My ideas to help cope with the interim between now and a possible decarbonisation of the railway

[tomuk]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #34 originally in this thread.

I think a little realism is called for. Even if NR convinced the government to fund the programme we are still talking 30 years to electrify everything.

In the meantime all 15x DMU will need to be replaced but what with more DMUs?

Also building new trains creates CO2 emissions would you gain anything replacing Voyagers with new 80x bimodes?

My two interim ideas would be to

a)re-power all Turbostars and Civties with MTU Hybrid power packs (Euro IIIB engine, 6 speed gearbox, battery pack). This should also be considered for 158 and 165/166

b) All voyagers/merdians to go through Heavy General Overhaul. Reformed into 75x5car and 30x4car. Remove tilt. Convert 105 cars into pantograph cars. Bring remaining engines upto Euro III. Interior strip out and replaced with single class 'Chiltern' style.

 

[Domh245]

b) All voyagers/merdians to go through Heavy General Overhaul. Reformed into 75x5car and 30x4car. Remove tilt. Convert 105 cars into pantograph cars. Bring remaining engines upto Euro III. Interior strip out and replaced with single class 'Chiltern' style.

That's not overhaul so much as rebuild. Both pantograph conversions, and engine 'upgrading' to meet latter emission standards are both going to be prohibitively expensive and complicated

 

[Class 170101]

My two interim ideas would be to

a)re-power all Turbostars and Civties with MTU Hybrid power packs (Euro IIIB engine, 6 speed gearbox, battery pack). This should also be considered for 158 and 165/166

b) All voyagers/merdians to go through Heavy General Overhaul. Reformed into 75x5car and 30x4car. Remove tilt. Convert 105 cars into pantograph cars. Bring remaining engines upto Euro III. Interior strip out and replaced with single class 'Chiltern' style.

But is it as simple as removing non-compliant engines and putting a Euro 3B engine in its place? I don't think they fit under the floor of our trains due to our loading gauge. NB I'm sure Stadler would have done rather than the engine 'coach' on the Class 755s if it did.

 

[Bald Rick]

In the meantime all 15x DMU will need to be replaced but what with more DMUs?

Yep. DMUs cascaded from newly electrified lines.

 

[crablab]

NB I'm sure Stadler would have done rather than the engine 'coach' on the Class 755s if it did.

Is that not more to do with those being low floor? (And thus not having room below anyway)

 

[Class 170101]

Is that not more to do with those being low floor? (And thus not having room below anyway)

Well yes - my point exactly.

 

[DB]

I think a little realism is called for. Even if NR convinced the government to fund the programme we are still talking 30 years to electrify everything.

In the meantime all 15x DMU will need to be replaced but what with more DMUs?

Also building new trains creates CO2 emissions would you gain anything replacing Voyagers with new 80x bimodes?

My two interim ideas would be to

a)re-power all Turbostars and Civties with MTU Hybrid power packs (Euro IIIB engine, 6 speed gearbox, battery pack). This should also be considered for 158 and 165/166

b) All voyagers/merdians to go through Heavy General Overhaul. Reformed into 75x5car and 30x4car. Remove tilt. Convert 105 cars into pantograph cars. Bring remaining engines upto Euro III. Interior strip out and replaced with single class 'Chiltern' style.

Turbostars and 158s (not sure about the others in a) have hydraulic transmissions, so to convert them to electric transmission would be a prohibitively expensive non-starter.

Voyagers do have electruc transmission but rebuilds of that scale are unlikely to be viable for units which are already 20 years old.

 

[tomuk]

Turbostars and 158s (not sure about the others in a) have hydraulic transmissions, so to convert them to electric transmission would be a prohibitively expensive non-starter.

Voyagers do have electruc transmission but rebuilds of that scale are unlikely to be viable for units which are already 20 years old.

What I proposed for Turbostars has already been trialed and production has started. It is by no means a non-starter.

Rolls Royce Press Release

Porterbrook Case Study


MTU Hybrid Power Packs

Similarly the work to the voyagers would be easier and more worthwhile than the work on 230s, 769s and HydroFlex. It would be cheaper then buying new 80x

 

[Bald Rick]

It would be cheaper then buying new 80x

I doubt it in whole life cost.

 

[DB]

What I proposed for Turbostars has already been trialed and production has started. It is by no means a non-starter.

Rolls Royce Press Release

Porterbrook Case Study


MTU Hybrid Power Packs

Similarly the work to the voyagers would be easier and more worthwhile than the work on 230s, 769s and HydroFlex. It would be cheaper then buying new 80x

We shall see if that actually happens,beyond a concept test - might just be viable with turbostars, but 158s are too old.

Voyagers - what you are suggesting is way more expensive than something like a 230 etc. And they would still remain crap trains with tilt profile bodyshells and not enough capacity. They are already 20 years into an expected life of about 30 years.

 

[tomuk]

would still remain crap trains with tilt profile bodyshells and not enough capacity. They are already 20 years into an expected life of about 30 years.

Ah I see you don't like voyagers. The refurbishment would increase capacity by removing the shop, above floor equipment and multiple toilets. 495 perfectly good vehicles is a lot of capacity to scrap. 150s are 35 years and are still going strong the much better built voyagers will last longer.

 

[The Ham]

Turbostars and 158s (not sure about the others in a) have hydraulic transmissions, so to convert them to electric transmission would be a prohibitively expensive non-starter.

Voyagers do have electruc transmission but rebuilds of that scale are unlikely to be viable for units which are already 20 years old.

Project Thor made sense about 10 years ago, even maybe 5 years ago, now almost certainly not, especially given that about 50 of the 22x fleet have already been earmarked to be replaced by bimodal trains in the next few years.

The carbon emissions of shortening the life of the 22x's by 10-15 years (bearing in mind that it's likely that they'll be getting of for 25 years old by the time they are replaced) would be fairly small once you factor in building new coaches/modifying coaches for a 10-15 year lifespan.

The other thing to consider is that by going for a fleet of 5 coach 80x's it would significantly increase capacity (315+ seats) over the existing (predominantly) 4 coach 22x's (200 seats) and still the equivalent of nearly an extra coach's worth of seating over the the 5 coach 22x's (~265 seats).

As such that's a lot (about 130) of new coaches needed to get you to a comparable capacity as the 5 coach 80x's if they were ordered.

Chances are a middle ground could be developed where some bimodals are ordered to allow longer 22x units to be created and then then get replaced over a longer timeframe.

As an example, build 20*5 coach units for delivery in 2022, then deliver another 20*5 each year for the following 2 years and then deliver a further 100 coaches to lengthen XC trains during 2025.

The reason that might be needed is so that other trains (more akin to the 810's) could be delivered for regional services (such as the WofE line to replace 15x's) to avoid the need for new trains and/or (such as the secondly XC services to free up 17x's) to allow DMU's to be cascaded to other lines where they may still be needed.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Ah I see you don't like voyagers. The refurbishment would increase capacity by removing the shop, above floor equipment and multiple toilets. 495 perfectly good vehicles is a lot of capacity to scrap. 150s are 35 years and are still going strong the much better built voyagers will last longer.

Is that the toilets and shop which are structural and can't be removed ?

 

[gingertom]

That's not overhaul so much as rebuild. Both pantograph conversions, and engine 'upgrading' to meet latter emission standards are both going to be prohibitively expensive and complicated

To expand a little, each car has its own diesel genset that feeds the traction equipment on that car only. To take power from OLE requires a power bus to be installed the length of the train, with switchgear and high powered traction converter electronics, for which there isn't space, unless some seating capacity is sacrificed, which is at a premium at the best of times.

 

[DB]

Ah I see you don't like voyagers. The refurbishment would increase capacity by removing the shop, above floor equipment and multiple toilets. 495 perfectly good vehicles is a lot of capacity to scrap. 150s are 35 years and are still going strong the much better built voyagers will last longer.

The shop area can't have seats in most of it, as it isn't possible to cut windows in there - hence the XC ones have bike storage and a large luggage rack there.

They are not 'perfectly good' - the tilt profile will always make them cramped and unpleasant. And they have been very heavily used, which is showing increasingly.

150s are not good trains either, but have survived largely because they didn't need major expenditure.

There's no way it would be viable to do what amounts to a rebuild of the Voyagers, when they are less than a decade from their expected end of life.

 

[tomuk]

Project Thor made sense about 10 years ago, even maybe 5 years ago, now almost certainly not, especially given that about 50 of the 22x fleet have already been earmarked to be replaced by bimodal trains in the next few years.

The carbon emissions of shortening the life of the 22x's by 10-15 years (bearing in mind that it's likely that they'll be getting of for 25 years old by the time they are replaced) would be fairly small once you factor in building new coaches/modifying coaches for a 10-15 year lifespan.

The other thing to consider is that by going for a fleet of 5 coach 80x's it would significantly increase capacity (315+ seats) over the existing (predominantly) 4 coach 22x's (200 seats) and still the equivalent of nearly an extra coach's worth of seating over the the 5 coach 22x's (~265 seats).

As such that's a lot (about 130) of new coaches needed to get you to a comparable capacity as the 5 coach 80x's if they were ordered.

Chances are a middle ground could be developed where some bimodals are ordered to allow longer 22x units to be created and then then get replaced over a longer timeframe.

As an example, build 20*5 coach units for delivery in 2022, then deliver another 20*5 each year for the following 2 years and then deliver a further 100 coaches to lengthen XC trains during 2025.

The reason that might be needed is so that other trains (more akin to the 810's) could be delivered for regional services (such as the WofE line to replace 15x's) to avoid the need for new trains and/or (such as the secondly XC services to free up 17x's) to allow DMU's to be cascaded to other lines where they may still be needed.

I'm not talking about Pproject Thor I'm not proposing to build any new coaches. The modified/refurbished voyagers would easily last another twenty years.The capacity difference with 80x won't be that great because the refurbishment would increase their capacity. One accessible toilet per set (other standard toilets). Shop/buffet in one driving car kitchen area. Other driving car could house transformer etc.

 

[DB]

I'm not talking about Pproject Thor I'm not proposing to build any new coaches. The modified/refurbished voyagers would easily last another twenty years.The capacity difference with 80x won't be that great because the refurbishment would increase their capacity. One accessible toilet per set (other standard toilets). Shop/buffet in one driving car kitchen area. Other driving car could house transformer etc.

It would take at least five years to get this done. That would make them 45 years minimum old at withdrawal. Not likely. Very few passenger trains manage this.

You have entirely missed the point about structural issues meaning that most of the shop and disabled bog space cannot be used for seating. Vehicles are shorter than the standard 80x as well.

You also seem to be underestimating the technical challenges of redesigning the power and control system for cross feeding between vehicles.

 

[tomuk]

To expand a little, each car has its own diesel genset that feeds the traction equipment on that car only. To take power from OLE requires a power bus to be installed the length of the train, with switchgear and high powered traction converter electronics, for which there isn't space, unless some seating capacity is sacrificed, which is at a premium at the best of times.

I am aware of how a voyager works. Space for the transformer and traction electronics would be created by removing the engine and fuel tanks from one car and removing tilt equipment through out. (If one of the driving cars was chosen some equipment could go in the luggage/kitchen area)

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I am aware of how a voyager works. Space for the transformer and traction electronics would be created by removing the engine and fuel tanks from one car and removing tilt equipment through out. (If one of the driving cars was chosen some equipment could go in the luggage/kitchen area)

You any good at hacking a big rectangular hole in those structurally important carriage roofs, so you can drop a pantograph in there ?

 

[tomuk]

It would take at least five years to get this done. That would make them 45 years minimum old at withdrawal. Not likely. Very few passenger trains manage this.

You have entirely missed the point about structural issues meaning that most of the shop and disabled bog space cannot be used for seating. Vehicles are shorter than the standard 80x as well.

You also seem to be underestimating the technical challenges of redesigning the power and control system for cross feeding between vehicles.

No to cut in more windows in the toilet/shop areas would be not be hard. Voyagers have a steel body shell and are easy to modify. They would be no different structurally then the other cars with existing windows in those positions. The reason it hasn't been done before was the financial position of the XC franchise. These financial issues can be seen in the relative state of the WC and XC voyagers.

Alot of work was done by Bombardier for Project Thor it is technically feasible to make the Voyagers/Meridians bimode.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2020 ==

You any good at hacking a big rectangular hole in those structurally important carriage roofs, so you can drop a pantograph in there ?

Bombardier have already done the CAD drawings as part of Project Thor

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Bombardier have already done the CAD drawings as part of Project Thor

From memory, the pan/tran vehicle was new build, wasn't it ?

 

[tomuk]

From memory, the pan/tran vehicle was new build, wasn't it ?

That was one option Bomardier looked at both new build and conversion.

 

[The Ham]

That was one option Bomardier looked at both new build and conversion.

I suspect, that given that new build was the option which was well known about, that the conversion wasn't overly easy (read expensive), with a shorter payback period it pushes the lease costs up.

As such it's likely that a new build would be cheaper and provide more capacity.

 

[crablab]

I really think there is an underestimation of how complex modifications would be.

Has anyone thought about the software side of this? Does Bombardier still have the source code for the management computers? More importantly, does it have engineers that are familiar with how the software was written (20 years ago...) and therefore know how to go about making the changes necessary for the modifications proposed.

I think you might find that even if you can make the structural changes required, cut the holes in the right places, install the pantograph etc. that the cost of modifying software designed and built 20 years ago, using software engineering tools from 20 years ago and designed to run on hardware commonplace (you guessed it) 20 years ago, would be entirely prohibitive.

I wouldn't like to hazard a guess at what is actually running on those trains, but technology moves very, very quickly.

 

[43096]

I'm not talking about Pproject Thor I'm not proposing to build any new coaches. The modified/refurbished voyagers would easily last another twenty years.The capacity difference with 80x won't be that great because the refurbishment would increase their capacity. One accessible toilet per set (other standard toilets). Shop/buffet in one driving car kitchen area. Other driving car could house transformer etc.

Sounds like an exercise in polishing a turd. They aren’t fit for purpose, haven’t been from day one and never will be.

 

[Rhydgaled]

2) Getting sensibly sized fleets of diesel and battery Bimode units for <100mph services that are ETCS capable and have SDO etc so they have future go anywhere capability would really help as regards a rolling programme where the biggest challenge to roll out isn't intercity services.

This should be the priority for bi-modes rather than LDHS in my opinion. Something to replace 15x that is actually able to make use of electrification where it exists. Needs 3rd rail capability too for Waterloo-Exeter and Cardiff-Portsmouth - an Aventra design or a AT-200/AT-300 hybrid would probably do nicely. Narrow plug doors please, plenty of toilets (one per carriage) and unit-end gangways. We may need a suburban version as well at some point (eg. for WMT Shrewsbury services) but a long-distance spec to replace 158s/159s should be first given that 158s/159s are a fair bit older than the 17x units which (175s excepted) are wide-doored units for lots of standees.

I think a little realism is called for. Even if NR convinced the government to fund the programme we are still talking 30 years to electrify everything.

In the meantime all 15x DMU will need to be replaced but what with more DMUs?

Also building new trains creates CO2 emissions would you gain anything replacing Voyagers with new 80x bimodes?

Although it will take 30 years or more to wire everything, the electrified network will expand progressively during that time rather than suddenly jumping forward overnight one evening in 2050. A new DMU will be unable to use the expanding electrified network, and the later you leave building that DMU the shorter its useful life (or the useful life of the diesel engines on a bi-mode) will be. We have IMO already past the point where we shouldn't build any new train that does not have an OHLE mode (or passive provision for one), and only have a few more years before we should stop building diesel bi-modes.

But is it as simple as removing non-compliant engines and putting a Euro 3B engine in its place? I don't think they fit under the floor of our trains due to our loading gauge. NB I'm sure Stadler would have done rather than the engine 'coach' on the Class 755s if it did.

I believe the class 197s will have Euro Stage V underfloor diesel engines, not sure how Stage V relates to Euro 3B. These emissions standards relate to human health however, as I understand it they don't reduce greenhouse gas emmissions (if anything they increase CO2 output by increasing fuel consumption).

all 15x DMU will need to be replaced but what with more DMUs?

Yep. DMUs cascaded from newly electrified lines.

Unfortunately the reluctance of passengers to change trains means it is hard for an individual electrification project to release many DMUs for cascade since there will often be through services to places beyond the immediate electrification project.

What I proposed for Turbostars has already been trialed and production has started. It is by no means a non-starter.

Rolls Royce Press Release

Porterbrook Case Study


MTU Hybrid Power Packs

It doesn't allow them to use OHLE though, that is rather impractical to retrofit to diesel-mechanical units (and any DEMU that doesn't have through wiring to share power between vehicles).

Ah I see you don't like voyagers. The refurbishment would increase capacity by removing the shop, above floor equipment and multiple toilets. 495 perfectly good vehicles is a lot of capacity to scrap.

The driving vehicles have relatively little capacity anyway and are responsible for as much CO2 emmissions as the other vehicles so what I'd do (assuming 22x vehicles are compatible) when the 222s are released from EMR is:

• cascade the 222s to XC
• scrap all class 220 driving vehicles except two (kept for spares in case of mishaps)
• fit a small toilet (non-UAT) in the shop area on all Voyager coach Ds
• refurbish the now orphaned intermediate coaches (C and D) from the class 220s for more tables, more legroom and window alignment
• use these coaches from the class 220s to lengthen the Meridians (eg. to form 11x 9-car and 16x 7-car class 222 units, but I don't have passenger loading data so the optimum formations may be different)
• if 27x much-extended 222s isn't enough to replace all the 220s, purchase an add-on order of about 10x class 810s for XC, with the EMR 810s joining them when the MML is electrified, if the numbers work out the other way cascade some 221s internally to Cardiff-Nottingham
• when the 221s are released from ICWC, do something similar with the 221s (scrapping some driving vehicles and eliminating the 4-car sets, how many 5-cars you keep and how many 6/7/8/9-car sets you create depends on passenger loading data I don't have) and certainly put 5-car 221s on Cardiff-Nottingham (unless you have a suitable 100mph bi-mode for that by then)
• cascade 800s/802s as and when these are released by new wires to replace the remaining 22x

This way you aren't doing major structural mods (unless fitting) or building extra vehicles for the 22x fleet, and you start scrapping the least-capacity vehicles (the driving cars) fairly soon while avoiding the CO2 cost of building new vehicles. Whether this is enough to beat the whole-life carbon cost of total fleet replacement at XC with new bi-modes is impossible for me to say. My suggestion keeps some polluting 22x for longer while the alternative of new bi-modes for XC would result in long-term use of bi-modes weighed down by diesel engines instead of new EMUs at EMR, LNER and GWR (is the Treasury really going to pay to have them removed even if the wires do go up?) and possible delay to electrification at some of those TOCs.

Sounds like an exercise in polishing a turd. They aren’t fit for purpose, haven’t been from day one and never will be.

Voyagers? Not fit for purpose from day one yes, but not due to any fundamental problem with their design (apart from the high fuel consumption) - just the interior layout and the fact they are too short. I think a 9-car EMU Super Voyager with only 2 or 3 UATs and a lower density seating plan (better legroom, more tables and window alignment) would have been a better train than the 390s with their near-useless tiny windows. Scrap some driving cars to allow lengthening and, in turn, allow a lower-density seating layout then (fuel consumption aside) they could be fit-for-purpose in my view. Certainly if they had been done right from the outset (some normal toilets instead of all being UATs) they'd have been fit-for-purpose in a pre-Paris-agreement world.

 

[DB]

• use these coaches from the class 220s to lengthen the Meridians (eg. to form 11x 9-car and 16x 7-car class 222 units, but I don't have passenger loading data so the optimum formations may be different

You do realise that the bodyshells aren't the same, and the control systems aren't either (220s and 222s cannot work in multi)?

 

[Rhydgaled]

You do realise that the bodyshells aren't the same, and the control systems aren't either (220s and 222s cannot work in multi)?

No and yes. I thought the bodyshells, bogies etc. were basically the same; I assumed they had more in common than 221s have with 220s and according to Wiki 221 and 220 vehicles have been mixed in a set before. I know there are software differences, but assume that this could be resolved.

 

[Bald Rick]

Unfortunately the reluctance of passengers to change trains means it is hard for an individual electrification project to release many DMUs for cascade since there will often be through services to places beyond the immediate electrification project.

Which is where new build hybrids come in. Battery or diesel, or both.

But in any event, it is quite feasible that older diesel stock will be retiring before any electrification.

 

[quantinghome]

I don't see any point in scrapping class 22X end cars. Yes, they're an inefficient use of space, but they've been built and they may as well be used.

There's no need for major re-engineering of class 22X; they're already pushing 20 years old and probably have 10-15 years' life left. I would transfer them all to XC, do a mid-life refurb of seating and internal decor and re-jig the train lengths within each class to give a roughly uniform fleet of 7-cars and doubled-up 4-cars. This gives a train fleet suitable for XC in the short-term. Yes, the 222s can't work in multiple with 220s and 221s but many operators already have mixed fleets with the same issue and at least there's kit in common to make some efficiencies on maintenance.

Longer term the trains will get replaced, but what with will depend on the proposed electrification sequencing and what the XC network will look like post-HS2.