retired, without the need to order more at that point, but still with a large enough potential order at that point if needed.

20 units is probably also feels about the right number of units (effectively 5 extra full length 390's if you assume 10 are being used to replace 10*221's) without it being too many. That could then mean 10*221's for use by XC.

It should be remembered that in 2040 if there's an average annual growth rate of 2.5% that there could be over 70% more rail passengers than there is now and so if there's 100 passengers between Rugby and London now that could be 170 in 2040. Bearing in mind that those 100 passengers are currently on a train with 500 passengers from Birmingham (of whom 150 may still need to use that service now and so 255 in 2040) in 2040 that could still be 425 rather than 600, add in demand from a few other stations as well as allowing for future growth and it could still be worth running 9 or 11 coach 125mph tilting units beyond 2040. Yes there is likely to be need for fewer units but it's entirely possible that there could be more tilting trains running after HS2 opens.

 

[LM93]

Delete

 

[Class 170101]

"last mile battery option"

Hmm sounds like a good option for Windermere

1. A 5 car could have 4 cars with Diesel engines (everything except the panto/transformer car)

I like what you're thinking..

But why? Are tyou suggesting battery, diesel and electric modes? If so thats overkill and I would ditch the battery as diesel mode will do the same job as battery mode.

In terms of diesel whats the fuel range likely to be? HSTs are planned around 1200 miles between fuel stops and Class 170s to between 1500 and 1600 miles as I far as I know. Will Bi modes be capable of this?

 

[D365]

Yes it could be that this means that there's too many units, but then it could be that others (open access operators and XC to babe a few) could then use the existing 390's which are then no longer needed by WCP.

With all the electrification going up in the 2020s I'm sure there'll be no shortage of future options

 

[gingertom]

With all the electrification going up in the 2020s I'm sure there'll be no shortage of future options

indeed. With the rest of the civilised world stringing up wires everywhere instead of resorting to bi-mode the idea might actually catch on. I mean, they can't all be wrong can they?

 

[D365]

indeed. With the rest of the civilised world stringing up wires everywhere instead of resorting to 125mph+ bi-mode technology that hasn't even been developed yet the idea might actually catch on. I mean, they can't all be wrong can they?

Fixed!

 

[gingertom]

Fixed!

maybe the technology does exist but manufacturers perceive bi-mode is not the way forward. So by claiming not to have the 125mph+ capable technology they are pushing the superior electric?
9-car class 802s carry 2 cars worth of weight that don't contribute to the tractive effort, so remove them- a 7-car set with 5 engines would have a decent shot at long-distance running at 125mph in diesel mode. Somebody on another thread has said this is not an option, claiming an authoritative source. I'd like to know why not.

 

[randyrippley]

Very much so. I’ve had old school drivers tell me that ‘back in the day’ there was no issue with wheel slip at all when you had a heavy loco with the powered wheels on it. Distributed traction is not answer to all problems even if the DFT believe it to be so.

A heavy vehicle like a Peak or class 40 didn't accelerate like modern trains, didn't run as fast and was nowhere near as fuel efficient

 

[gingertom]

A heavy vehicle like a Peak or class 40 didn't accelerate like modern trains, didn't run as fast and was nowhere near as fuel efficient

I understand from an (old) article in Railway magazine that an HST could out-accelerate a class 91, because the 91's tractive effort had to be limited at low speed to avoid wheelslip, whereas the HST could put it all the power down right away.