Bombardier "IET" loco hauled proposal - what would that have looked like?

[Bletchleyite]

From the 80x interior thread:

If you want the rail industry view on these things, have a read of Ian Walmsley's piece in the current Modern Railways.

It's interesting that Bombardier were proposing a classic LHCS solution. I wonder what that would have looked like? Dellners for easy adding/removing a diesel? Would the wires have got to Bristol sooner?

 

[Energy]

What does the article say (its behind a paywall)? Bombardier and Siemens bid together and showed a multiple unit.

 

[HSTEd]

Have to remember the IET programme went through so many revisions its hard to tell what is what and when.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What does the article say (its behind a paywall)? Bombardier and Siemens bid together and showed a multiple unit.

I only subscribe in print form and have read it and binned it, sadly. However, what it said was that Bombardier were originally going to bid LHCS with a UK gauge Traxx, but were warned off it.

 

[Nym]

I believe the intent was for a loco haulable EMU, similar to the Class 390, but with a more intelligent brake control regime and more power able to be transmitted via the autocoupler arrangement.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Interesting thread this. I was thinking about whether IET's should be prodiced in a loco-hauled formation.

But then when you think about the current 10-car capacity or 9-car with LNER and GWR, it's a waste of capacity. I'm not saying HST's or loco-hauled stock is but if the IET was if produced in a LHCS shape.

 

[Bletchleyite]

MR brought it up in connection with a statement that a 2 x 5-car formation wastes more platform length than a locomotive.

 

[Energy]

MR brought it up in connection with a statement that a 2 x 5-car formation wastes more platform length than a locomotive.

Really? I don't think 2x5 wastes that much space and the mk5s are more an unpowered mu being dragged and can't easily be split. Also for a 125mph train of that length you are going to need a pretty powerful loco or 2 of them for the 9 cars on diesel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Really? I don't think 2x5 wastes that much space and the mk5s are more an unpowered mu being dragged and can't easily be split. Also for a 125mph train of that length you are going to need a pretty powerful loco or 2 of them for the 9 cars on diesel.

Mk5s are not a Bombardier product, of course. Just because CAF built a single-ended, poshed-up 4TC (OK, 5TC) doesn't mean Bombardier would have done.

I suspect this goes back to earlier times when the wires were going to get to Temple Meads (idiotic that they haven't) so no need for 125mph on diesel.

 

[irish_rail]

Really? I don't think 2x5 wastes that much space and the mk5s are more an unpowered mu being dragged and can't easily be split. Also for a 125mph train of that length you are going to need a pretty powerful loco or 2 of them for the 9 cars on diesel.

4 cabs instead of 2.
2 kitchen areas
I'd say you are looking at at least a vehicle length in wasted space .

 

[Bletchleyite]

4 cabs instead of 2.
2 kitchen areas
I'd say you are looking at at least a vehicle length in wasted space .

You pretty much are, as 2x5 has pretty much the same capacity as 1x9.

 

[CW2]

Also the cab areas have to be collision-resistant, which is why the areas immediately behid the driving cabs on 125 mph capable vehicles are always staff only areas. On 2 x 5 car units you end up with 4 of these "dead" areas where no passengers can be seated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also the cab areas have to be collision-resistant, which is why the areas immediately behid the driving cabs on 125 mph capable vehicles are always staff only areas. On 2 x 5 car units you end up with 4 of these "dead" areas where no passengers can be seated.

Until XC rejigged theirs the "crumple zone" was, bicycles aside, normally used for standees

 

[Metal_gee_man]

Also the cab areas have to be collision-resistant, which is why the areas immediately behid the driving cabs on 125 mph capable vehicles are always staff only areas. On 2 x 5 car units you end up with 4 of these "dead" areas where no passengers can be seated.

I can't get head round that, because 140mph Class 395s have no crumple zone behind the driver, the cab door as seen below is inches away from the driver so why does a 125mph unit need it when a 140mph unit not?
Aren't they both based on the same AT300 platform?

 

[Nym]

395s don't operate over 100mph without continuous ATP perhaps?

 

[Metal_gee_man]

395s don't operate over 100mph without continuous ATP perhaps?

And yet the train buffers at St Pancras would cause an almighty mess if hit at any speed!
I get that it's extremely unlikely to crash into another train whilst using ECTS on HS1 but inanimate objects are sadly not accounted for and could be struck at line speed

 

[Nym]

Also no level crossings on the 140mph sections.

I'm not claiming that this is right, but that this is something that one could weasel into a safety case with some relatively simple SIL-2 switches to back it up on the speed sensing circuits as part of the "EVC" system.

 

[rebmcr]

395s don't operate over 100mph without continuous ATP perhaps?

And yet the train buffers at St Pancras would cause an almighty mess if hit at any speed!
I get that it's extremely unlikely to crash into another train whilst using ECTS on HS1 but inanimate objects are sadly not accounted for and could be struck at line speed

There is no ETCS anywhere on their operating area.

395s on HS1 are signalled and protected using TVM (comparable to GW-ATP, plus in-cab display). 395s at St Pancras are signalled and protected using KVB (comparable to TPWS, plus in-cab display). None of those provide continuous train detection and reporting.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

395s on HS1 are signalled and protected using TVM

100% my mistake, I got myself in a muddle, I didn't know about the lack of constant train detection though... Hmm the question gets harder to answer

 

[GRALISTAIR]

What does the article say (its behind a paywall)? Bombardier and Siemens bid together and showed a multiple unit.

I have an electronic version and have read it but don’t want to violate any copyright. Long story short the dead hand of the DafT and treasury got involved. The LHCS would have been interesting and my preferred solution but then I am biased.

 

[Nym]

There is no ETCS anywhere on their operating area.

395s on HS1 are signalled and protected using TVM (comparable to GW-ATP, plus in-cab display). 395s at St Pancras are signalled and protected using KVB (comparable to TPWS, plus in-cab display). None of those provide continuous train detection and reporting.

GW-ATP has an in cab display. (As does TPWS)

Perhaps it would be more apt to say, "Continuous Speed Supervision" similar to how VT wanted to use TASS for 135/140mph running after WCRM.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

MR brought it up in connection with a statement that a 2 x 5-car formation wastes more platform length than a locomotive.

Which of course if using logic is correct. But screw the passengers the DafT calls the shots. Williams was supposed to correct this I believe and passengers come first.

 

[Richard Scott]

Also the cab areas have to be collision-resistant, which is why the areas immediately behid the driving cabs on 125 mph capable vehicles are always staff only areas. On 2 x 5 car units you end up with 4 of these "dead" areas where no passengers can be seated.

On a 9 car 800 there are more seats than a 10 car so a 9 car LHCS would have even more seats as only be one can. The loco would be much shorter than 26m so the argument about wasted space is a non starter as this set up would be shorter than a 10 car with more seats.

 

[route:oxford]

On a 9 car 800 there are more seats than a 10 car so a 9 car LHCS would have even more seats as only be one can. The loco would be much shorter than 26m so the argument about wasted space is a non starter as this set up would be shorter than a 10 car with more seats.

I'm not sure you are comparing like with like.

If we're talking a loco-haulable EMU. It would have two cabs.

Eg

Highland Chieftain departs Inverness with loco on rear. Loco detaches at Stirling. EMU heads off to London.
Highland Chieftain arrives at Stirling, Loco attaches, Diesel hauled unit heads to Inverness.

 

[Richard Scott]

I'm not sure you are comparing like with like.

If we're talking a loco-haulable EMU. It would have two cabs.

Eg

Highland Chieftain departs Inverness with loco on rear. Loco detaches at Stirling. EMU heads off to London.
Highland Chieftain arrives at Stirling, Loco attaches, Diesel hauled unit heads to Inverness.

No was talking about hauled stock as per title.

 

[Energy]

On a 9 car 800 there are more seats than a 10 car so a 9 car LHCS would have even more seats as only be one can. The loco would be much shorter than 26m so the argument about wasted space is a non starter as this set up would be shorter than a 10 car with more seats.

You may as well go for a 9 car IET though, it won't be that many more seats and the locomotive will have to be very powerful on diesel to haul all the carriages at 100 or more mph. Plus it won't have as good acceleration as the IET.

 

[route:oxford]

No was talking about hauled stock as per title.

As am I. Away from the wires or 3rd rail, an electric hauled EMU is simply hauled stock.

Can't see the point of dragging a diesel loco all the way to Kings Cross and back when it's not needed for 400 miles of the journey.

 

[CBlue]

Perhaps just as well they didn't try the avenue of bi-mode LHCS. Trying to fit all of that into one bodyshell within the UK loading guage along with the required emissions equipment would have been quite the challenge.

If they were going fully electric, any possible benefits wouldn't outweigh the disasdantages compared to the current 80x series EMU's, namely lower accelleration and non-distributed traction making any form of failure far more of an issue.

 

[Richard Scott]

Thought the title was just about LHCS as was proposed, no mention of dragging diesels. If original GW electrification had gone ahead the would be electric to Bristol and Swansea and understanding was HSTs retained for the rest so as it stands there is nothing lost by a 9 coach loco hauled set against an IET. May be slightly slower off the mark but bet not by much. OEBB seem to manage well enough with their Railjet trains and they give a much better environment than an IET with no whining motors underneath.

 

[route:oxford]

Thought the title was just about LHCS as was proposed, no mention of dragging diesels. If original GW electrification had gone ahead the would be electric to Bristol and Swansea and understanding was HSTs retained for the rest so as it stands there is nothing lost by a 9 coach loco hauled set against an IET. May be slightly slower off the mark but bet not by much. OEBB seem to manage well enough with their Railjet trains and they give a much better environment than an IET with no whining motors underneath.

The very first post states clearly:-

Dellners for easy adding/removing a diesel?

Followed up by:-

I believe the intent was for a loco haulable EMU

So your proposal to have just one cab in the EMU would mean complex shunting arrangements at termini, or dragging an unpowered diesel loco for long journeys.