Mordac
Established Member
I think a ton of lawyers in Perthshire are working on it.Let's just hope someone, somewhere has got a plan that's going to surprise us all
I think a ton of lawyers in Perthshire are working on it.Let's just hope someone, somewhere has got a plan that's going to surprise us all
Interesting. Although a fair comparison with a 9-coach 80x would have to be a 10-coach Meridian, as this has similar length and passenger space (athough the 80x would probably have a lot more seats).
The Voyager/Meridian was a heavyweight even by the standards of its time, although the 185 was even worse.
More interesting thoughts. Looks like the quote I used for the weight of the 222 was way out, and the weight saving so much touted in the early stages of the IET programme has turned out to be pretty insignificant!Wikipedia is the source, so take the following with a pinch of salt
A class 800 is 438 t for a 9 car 234 m train (with 4700 hp)
A 220 is 186t for a 4 car, 92m train, so a theoretical 10 car, 230m 220 would weight about 465 t (with 7500 hp)
(I'm assuming the 222 isn't substantially different)
A 221 is 227 t for a 4 car, 92 m train so a 10-car 221 would weigh in the region of 567 t (also with 7500 hp)
So a 220/222 isn't massively heavier than an 802, about 6% heavier, so needs "only" 7000hp to have the power:weight ratio as a 220
However a 221 can keep 220 timings, presumably could also keep 222 timings on the MML?
A 10-car 221 would weigh a whopping 30% more than a 9-car 800, so to achieve the same power to weight , an 80x would need something like 5750hp
This also tallies with other posters here that have said that a 222 with an engine out is able to keep time, and that they've been derated to 700hp
Suggests a 9-car 80x might be able to get by with 6 engines?
The other point is that if you're DfT and your actual ask is "we want the same London - Nottingham/Sheffield journey time", you can lose a bit of time on diesel North of Kettering, and make it back on electric power further South.
I think areal challenge for Hitachi could be re-engineering costs. EMT has a very complex fleet (operating 5 types: 4, 5 & 7-car 222 and 6 & 8-car HST). If Abellio are looking for a common fleet, with only 1 "half-length" 5-car train that will also fit on the 240m platforms that are in the specification for the MML upgrade, then a 26m vehicle length is a bit of a pain, unless there's 3m of empty space under 80x vehicles?
Its highly unlikely that the 800 and 802s are the most powerful bi modes that Hitachi can design. They were not meant to run at 125mph on diesel power and the design reflects that
Wikipedia is the source, so take the following with a pinch of salt
A class 800 is 438 t for a 9 car 234 m train (with 4700 hp)
A 220 is 186t for a 4 car, 92m train, so a theoretical 10 car, 230m 220 would weight about 465 t (with 7500 hp)
(I'm assuming the 222 isn't substantially different)
A 221 is 227 t for a 4 car, 92 m train so a 10-car 221 would weigh in the region of 567 t (also with 7500 hp)
So a 220/222 isn't massively heavier than an 802, about 6% heavier, so needs "only" 7000hp to have the power:weight ratio as a 220
However a 221 can keep 220 timings, presumably could also keep 222 timings on the MML?
A 10-car 221 would weigh a whopping 30% more than a 9-car 800, so to achieve the same power to weight , an 80x would need something like 5750hp
This also tallies with other posters here that have said that a 222 with an engine out is able to keep time, and that they've been derated to 700hp
Suggests a 9-car 80x might be able to get by with 6 engines?
The other point is that if you're DfT and your actual ask is "we want the same London - Nottingham/Sheffield journey time", you can lose a bit of time on diesel North of Kettering, and make it back on electric power further South.
I think areal challenge for Hitachi could be re-engineering costs. EMT has a very complex fleet (operating 5 types: 4, 5 & 7-car 222 and 6 & 8-car HST). If Abellio are looking for a common fleet, with only 1 "half-length" 5-car train that will also fit on the 240m platforms that are in the specification for the MML upgrade, then a 26m vehicle length is a bit of a pain, unless there's 3m of empty space under 80x vehicles?
Why would we fitting batteries anyway? If we have to go down this bi-mode avenue (which we shouldn't on the MML but that's for another thread) then stick some socking great diesel engines under the floor and use them to generate whacking greats amount of electricity you can dump straight into the motors. I don't see what on earth adding batteries does to the equation other than add weight and require even more power to get the thing going quickly!
Law of diminishing returns. More engines equals more weight to accelerate, more fuel to carry etc etc. I wonder if the DFT are now realising the bi-mode isn’t the solution they had hoped for and now regret cancelling the electrification projects. The bi-mode is like a jack of all trades but the master of none. An extremely heavy EMU or a very lacklustre DMU. What a shameful situation this country has got itself into.
Where could you possibly fit a battery in amongst all that? By the time you've got 7 engines and 2 transformers that's your space gone.
What would happen at Long Eaton with fixed formation 9 car units? Long walks? You'd only get 3 of your carriages in if they're 26m each wouldn't you?
Why would we fitting batteries anyway? If we have to go down this bi-mode avenue (which we shouldn't on the MML but that's for another thread) then stick some socking great diesel engines under the floor and use them to generate whacking greats amount of electricity you can dump straight into the motors. I don't see what on earth adding batteries does to the equation other than add weight and require even more power to get the thing going quickly!
Law of diminishing returns. More engines equals more weight to accelerate, more fuel to carry etc etc. I wonder if the DFT are now realising the bi-mode isn’t the solution they had hoped for and now regret cancelling the electrification projects. The bi-mode is like a jack of all trades but the master of none. An extremely heavy EMU or a very lacklustre DMU. What a shameful situation this country has got itself into.
...The DfT would not have awarded the franchise if none of the manufacturers had been able to design a compliant train...
Different manufacturers therefore different underlying design and different TMS software along with different coupler designs.In general, I'm surprised 170's can't work with 175's - same top speed and only 28 horsepower difference per coach between the 2 sets.
I don't travel through Long Eaton but with two five-car Meridians at Beeston (using SDO) those in the last four coaches have to walk forward. I'm pretty sure similar formations call at Long Eaton - does that mean the people in the rear unit can't get out at all?What would happen at Long Eaton with fixed formation 9 car units? Long walks? You'd only get 3 of your carriages in if they're 26m each wouldn't you?
Different manufacturer so incompatible couplers and multiple working systems.In general, I'm surprised 170's can't work with 175's - same top speed and only 28 horsepower difference per coach between the 2 sets.
I think you might need to show you working for how you got to that conclusion!
What would happen at Long Eaton with fixed formation 9 car units? Long walks? You'd only get 3 of your carriages in if they're 26m each wouldn't you?
I don't travel through Long Eaton but with two five-car Meridians at Beeston (using SDO) those in the last four coaches have to walk forward. I'm pretty sure similar formations call at Long Eaton - does that mean the people in the rear unit can't get out at all?
I believe 170s don't have a "TMS" as such; part of them being able to work in multiple with the Sprinter family along with the BSI couplers and the 7 notches on the power controllerDifferent manufacturers therefore different underlying design and different TMS software along with different coupler designs.
170s are AdTranz Turbostars (1998-2001) and Bombardier Turbostars (2001-2005), whereas 175s are Alstom Coradias. 170s have BSI couplers, 7 notch power controllers and no TMS, whereas 175s have Scharfenberg couplers, 4 notch power controllers and a Train Management System. Computer says noooooo...In general, I'm surprised 170's can't work with 175's - same top speed and only 28 horsepower difference per coach between the 2 sets.
Agree that Hitachi could supply unit however that would require substantial redesign which is one reason why it wasn't done for GWR 9 car.NR would have 3 years to extend the platforms or remove the stop. 234m is a reasonable standard length for long distance London services on a mainline. The 800/802 5 coach units are for services where demand diminishes at one end e.g. west of Exeter. Nottingham and Sheffield both justify 2tph of 9 coaches to London.
A battery would provide additional power for a limited part of each service. I guess depending on weight it might not be worth it. Depending size could one not fitted above the floor?
I definitely agree the situation is idiotic and they should not have cancelled electrification but the government is not going to change its mind for a while yet. My point about a 7 engined, 9 coach 800 variant was that contrary to posts in this thread it is possible to meet the specifications for the franchise. The DfT would not have awarded the franchise if none of the manufacturers had been able to design a compliant train. It is unlikely to be value for money but that is a whole different debate.
Long Eaton is SDO4 so smaller than Beeston.
Presumably passengers will do the same thing they have to do at Dronfield, Belper, Chesterfield, Wellingborough, Kettering and all the other places we stupidly stop trains longer than the platform
I believe 170s don't have a "TMS" as such; part of them being able to work in multiple with the Sprinter family along with the BSI couplers and the 7 notches on the power controller
They may look like an electrostar in certain ways but they don't have the level of TMS to match.Yeah, they're basically the offspring of a Thames Turbo and a Class 158 - very much a "second generation" unit in terms of design, even though they are a "third generation" unit in terms of when they made an appearance.
NR would have 3 years to extend the platforms or remove the stop. 234m is a reasonable standard length for long distance London services on a mainline. The 800/802 5 coach units are for services where demand diminishes at one end e.g. west of Exeter. Nottingham and Sheffield both justify 2tph of 9 coaches to London.
A battery would provide additional power for a limited part of each service. I guess depending on weight it might not be worth it. Depending size could one not fitted above the floor?
I definitely agree the situation is idiotic and they should not have cancelled electrification but the government is not going to change its mind for a while yet. My point about a 7 engined, 9 coach 800 variant was that contary to posts in this thread it is possible to meet the specifications for the franchise. The DfT would not have awarded the franchise if none of the manufacturers had been able to design a compliant train. It is unlikely to be value for money but that is a whole different debate.
Low speed acceleration is governed by Tractive Effort so more powered axles rather than more power is what is need (or higher axle loadings too).Adding batteries for low down acceleration is nonsensical.
Just like with a supercharger on an internal combustion engine that takes horse power from the flywheel to run it so the return in power is less.
170s are AdTranz Turbostars (1998-2001) and Bombardier Turbostars (2001-2005), whereas 175s are Alstom Coradias. 170s have BSI couplers, 7 notch power controllers and no TMS, whereas 175s have Scharfenberg couplers, 4 notch power controllers and a Train Management System. Computer says noooooo...
yepAnd they were specifically designed to work in multiple with the ex BR regional fleet, and to be able to capitalize upon SP enhanced speeds
I would be surprised if they did not change their mind now. They are facing the prospect of requiring manufacturers to engineer the impossible. Adding batteries for low down acceleration is nonsensical. Just like with a supercharger on an internal combustion engine that takes horse power from the flywheel to run it so the return in power is less. If you add batteries you need power to accelerate the weight of the batteries before you even consider the train itself. The only sensible solution is one that is already available, 25kv overheads. The sooner someone bashes the heads of the DFT to bring them to their senses the better!
The business case which enabled DfT to make the decision to cancel the electrification North of Kettering was based on the assumption that a new bi-mode would be able to match class 222 timings. Hence the comment at the time that electrification would only result in a 1 minute reduction in timings on London to Sheffield. The business case also noted that at that time no such train existed.