Adding trailers to Networker Turbos from EMU stock

[Roast Veg]

This seems to have been mentioned over in the class 707 thread. Is adding 20m trailer carriages from class 365/465s even possible, and what impact would it have on performance? The class 165s 166s don't exactly seem sprightly off the line, so would the work require engine modifications, such as the proposed hybrid drive? Would GWR or Chiltern be the best recepient of the extra length, based on their loadings and platform lengths?

 

[30907]

The impact on performance would be disastrous - what's 75% of "less than sprightly?" - unless you motorised the trailer, which would be challenging.

 

[Energy]

It says possibility to be lengthened, not confirming if they will, AW's proposal (mentioned in other thread) mentions extending the 3 cars to 5 cars, something I don't see feasible without more engines being installed. I would imagine it is talking about using Chiltern's units if Chiltern replaces the 165s in its upcoming franchise.

 

[HSTEd]

Honestly I think a "more practical" option would be to order Stadler style generator vans to splice into the middle of the EMU formations - essentially all the Networkers and Mark 3 EMUs (save 442s) use basically the same MU standard.

But that would still cost a huge amount.

 

[Roast Veg]

It would cost a ton - nobody wants to mess with legacy designs like that unless they have a very good reason to. It wouldn't be cheaper than a new unit.

 

[Energy]

It would cost a ton - nobody wants to mess with legacy designs like that unless they have a very good reason to. It wouldn't be cheaper than a new unit.

Leasing costs are low at the moment and apparently CAF units are quite cheap although I don't have the cost of a new carriage for them I've only heard that they are known as cheap across Europe.

 

[adamedwards]

Modern Railways (May 2020 p 9) says this is linked to the installation of HyDrive hybrid power in the 165s and will only happen if successful in a trial unit on Chiltern.

This increases the power for the trains to allow 2 cars to have 1 trailer and 3 car units to go up to 5. Trailers to come from 365s or 465s. it notes they are 20m trailers in the middle of 23m long DMU cars (shades of the 508 cars being added to 3 car 455s)

We can now all speculate on a use for 3 car 365s (assuming not scrapped). Replacement for the 380s?

 

[D365]

Modern Railways (May 2020 p 9) says this is linked to the installation of HyDrive hybrid power in the 165s and will only happen if successful in a trial unit on Chiltern.

This increases the power for the trains to allow 2 cars to have 1 trailer and 3 car units to go up to 5. Trailers to come from 365s or 465s. it notes they are 20m trailers in the middle of 23m long DMU cars (shades of the 508 cars being added to 3 car 455s)

We can now all speculate on a use for 3 car 365s (assuming not scrapped). Replacement for the 380s?

That's also assuming that the Networkers are suitable for remarshalling into three car units, unless the units are to be abandoned entirely.

 

[Domh245]

I'm curious as to how much power they're expecting to get out of the HyDrive power units. Based on the 3 to 5 car upgrade (taking trailer weight as 28t) and assuming they want to maintain the same performance (lazily assuming that means constant power:weight ratio) the HyDrive needs to be capable of 530hp or around 50% above the current rating of the engines. Details about the HyDrive units are scarce, but I would presume that new engines with a higher rating would be fitted alongside the hybrid system?

 

[hwl]

I'm curious as to how much power they're expecting to get out of the HyDrive power units. Based on the 3 to 5 car upgrade (taking trailer weight as 28t) and assuming they want to maintain the same performance (lazily assuming that means constant power:weight ratio) the HyDrive needs to be capable of 530hp or around 50% above the current rating of the engines. Details about the HyDrive units are scarce, but I would presume that new engines with a higher rating would be fitted alongside the hybrid system?

The rival Porterbrook /Chiltern 168 hybrid trial is using the off the shelf MTU hybrid rafts in place of the existing engine and parts of transmission to keep thing simple with 1800 engine power option at 422, 449, 483, and 523hp

The 422hp version is effectively an update of the existing turbostar engine (422hp) and the 523 hp is the same as in the CAF 195.

Hence Angel /Hydrive using the 523hp engine (but with their own raft and transmission stuff) might make sense.

If Hydrive is full electric transmission then it will require less power for far better performance at 0-45mph.

 

[Domh245]

Doing a bit more digging and I can't find any reference to any changes to the engine - only that Magtec are involved, so I'd be surprised if they were going to take MTU engines - it'd have been announced otherwise! Nosing around on Magtec's website as well I can see they have an electric motor that's good for 200bhp so it's certainly not impossible for them to achieve the extra power through motors alone - the worry then would be powering it (although I suppose you could fit some large batteries to those Networker trailer cars, which tend to be pretty empty below the solebar!)

 

[Energy]

Doing a bit more digging and I can't find any reference to any changes to the engine - only that Magtec are involved, so I'd be surprised if they were going to take MTU engines - it'd have been announced otherwise! Nosing around on Magtec's website as well I can see they have an electric motor that's good for 200bhp so it's certainly not impossible for them to achieve the extra power through motors alone - the worry then would be powering it (although I suppose you could fit some large batteries to those Networker trailer cars, which tend to be pretty empty below the solebar!)

If they are pretty empty then it would probably be easier to install MTU rafts underneith than try with the Magtec stuff, guess we will see how Hydrive is going. The Porterbrook 168 trial will be interesting however the 168s are split between Eversholt and Porterbrook so I'm not sure how easy it would be to have the whole fleet be fitted with MTU rafts

 

[Domh245]

If they are pretty empty then it would probably be easier to install MTU rafts underneith than try with the Magtec stuff, guess we will see how Hydrive is going. The Porterbrook 168 trial will be interesting however the 168s are split between Eversholt and Porterbrook so I'm not sure how easy it would be to have the whole fleet be fitted with MTU rafts

Fitting engines to the trailer vehicles is a non-starter I think - it'd either mean turning them into motored vehicles and replacing the bogies, or making the existing motored vehicles electric transmission and then trying to get the 'gensets' on the trailer vehicles to talk and cooperate with the equipment on the other vehicles, which as Porterbrook found out with the 769s is quite tricky.

As for the 168s, they're all Porterbrook apart from 111-113, so I think it'd be in Eversholts interest to just 'copy' Porterbrook and fit the hybrid rafts to their 3 as well if they go ahead on the PB fleet. My understanding is that it isn't something particularly cutting edge on PB's behalf - it's near enough a like for like swap between the existing raft and MTU's new one, so it's as simple as entering into a contract with MTU themselves.

 

[365 Networker]

We can now all speculate on a use for 3 car 365s

I don’t think that would be possible, as essential electronics are spread through all 4 coaches.
Basic equipment consists of:-

• DMOC A – 4x Three-phase AC traction motors, traction inverter, sander
• TOSL – Compressor, auxiliary converter, universal access toilet
• PTOSL – Pantograph, transformer, auxiliary converter, small toilet
• DMOC B – 4x Three-phase AC traction motors, traction inverter, sander

(Information from Wikipedia)

 

[Energy]

Fitting engines to the trailer vehicles is a non-starter I think - it'd either mean turning them into motored vehicles and replacing the bogies, or making the existing motored vehicles electric transmission and then trying to get the 'gensets' on the trailer vehicles to talk and cooperate with the equipment on the other vehicles, which as Porterbrook found out with the 769s is quite tricky.

As for the 168s, they're all Porterbrook apart from 111-113, so I think it'd be in Eversholts interest to just 'copy' Porterbrook and fit the hybrid rafts to their 3 as well if they go ahead on the PB fleet. My understanding is that it isn't something particularly cutting edge on PB's behalf - it's near enough a like for like swap between the existing raft and MTU's new one, so it's as simple as entering into a contract with MTU themselves.

Wonder how these 3 ended up being owned by Porterbrook? All the subclasses (Chiltern ordered in batches) have more units than 3.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm curious as to how much power they're expecting to get out of the HyDrive power units. Based on the 3 to 5 car upgrade (taking trailer weight as 28t) and assuming they want to maintain the same performance (lazily assuming that means constant power:weight ratio) the HyDrive needs to be capable of 530hp or around 50% above the current rating of the engines. Details about the HyDrive units are scarce, but I would presume that new engines with a higher rating would be fitted alongside the hybrid system?

I guess it's going to boost the engine performance during acceleration when it's most needed. When running at constant speed, even top speed, the power demand is less, and energy is recovered during braking. If performance rather than economy is the goal they may also run the engine above idle to give a top-up during coasting and braking so as to have the maximum available for accelerating.

 

[Domh245]

I guess it's going to boost the engine performance during acceleration when it's most needed. When running at constant speed, even top speed, the power demand is less, and energy is recovered during braking. If performance rather than economy is the goal they may also run the engine above idle to give a top-up during coasting and braking so as to have the maximum available for accelerating.

The goal seemed to be economy at first, but if they're proposing adding vehicles then it will have to shift to performance! I'd be surprised if the option of running the engine fast to top the batteries will be an option - I think it's far more likely that this will be a 'series-hybrid' application than parallel (More like the MGU-K in formula 1 than a plug-in EV), but details are so thin on the ground that it is all speculation!

 

[JonathanH]

Wonder how these 3 ended up being owned by Porterbrook? All the subclasses (Chiltern ordered in batches) have more units than 3.

168111-168113 were a separate order from 168106-168110

Taken from uk.railway:

Original situation was:

168001: 58151 - 58451 - 58251
... etc. until
168005: 58155 - 58455 - 58255

Then a second batch of intermediate cars came along shortly after to
make:

168001: 58151 - 58451 - 58651 - 58251
... etc. until
168005: 58155 - 58455 - 58655 - 58255

When the second batch - the 170-lookalikes - was delivered, the 584xx
cars were renumbered and inserted into the first five new units, so
there are now:

168001: 58151 - 58651 - 58251
...
168005: 58155 - 58655 - 58255
168106: 58156 - 58656(58451) - 58256
...
168110: 58160 - 58660(58455) - 58260
168111: 58161 - 58661 - 58261
...
168113: 58163 - 58663 - 58263

168106-10 only operated as 2-car units for commissioning - the centre
cars were added before passenger service.

 

[Roast Veg]

So a 3 car Networker mix would be 66m long, and a 5 car would be 109m. Angel have access to up to 16 TSOs and TSOLs from the class 465/2s (the 465/9s are very likely to be required by SE for longer), so a medium term supply of up to 32 vehicles.

Having a speculative stab at how best to incorporate that in the 165/0 fleet you could extend all 11 3 car units with one TSO and one TSOL apiece, and then extend five of the 2 car units to three car with the remaining TSOs? That can even go up to 10 if the TSOLs are used, either with the toilet removed or retained.

Once the 465/9 vehicles are available, that gives you a further 34 of each vehicle type. If the first round was successful a best case scenario would have all the 3 car 165s extended and up to 46 2 car 165s increased to 3 car with TSO(L)s. That only leaves 2 units without - and there will probably be a need for short units on the GWML branches that can't take longer than 2 cars today. It's almost too perfect to be a reality, so it probably won't be!

How long are platforms on the Severn Beach line?

 

[t_star2001uk]

Doing a bit more digging and I can't find any reference to any changes to the engine - only that Magtec are involved, so I'd be surprised if they were going to take MTU engines - it'd have been announced otherwise! Nosing around on Magtec's website as well I can see they have an electric motor that's good for 200bhp so it's certainly not impossible for them to achieve the extra power through motors alone - the worry then would be powering it (although I suppose you could fit some large batteries to those Networker trailer cars, which tend to be pretty empty below the solebar!)

Improving fuel efficiency and performance with lower emissions

In future, passengers using the Class 165 HyDrive could benefit from potentially reduced journey times, thanks to the improved acceleration offered by the hybrid technology compared to its diesel-only counterparts. Additionally, when the hybrid system detects proximity to stations or depots, it will turn the engines off and run on its battery, removing gaseous and noise emissions from populated areas.



Due to its improved fuel efficiency, the Class 165 HyDrive will offer an increased range, making operation more efficient. Maintenance will also be reduced compared to diesel-only units, with remote diagnostics used to ensure that the hybrid system continues to operate smoothly.



The completed Class 165 HyDrive project will have a positive environmental impact, most notably through a significant reduction in CO2, NOx and noise emissions. The new range-extender engines, designed to drive generators to charge the traction battery which delivers power to the traction motor, will be smaller and more efficient than the existing engines and will comply with the latest emission standards. The battery will be re-charged by the vehicles new regenerative braking system, increasing overall efficiency and reducing emissions.



The engines will be replaced after their life cycle providing an upgrade path to alternative power sources in the future. This offers the opportunity for incremental improvements in emissions and reduced operating costs as technology develops.

 

[edwin_m]

DMUs (including Sprinters I think) traditionally had 24V wiring and EMUs 110V. Anyone know if the trailers would need re-wiring and replacement of electrical equipment to run in a 16x?

 

[norbitonflyer]

This seems to have been mentioned over in the class 707 thread. Is adding 20m trailer carriages from class 365/465s even possible, and what impact would it have on performance?

Reduced performance might not be a problem on the routes they would work. A speed-limited rural branch line does not have the same need for high performance as the Paddington commuter run, which has frequent stops and requires good acceleration and a high line speed to keep out of the way of the IEPs.

 

[t_star2001uk]

DMUs (including Sprinters I think) traditionally had 24V wiring and EMUs 110V. Anyone know if the trailers would need re-wiring and replacement of electrical equipment to run in a 16x?

165s do not crossfeed between coaches (there is no power train line). So how will the former EMU centre car be powered? If no traction equipment is installed, what about the performance drop of dragging an unpowered car around....

Just a couple of unaswered questions....

 

[HSTEd]

I think the easiest way to do anything is to put a new diesel car into a Networker, not try and put a Networker car into a Network Turbo.

All Networkers have a 750V busline running through them, so splicing in a generator car is likely to be less problematic (although you will still need an onboard return cable which is missing for obvious reasons).

EDIT:
There are 187 4-car Networker Electrics remaining (to my knowledge).
And 40 more 2-car units (466).

It's not as if one generator "van" for each would even be a particularly small order for a builder like Stadler that builds handfuls of bespoke vehicles all the time.

 

[edwin_m]

165s do not crossfeed between coaches (there is no power train line). So how will the former EMU centre car be powered? If no traction equipment is installed, what about the performance drop of dragging an unpowered car around....

Just a couple of unaswered questions....

I suggest the HyDrive could provide the answer to both those questions. With apparently an electric transmission being installed there will be a lot of electrical reconfiguration of the train, which could include providing a cross-feed into the ex-DMU car. That would obviously need some wiring changes to feed the new power source into where the diesel alternatior used to connect. The HyDrive probably also provides a boost to acceleration, which is where extra power is needed.

 

[Roast Veg]

The 165 carriages might retain their current power arrangements, and the ex 465 carriage could be independantly fed from either end. Are things like the PIS and door controls the same for both units?

 

[Energy]

The 165 carriages might retain their current power arrangements, and the ex 465 carriage could be independantly fed from either end. Are things like the PIS and door controls the same for both units?

Looking at the current PIS I would expect it to get updated anyway with the new style screens if more carriages get added. I would imagine door controls are similar.

 

[brad465]

I think the easiest way to do anything is to put a new diesel car into a Networker, not try and put a Networker car into a Network Turbo.

All Networkers have a 750V busline running through them, so splicing in a generator car is likely to be less problematic (although you will still need an onboard return cable which is missing for obvious reasons).

EDIT:
There are 187 4-car Networker Electrics remaining (to my knowledge).
And 40 more 2-car units (466).

It's not as if one generator "van" for each would even be a particularly small order for a builder like Stadler that builds handfuls of bespoke vehicles all the time.

If the 187 is a total of 465 and 365s, my understanding is that's correct, however while it isn't a big difference, there are 43x 466s.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

I appreciate things change over 30 years, but the investment submission for Networker Turbos for Thames Valley services went to BR's Investment Committee at the same time as the BR/NSE Crossrail proposal was being developed; this resulted in the Committee asking what would happen to the Turbos if Crossrail went ahead. Paraphrasing the reply, it was something like "no problem - the Turbos can be converted to EMUs"; I don't think the reply gave any detail, but from what I remember the wording was such that it implied this it would be a relatively easy task. But certainly, the possibility of converting Turbos to EMUs at some future date was considered before the trains were procured, and presumably this would have been reflected in the specification. Consequently, mixing Turbo's and 465s together might not be too difficult, but I don't know if there are any significant differences between 465s and 365s.

Regarding Magtec, most (all?) of Optare's battery buses use that company's equipment, and they have developed battery/electric propulsion packs which can be substituted for diesel ones in existing fleets; films of some of these can be found on YouTube. So as first generation DMUs used bus engines/etc typical of the mid/late 1950s, could the 165 HyDrive project also "pinch" proven bus technology? Moreover, my understanding of the Magtec system is that it could link into the existing Gmeinder final drive.

Regarding references earlier in the thread to branch lines, the 'Modern Railways' article also states that the GWR Turbos will be refreshed internally "with improved interiors better suited for long distance services"; doesn't that imply that they won't be operating branch line services?

 

[HSTEd]

this resulted in the Committee asking what would happen to the Turbos if Crossrail went ahead. Paraphrasing the reply, it was something like "no problem - the Turbos can be converted to EMUs"; I don't think the reply gave any detail, but from what I remember the wording was such that it implied this it would be a relatively easy task. But certainly, the possibility of converting Turbos to EMUs at some future date was considered before the trains were procured, and presumably this would have been reflected in the specification. Consequently, mixing Turbo's and 465s together might not be too difficult, but I don't know if there are any significant differences between 465s and 365s.

What might have been easy at the time with the original design staff on hand and a significant works infrastructure available could easily be almost impossible in our far "leaner" and more highly divided industry - where I doubt very many of the original design team are not retired, if they are even still alive.