New trains for East Midlands Franchise

hwl · 20 Jun 2019

There are 2 main issues south of Bedford:
1. Power supply which is noticeably being addressed looking at the MML electrification thread e.g. new supplies being installed in at least 2 locations.

2. wire tension which will be address through replacing the existing weight and pulley system with tensorex tensioner requiring about max 2 sets of masts per km to be changed, on the GEML upgrade some existing masts were reused just with new booms.

A fixed 10car aventra unit with Pans on oiter ends of the 2nd and 9th cars will have the least tension relate issues at higher speeds. Decreasing the pan spacing requires increasing the wire tension so longer fixed units require less infra upgrades...

Hence some benefit to NR in awaiting to see what contact wire tension upgrade is actually required.

RailUK Forums

59CosG95 · 20 Jun 2019

hwl said:
There are 2 main issues south of Bedford:
1. Power supply which is noticeably being addressed looking at the MML electrification thread e.g. new supplies being installed in at least 2 locations.

2. wire tension which will be address through replacing the existing weight and pulley system with tensorex tensioner requiring about max 2 sets of masts per km to be changed, on the GEML upgrade some existing masts were reused just with new booms.

A question of infrastructure:
Assuming the existing Mk3b headspan system (with all its tail wires, distributed mid-points and large overlaps) is indeed upgraded from 11/11 to 12/15 tensions (a la the system north of Bedford), would it be worth turning the midpoint headspan into a portal (thence removing the need for clamps, links & pulleys in the registration assemblies)? Of course, replacing 2 overlap headspans with a Tensorex-bearing portal (either the Series 1 style or the Heathrow Airport 1.5mx0.85m style) seems to be certain in this case, but I'm not 100% sure on the potential upgrades required if the wire tensions are differential between the contact & catenary on the existing assemblies.

londonmidland · 20 Jun 2019

The XX:02 off St Pancras to Sheffield is timed to arrive at Leicester at XX:03, so London to Leicester in 61 minutes.

Pretty impressive but of course only a 222 could keep to these timings. Which shows why it is critical for a bi-mode of some sort needs to have the same or better performance to a 222.

Bletchleyite · 20 Jun 2019

londonmidland said:
The XX:02 off St Pancras to Sheffield is timed to arrive at Leicester at XX:03, so London to Leicester in 61 minutes.

Pretty impressive but of course only a 222 could keep to these timings. Which shows why it is critical for a bi-mode of some sort needs to have the same or better performance to a 222.

Why is it that people on here seem to think timetables are completely immutable?

edwin_m · 20 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Why is it that people on here seem to think timetables are completely immutable?

They aren't, but I think even Grayling would realise that announcing the new system is actually slowing the trains down is a cue for a political bunfight.

krus_aragon · 20 Jun 2019

edwin_m said:
They aren't, but I think even Grayling would realise that announcing the new system is actually slowing the trains down is a cue for a political bunfight.

It might be winnable if therre's some corresponding improvement (e.g. improved frequency, fares drops) to offer in return. But otherwise, it'll lead to some hot, cross bunfighters.

Railperf · 20 Jun 2019

londonmidland said:
The XX:02 off St Pancras to Sheffield is timed to arrive at Leicester at XX:03, so London to Leicester in 61 minutes.

Pretty impressive but of course only a 222 could keep to these timings. Which shows why it is critical for a bi-mode of some sort needs to have the same or better performance to a 222.

A 2 + 6 HST could achieve that too.

Railperf · 20 Jun 2019

Once the OLE to Bedford is fit for 125mph and wires are extended to Market Harborough ..and hopefully a few miles North of the station, then an 802 could do St Pancras to Leicester non stop or on a stopping service quicker than a 222. It would be diesel running north of Leicester which would be the issue - timings may have to be extended by a few mins. So a possible offset of reduced and extended timings north and south of Leicester.

hwl · 20 Jun 2019

Railperf said:
Once the OLE to Bedford is fit for 125mph and wires are extended to Market Harborough ..and hopefully a few miles North of the station, then an 802 could do St Pancras to Leicester non stop or on a stopping service quicker than a 222. It would be diesel running north of Leicester which would be the issue - timings may have to be extended by a few mins. So a possible offset of reduced and extended timings north and south of Leicester.

Hence the requirement to match 222 timings which 802 don't.

Railperf · 20 Jun 2019

hwl said:
Hence the requirement to match 222 timings which 802 don't.

A 9 car class 802 with an additional power pack or two should do the job nicely

edwin_m · 20 Jun 2019

krus_aragon said:
It might be winnable if therre's some corresponding improvement (e.g. improved frequency, fares drops) to offer in return. But otherwise, it'll lead to some hot, cross bunfighters.

Improved frequency: no capacity
Fares drops: you gotta be joking

So it sounds like it's crossed buns at dawn.

hwl · 20 Jun 2019

Railperf said:
A 9 car class 802 with an additional power pack or two should do the job nicely

The problem is you need 7.2 power packs for an IET to match 222 performance.

The 0.2 bit being very problematic...

The Aventras weighing less on a like for like basis don't have the 0.x power packs issue.

samuelmorris · 20 Jun 2019

hwl said:
The problem is you need 7.2 power packs for an IET to match 222 performance.

The 0.2 bit being very problematic...

The Aventras weighing less on a like for like basis don't have the 0.x power packs issue.

How has that been calculated? I'm not aware of any Aventra specifications for a 26m vehicle format.

I don't have weight figures for a 222 to hand, but extrapolating from a 221 which should be fairly similar, gives the below:
7-car 222 (extrapolated from 221 weight): 391.7t 5250hp - 13.40hp/t
6-car 802: 299.5t 3840hp - 12.82hp/t
7-car 802: 345.7t 4700hp - 13.60hp/t

So 5 GUs ought to be enough?
This of course assumes that the electrical generation efficiency is the same and that the 'hotel draw' isn't higher on the 802, but I don't think these are likely to come out negative for the 802 - the efficiency of lighting, heating/cooling and generators has improved over the last decade.

mallard · 20 Jun 2019

samuelmorris said:
I don't have weight figures for a 222 to hand, but extrapolating from a 221 which should be fairly similar,

I'd suspect that the class 222 would be more similar to a 220 in terms of weight; the heavier bogies and tilt system (isolated or not) on a 221 definitely add a bit... Wikipedia (I know, not an authoritative source) suggests that a 221 is roughly 50-100t heavier per 4-car set (anybody know why the Wiki has two different numbers for the 221? there's no mention of 5-car sets there).

A 220 has about 16.1 hp/t.

Chester1 · 20 Jun 2019

samuelmorris said:
How has that been calculated? I'm not aware of any Aventra specifications for a 26m vehicle format.

I don't have weight figures for a 222 to hand, but extrapolating from a 221 which should be fairly similar, gives the below:
7-car 222 (extrapolated from 221 weight): 391.7t 5250hp - 13.40hp/t
6-car 802: 299.5t 3840hp - 12.82hp/t
7-car 802: 345.7t 4700hp - 13.60hp/t

So 5 GUs ought to be enough?
This of course assumes that the electrical generation efficiency is the same and that the 'hotel draw' isn't higher on the 802, but I don't think these are likely to come out negative for the 802 - the efficiency of lighting, heating/cooling and generators has improved over the last decade.

Why would there be 7 car sets? That would not increase capacity. 9 coach IETs with 7 x 940hp engines would match Meridian timings. 6580HP and 454 tonnes = 14.5hp/t.

samuelmorris · 20 Jun 2019

Chester1 said:
Why would there be 7 car sets? That would not increase capacity. 9 coach IETs with 7 x 940hp engines would match Meridian timings. 6580HP and 454 tonnes = 14.5hp/t.

I don't know how long they can run units on those routes without encountering platform length issues. A 7-car 802 is already 20m longer than a 7-car 222 and reaches equilibrium from a hp/t perspective based on the 221 example, but I had no idea the 220s were so much lighter. If the 222s are also that much lighter then yes you'd need at least a 9-car to get near that level of performance. If anything, it would require a different design that uses all-powered vehicles rather than leaving unpowered vehicles at each end.

Chester1 · 20 Jun 2019

samuelmorris said:
I don't know how long they can run units on those routes without encountering platform length issues. A 7-car 802 is already 20m longer than a 7-car 222 and reaches equilibrium from a hp/t perspective based on the 221 example, but I had no idea the 220s were so much lighter. If the 222s are also that much lighter then yes you'd need at least a 9-car to get near that level of performance. If anything, it would require a different design that uses all-powered vehicles rather than leaving unpowered vehicles at each end.

9 coach IETs are 234m. Bombardier would likely be 10 x 24m. Both would be fine.

samuelmorris · 20 Jun 2019

Chester1 said:
9 coach IETs are 234m. Bombardier would likely be 10 x 24m. Both would be fine.

Is that what they're intending to order? Has the vehicle count been discussed anywhere? The 222s were only ever 9x23m in their original guise.

Chester1 · 21 Jun 2019

samuelmorris said:
Is that what they're intending to order? Has the vehicle count been discussed anywhere? The 222s were only ever 9x23m in their original guise.

26m and 24m are the respective vehicle lengths for the two products (800 variants and Aventra). The platforms at St Pancras are 260m. I think Long Eaton platforms are too short and maybe one other station. Corby EMUs will eventually be 240m and all the major MML stations have 240m+ platforms. It's a good standard for a timetable and service change that will use up all the remaining intercity capacity on the MML.

Jozhua · 21 Jun 2019

Right, I have a perfect plan to resolve the 180 reliability issue!

Just tag a 43 to each end and get them to pull it.

I also fail to see how four five carriage trains are going to replace the current non compliant HSTs?

In all seriousness though, could Mk4 coaches be added to a HST consist?
After travelling on an EMT HST from London yesterday I definitely think the fleet is about at the end of it's useful life. The ride was frankly awful compared to the Pandelino I went down on, the coaches squeaked and rattled and the seat support, especially for the head was barely better than a bench seated pacer. However, there was plenty capacity to seat all passengers comfortably and the toilets were in much better condition than the 222 fleet!

edwin_m · 21 Jun 2019

Jozhua said:
In all seriousness though, could Mk4 coaches be added to a HST consist?

It was suggested by Ian Walmsley in Modern Railways, probably about a year ago. There was a view that Mk4s might be out of gauge and require major modifications to the infrastructure, but I don't think there was a firm conclusion either way.

59CosG95 · 21 Jun 2019

Jozhua said:
Right, I have a perfect plan to resolve the 180 reliability issue!

Just tag a 43 to each end and get them to pull it. I also fail to see how four five carriage trains are going to replace the current non compliant HSTs?

In all seriousness though, could Mk4 coaches be added to a HST consist?
After travelling on an EMT HST from London yesterday I definitely think the fleet is about at the end of it's useful life. The ride was frankly awful compared to the Pandelino I went down on, the coaches squeaked and rattled and the seat support, especially for the head was barely better than a bench seated pacer. However, there was plenty capacity to seat all passengers comfortably and the toilets were in much better condition than the 222 fleet!

edwin_m said:
It was suggested by Ian Walmsley in Modern Railways, probably about a year ago. There was a view that Mk4s might be out of gauge and require major modifications to the infrastructure, but I don't think there was a firm conclusion either way.

The main problem is the electronics in the train supply. The HSTs were built with AC alternators (rather than DC generators) to supply ETS to the Mk3s at 415V 3-phase AC, some of which would be rectified to DC for the traction motors.

The Mark 4s, by contrast, use a 1kV DC supply. Any Class 43s would need a significant amount of rewiring to produce 1kV DC from 415V 3-phase AC.

cactustwirly · 21 Jun 2019

Jozhua said:
Right, I have a perfect plan to resolve the 180 reliability issue!

Just tag a 43 to each end and get them to pull it. I also fail to see how four five carriage trains are going to replace the current non compliant HSTs?

In all seriousness though, could Mk4 coaches be added to a HST consist?
After travelling on an EMT HST from London yesterday I definitely think the fleet is about at the end of it's useful life. The ride was frankly awful compared to the Pandelino I went down on, the coaches squeaked and rattled and the seat support, especially for the head was barely better than a bench seated pacer. However, there was plenty capacity to seat all passengers comfortably and the toilets were in much better condition than the 222 fleet!

The ride quality on a MK3 should be better than a Pendolino, but EMT (and LNER) use cheaper dampers.

hwl · 21 Jun 2019

59CosG95 said:
The Mark 4s, by contrast, use a 1kV DC supply. Any Class 43s would need a significant amount of rewiring to produce 1kV DC from 415V 3-phase AC.

As previously discussed easily solved by fitting a static converter in the guards' area. Wabtec/Brush happen to have a perfect one from the 73 retractioning work...

InTheEastMids · 21 Jun 2019

Mark 4 is somewhat heavier than a Mk3. So with this idea are we proposing to cut capacity on the MML or further hobble the HST fleet? They're already pretty pedestrian compared to the 222 and 700, which must be unhelpful South of Bedford

hwl · 21 Jun 2019

mallard said:
I'd suspect that the class 222 would be more similar to a 220 in terms of weight; the heavier bogies and tilt system (isolated or not) on a 221 definitely add a bit... Wikipedia (I know, not an authoritative source) suggests that a 221 is roughly 50-100t heavier per 4-car set (anybody know why the Wiki has two different numbers for the 221? there's no mention of 5-car sets there).

A 220 has about 16.1 hp/t.

4 car 221 is 56.75 tonnes per car average (5car is 56.4t/average)
4 car 220 is 46.4 tonnes per car average

So tilt adds 10.35tonnes/car of which 4.2 tonnes is from not having the inside frame bogies.

hwl · 21 Jun 2019

samuelmorris said:
How has that been calculated? I'm not aware of any Aventra specifications for a 26m vehicle format.

I don't have weight figures for a 222 to hand, but extrapolating from a 221 which should be fairly similar, gives the below:
7-car 222 (extrapolated from 221 weight): 391.7t 5250hp - 13.40hp/t
6-car 802: 299.5t 3840hp - 12.82hp/t
7-car 802: 345.7t 4700hp - 13.60hp/t

So 5 GUs ought to be enough?
This of course assumes that the electrical generation efficiency is the same and that the 'hotel draw' isn't higher on the 802, but I don't think these are likely to come out negative for the 802 - the efficiency of lighting, heating/cooling and generators has improved over the last decade.

When this question previous came up in April (see first few pages of this thread and the other EMR one) I plugged lots of data into the Davies equations and took into account the hillier nature of the MML (much more up and down than WCML, GWML or ECML).
There was also subsequent acknowledgement that Hitachi were working on a 4 engined 5 car IET.

The 802s are actually quite heavy as they have outside frame bogies

For Aventra I assumed 24m and 10car as per Anglia build and added rafts. A 10 car aventra could meet 222 performance with 7 rafts as it is much lighter product to begin with before worrying about rafts and there aren't same limitations on engine placement overall.

43096 · 21 Jun 2019

cactustwirly said:
The ride quality on a MK3 should be better than a Pendolino, but EMT (and LNER) use cheaper dampers.

It’s different track, too, so a pretty irrelevant comparison.

Railperf · 21 Jun 2019

hwl said:
The problem is you need 7.2 power packs for an IET to match 222 performance.

The 0.2 bit being very problematic...

The Aventras weighing less on a like for like basis don't have the 0.x power packs issue.

Remember the majority of the diesel only section north of Market Harborough to Leicester requires no more than 110mph. The only other section of 125mph track lays between Leicester and Trent Junction - the remainder is 110mph or lower - which would not require the same power levels for top speed, but definitely better acceleration to 110mph than Class 802's currently do. How about a hybrid option that uses battery power to boost diesel acceleration? Hitachi were involved in the Hayabusa HST trial. So they have the know-how.

samuelmorris · 21 Jun 2019

Railperf said:
Remember the majority of the diesel only section north of Market Harborough to Leicester requires no more than 110mph. The only other section of 125mph track lays between Leicester and Trent Junction - the remainder is 110mph or lower - which would not require the same power levels for top speed, but definitely better acceleration to 110mph than Class 802's currently do. How about a hybrid option that uses battery power to boost diesel acceleration? Hitachi were involved in the Hayabusa HST trial. So they have the know-how.

Is there room to fit extra equipment to the likes of 802s? It already looks pretty full under there...

New trains for East Midlands Franchise

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member