Bombardier Traxx Locomotive

[RobShipway]

In the August editon of Modern Railways, there is a good article by Ian Walmsley from Porterbrook leasing where he is saying that for the NXEA trains to Norwich currently powered by Class 90 locomotives, with Mk3 coaches that as a replacement you rebuild the Mk3 coaches with power operated doors at each end, plus have the train powered by a UK variation of the Bombardier Traxx locomotive that is in a few countries abroad.

What he also says is that you would have to replace the current DVT with a powered passenger carriage in the shape of a class 172 trailer car (i.e. coach with drivers cab) as the DVT.

What are other people's thoughts on thsi idea?

The traxx locomtive have a built in diesel engine capable of 125mph as well as being overhead, so to me they could also be used by freight companies on the lines such as the GWML and Midland Mainline after they have been electrified?

 

[Hydro]

The Traxx dual mode diesel engine most certainly is not capable of 125mph. In fact, you'd probably struggle for 25mph. It really is nothing more than a shunt engine.

 

[tbtc]

You'd need a much bigger crumple zone than a 172 offers if you want to operate at 125 mph on the GEML...

However, the thing I don't get about the Traxx is that some of the same people praising this as the great leap forward are also strongly against IEP (moaning about the inefficiencies of carrying those diesel tanks long distances under the wires etc)

 

[ainsworth74]

Not convinced by the idea of using a 172 DMS as a DVT seems like an unnecessary complications surely it would be better to either fit seating into the existing DVT or even convert a Mk3 TS into a DBSO style vehicle.

Otherwise seems like a reasonable idea to me getting a bit more life out of the Mk3s and finding a suitable replacement for the 90 (and should they prove reliable perhaps lead to orders from FOCs). Still personally I think that the Norwich route would be better suited to something like a 444 type design but if this works out cheaper then why not?

 

[RobShipway]

Not convinced by the idea of using a 172 DMS as a DVT seems like an unnecessary complications surely it would be better to either fit seating into the existing DVT or even convert a Mk3 TS into a DBSO style vehicle.

Otherwise seems like a reasonable idea to me getting a bit more life out of the Mk3s and finding a suitable replacement for the 90 (and should they prove reliable perhaps lead to orders from FOCs). Still personally I think that the Norwich route would be better suited to something like a 444 type design but if this works out cheaper then why not?

If it was not for the weight of it, I would suggest using an HST power car as the DVT with the engine included so that should it need to run off the wires, it has got more than just for the last mile to do so.

 

[route:oxford]

In the August editon of Modern Railways, there is a good article by Ian Walmsley from Porterbrook leasing where he is saying that for the NXEA trains to Norwich currently powered by Class 90 locomotives, with Mk3 coaches that as a replacement you rebuild the Mk3 coaches with power operated doors at each end, plus have the train powered by a UK variation of the Bombardier Traxx locomotive that is in a few countries abroad.

What he also says is that you would have to replace the current DVT with a powered passenger carriage in the shape of a class 172 trailer car (i.e. coach with drivers cab) as the DVT.

What are other people's thoughts on thsi idea?

The traxx locomtive have a built in diesel engine capable of 125mph as well as being overhead, so to me they could also be used by freight companies on the lines such as the GWML and Midland Mainline after they have been electrified?

My thoughts on this idea were published on this very forum on 18th January this year...

Check post 22 on this thread.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=566136

Great minds think alike eh?

 

[sprinterguy]

I don't see why it is necessary to replace the 90s on the GEML, they have plenty of life left in them and we in the UK are already witnessing serious under utilisation of the existing electric locomotives of classes 90 and 92 without introducing yet another electric loco class. The 90s are somewhat younger than the mark 3 coaches they operate with, so there should be no need to replace the locos before the carriages are in need of replacement themselves.

It's highly unlikely that there will be a future need for more loco hauled driving trailers, but I think that converting existing mark 3 DVTs would be the most cost effective solution if it is structurally possible (There's two big holes in the bodysides where the van doors are for a start), but other than that, does anybody else feel that if TOCs finally became fed up with the mechanical woes of the 180s then they could end up being de-engined converted to loco hauled coaching stock, which would provide 28 driving trailers capable of operation at up to 125mph? Not that I can actually envisage a need for such a fleet of trains...

 

[Kingfisher200262]

What he also says is that you would have to replace the current DVT with a powered passenger carriage in the shape of a class 172 trailer car (i.e. coach with drivers cab) as the DVT.

That wasn't what Ian said at all. He said one option would be to use an unpowered Class 172 type vehicle, which could then be reconfigured for a future life as a DMU.

Another option is to take the running gear from a DVT and install these in a new body shell, which might be a precursor to a Mk 5 coach design, for future Mk III / Mk IV replacement.

Yet another option is to modify the DVT to include passenger seats and a final one would be to put a cab on a MK III in the same way as the Mk II DBSOs were configured.

 

[swt_passenger]

The traxx locomtive have a built in diesel engine capable of 125mph as well as being overhead, so to me they could also be used by freight companies on the lines such as the GWML and Midland Mainline after they have been electrified?

You need to read the article properly. The reason it's called a 'last mile' diesel is significant here...

 

[RobShipway]

You need to read the article properly. The reason it's called a 'last mile' diesel is significant here...

Okay, have just re - read it and yes you are correct.

Maybe, it is wishful thinking but I think even if it is just for freight use we could do with having a locomotive that has the same power on Diesel as it does on the OHLE. I was going to say kind of like the Class 73, but that is actually at the moment anyway under powered on the diesel engine compared to the power it has on the third rail.

 

[Hydro]

Maybe, it is wishful thinking but I think even if it is just for freight use we could do with having a locomotive that has the same power on Diesel as it does on the OHLE. I was going to say kind of like the Class 73, but that is actually at the moment anyway under powered on the diesel engine compared to the power it has on the third rail.

You'd need a locomotive twice the size and weight of current designs to create a similar power output as say a 66. You'd never get a diesel to match an AC, rather you'd have to downgrade an AC to match the diesel engine. The likes of a 92 push between 5-6,000hp (depending on supply, 750 DC or 25kV AC, you'll never get a diesel to match that without it being the size of a house)

The 73 is mediocre at best on diesel. I work with them quite a bit, on both modes, and the difference is of course very noticeable. On diesel, the 73 is surprisingly strong, but you'll get no great speed from them. I've had a single 73 pull 5 coaches plus a dead 31 and it never broke 25mph before boiling its radiator dry after 20 miles. A pair in multi would just probably be enough to pull a fairly light class 8, even 7, freight to rough time.

On electric they are a completely different story, 1600hp as a baseline figure, but given a robust supply of juice will exceed this for short periods.

The RVEL re-engineering project aims to give the 73 roughly the same output on diesel as electric with two QSK19's developing 1500hp, but this is all plans on paper as far as I know.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The GE class 90's are a damn sight more reliable than they once were so i can't see any reason why Traxx should purchased. In all honesty the best solution for the GE main line would be some nice shiney new EMU's but i agree that maybe some way off. Can't come sooner as far as i'm concerned though.

 

[apk55]

An electric locomotive is very efficient over a wide range of power levels, indeed it is probably most efficient on part power.

Diesel engines normally lose a considerable amount of efficiency when running on part load and use some energy when idling. They also require much more maintenance than electric locomotives.

On many services run by diesel locomotives the power limits the speed for only a fraction of a root, typically a steep up hill section. For the rest of the journey line speed limits (or rolling stock limits) rule, although a higher powered locomotive may mean faster recovery from slacks.

Increasing the locomotive power therefore may only make a small reduction in journey time at the expense of a considerable increase in fuel consumption as it will spend more time on part power. With an electric locomotive having surplus power does not involve an efficiency penalty, and I would be at all surprised if many electric locomotives spent more than 5% of running time on full power.

On solution to this problem is the "Gen set" locomotive with two or more diesel engines on a locomotive and using as many as required to run a particular service the others being switched off. And on the trans Pennine service I gather they switch off some of the engines for most of the journey except the climb to Standedge tunnel.

I like the idea of bi_mode locomotive that can use 25KV OHL (and possibly third rail as well) when available with a diesel engine for working sidings and possibly short branches.

 

[Nym]

However, the thing I don't get about the Traxx is that some of the same people praising this as the great leap forward are also strongly against IEP (moaning about the inefficiencies of carrying those diesel tanks long distances under the wires etc)

Because it's not an 'in service' diesel GENERATOR it's there to provide power in the event of OHLE failiure, shunting in and out of non-electrified depots and sidings, getting into freight yards from the reception sidings (such as Trafford Park) etc etc.

The Bi Mode IEP is a completely different plan, and if you read what my personal idea and intention would be for the all electric IEP it also included a small generator inside the electric transformer/locomotive unit. For cases of OHLE failiure etc. But had a slightly more complex system for bi-mode usage with distributed traction, but still units being re-marshalable, even within stations within 1 hour.