Class 15X Future

[krus_aragon]

they have a 15m bodyshell they use in spain somewhere.2 of those back to back would work.
the super-pacer I envisaged is not that much of a pipe-dream.

if they see a niche and nobody else wants to touch it,then there's a market for about 200-300 of those.

Do you envision 200-300 trains or 200-300 15m carriages?

 

[Bletchleyite]

swing is, not necessarily the bogies themselves, but the clearing distance from the car centre betwen two bogies, to the adjacent rails.

Fair point, though I am not aware of anywhere (other than somewhere you would never send a DMU anyway) where, say, Class 156 can't go, up north. The only places I can think of which mandate 20m vehicles are south of Crewe, and one of them (Marston Vale) is because of signal positions, not because 23m vehicles would whack anything.

There are places you won't often see a 156 e.g. the Ormskirk line, but they are cleared for it.

 

[hooverboy]

Do you envision 200-300 trains or 200-300 15m carriages?

I think potentially 200-300 trains.

if we were to look at 14x/153 like for like

 

[CosherB]

I think oop north there is still a need for shorter wheelbase vehicles to negotiate some very tough curves.

you could say the same freight wise too....why are class 20's still in service?
we now have a class 88,which is, on diesel, basically comparable in pulling power.

fact is it just can't cope with some really serious wheel-squealing curves.The best the freight guys can do in that department now is the 73's once the 20's are retired.

Just where do you conjure up this stuff from? 20s still in service? Where, other than RHTT? Why do Northern need short wheelbase units to negotiate tight curves? Once the Pacers have gone, they’ll have no vehicles shorter than 20m!

 

[hooverboy]

Fair point, though I am not aware of anywhere (other than somewhere you would never send a DMU anyway) where, say, Class 156 can't go, up north. The only places I can think of which mandate 20m vehicles are south of Crewe, and one of them (Marston Vale) is because of signal positions, not because 23m vehicles would whack anything.

There are places you won't often see a 156 e.g. the Ormskirk line, but they are cleared for it.

marston vale was running a single 153 until recently was it not?

 

[hooverboy]

Just where do you conjure up this stuff from? 20s still in service? Where, other than RHTT? Why do Northern need short wheelbase units to negotiate tight curves? Once the Pacers have gone, they’ll have no vehicles shorter than 20m!

...20's are still in service then aren't they!
branch lines of all sorts still need rail head treatment!

they are 50(scrub that- 60 ) years old,soon to be retired, and the rails still need treating!

 

[Chester1]

It hasn't been denied since...
The detail of the 2050 CCC proposal is also that land transport is effectively (some limited offsetting to be allowed) totally decarbonised to allow aviation not to be.

That makes sense. Decarbonising nearly all land transportation by 2050 is an entirely realistic target. Battery for cars and hydrogen for heavy vehicles. We do need much more electrification of the railways but not at any price. Battery and hydrogen trains have a niche too. Electric powered planes for mass commercial use look like they are generations away.

Back on topic, if no further DMUs are ordered then a lot of new bi modes will be. The last sprinters may still be running 20 years but the vast majority won't be viable to keep in service.

The 150s are useful commuter trains but some infil electrification and battery EMUs could take over city services. Looking in my own area (Greater Manchester) its easy to see how they could be entirely gone within 10 years without new DMUs being ordered. Electrification to Stalybridge and Wigan via Bolton should still go ahead. Electrification of the CLC would get rid of many (they will inevitably take over all stoppers next year). If 769s can run Buxton services they would be a good fit (similar capacity to double 150s , slower on diesel but faster on electric). TfW are not due to keep their 9 x 769s for long. Most other service can be run by 156s and 158s as long they are banned from the Castlefield corridor.

 

[hooverboy]

That makes sense. Decarbonising nearly all land transportation by 2050 is an entirely realistic target. Battery for cars and hydrogen for heavy vehicles. We do need much more electrification of the railways but not at any price. Battery and hydrogen trains have a niche too. Electric powered planes for mass commercial use look like they are generations away.

.

battery hybrid is probably the easiest option of these.battery capacity will improve over the next few years so range should become less of an issue.

hydrogen..we will see, but it has to be cooled/stored under high pressure..and R101 springs to mind.lots of safety issues to consider.

electric powered planes...possible I guess, if used for domestic flights with fast-charge capability at terminals.I would not be at all confortable half way to tenerife with the pilot saying we'd run out of juice!

as for bi-modes...they have their uses, but what is the use of carting around hundreds of gallons of diesel if it is not going to be deployed?it is dead weight otherwise.
bi mode is a nice,funky buzz-word, unless real use will be made of the capability.
I think better use of engine power(ie use as 750vdc genset) to power battery ,would be a more viable alternative here.then use the electricity supply as a backup source of power- be it 25kvac/750vdc.
this also means power can be harnessed when coasting

 

[krus_aragon]

I think potentially 200-300 trains.

if we were to look at 14x/153 like for like

Right.

At a quick totting-up, I count roughly a hundred and fifty 14x units, and seventy 153s. Given that many of those currently operate coupled together, or are overcrowded when operating alone, I think the number of short trains required will be lower than that figure.

If we're looking at replacements of the class 150's 40m length, the two-car version of Stadler's FLIRT would be an off-the-shelf option, at ~21m per car. (These are due to replace Pacers and 15x units on the South Wales Valleys, albeit in longer 3- and 4-car form.)

 

[hooverboy]

Right.

At a quick totting-up, I count roughly a hundred and fifty 14x units, and seventy 153s. Given that many of those currently operate coupled together, or are overcrowded when operating alone, I think the number of short trains required will be lower than that figure.

If we're looking at replacements of the class 150's 40m length, the two-car version of Stadler's FLIRT would be an off-the-shelf option, at ~21m per car. (These are due to replace Pacers and 15x units on the South Wales Valleys, albeit in longer 3- and 4-car form.)

would seem in the right ballpark,sort of, but I still think 2*21m not necessary for a super rural line with typically 15-20% capacity.
2* 15m or 2*17m is quite sufficient to replace a single 153 or 1* 2 car pacer set,plus still give a few extra seats and disability access.

I don't know the specs on these new TfW FLIRTS.
what weight are they per car?
what power plant
what capacity?
what speed rating?

pacers are only 25 tonne per car and 153 is 41T, so ideally you'd need to be looking 30t or less/carriage
I think most 17x/19x are now the wrong side of 40t per carriage,which is quite a bump on access charges.

 

[Chester1]

Does seem like the best bet for the Roscos will be to scrap the sprinters with the worst structure problems and use them for parts to keep the rest going for long enough for the long term situation to become clear.

 

[hwl]

Does seem like the best bet for the Roscos will be to scrap the sprinters with the worst structure problems and use them for parts to keep the rest going for long enough for the long term situation to become clear.

Agreed but that means taking peoples crayons away.

At least with some sprinters going off lease there is now the opportunity for decent refurb not the quick cheap jobs many got in the past.

 

[krus_aragon]

would seem in the right ballpark,sort of, but I still think 2*21m not necessary for a super rural line with typically 15-20% capacity.
2* 15m or 2*17m is quite sufficient to replace a single 153 or 1* 2 car pacer set,plus still give a few extra seats and disability access.

I don't know the specs on these new TfW FLIRTS.
what weight are they per car?
what power plant
what capacity?
what speed rating?

pacers are only 25 tonne per car and 153 is 41T, so ideally you'd need to be looking 30t or less/carriage
I think most 17x/19x are now the wrong side of 40t per carriage,which is quite a bump on access charges.

For all those specs, I'm best off pointing you at the relevant page of Wikipedia or the manufacturer's website. It appears they'd be somewhere around 38t per car, based on the former page's uncited figures.

 

[Bletchleyite]

marston vale was running a single 153 until recently was it not?

It used to have a 153 and a 150. The 153 was inadequate for the busy school trains but was for the other diagram - fortunately both school trains ended up on the same diagram. You can't use 2 x 23m because there are stations which have the starting signal at one end and the level crossing at the other end of a platform near enough precisely 80m long. When it looked like 153s were going to have to be used alone, they were going to have to "flight" them, i.e. run two services 5-10 minutes apart at busy times using 3 rather than 2 units.

 

[whhistle]

Has this actually been written down in any legislation? As far as I can tell it was an unscripted remark by Jo Johnson which everyone took as gospel, even if he's long gone from the DfT.

doesn't really matter,because the actions of DaFT over the last few years will make ALL transport operators belive it is gospel...and will be planning their fleet replacements accordingly......
...see surplus EMU stock/lack of dmu stock due to goalpost movement

To be fair though, why should it be legislated?
Companies should be responsible enough to reduce the dirty and get in with the cleaner fuels.
Why we need to waste time / effort in writing out legislation, that someone will try and find some sort of way around it... just seems a large waste of time.

 

[whhistle]

...because there are stations which have the starting signal at one end and the level crossing at the other end of a platform near enough precisely 80m long.

Although a level crossing at one side shouldn't pose a problem.
I see trains stop over a crossing regularly while performing station duties.
The difference is, the stock used on the line is capable of SDO and thus nobody can get off and fall.

Once again though, instead of doing what should / could be done (IE, moving the starter signal), nobody wants to invest the money. A clear difference between some other countries and ours.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although a level crossing at one side shouldn't pose a problem.
I see trains stop over a crossing regularly while performing station duties.
The difference is, the stock used on the line is capable of SDO and thus nobody can get off and fall.

Once again though, instead of doing what should / could be done (IE, moving the starter signal), nobody wants to invest the money. A clear difference between some other countries and ours.

Part of it is because it's likely such work will be done as part of EWR so there's little point doing it now.

Some of the level crossings are quite busy so blocking them for a longer period, while safe, is not acceptable. Otherwise you could just use something like a 170 or 172 *without* SDO, as all the passenger doors would be on the platform, just not the rear cab door.

 

[ed1971]

Politically things have turned very rapidly against diesel and associated air quality problems in the last 5 years, so it's not impossible a that future government will be even stricter on diesels.

If I was a leasing company I'd be very wary about financing a pure DMU in the future, expecting it to still be operating as built in 2045.

Governments make a lot of knee jerk reactions. There is the Eminox catalytic converter being tried out. The trial is expected to see a significant reduction in diesel emissions. Eminox’s state-of-the-art catalyst can reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by over 80%, particulate matter (PM) by over 90%, and both carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons by over 90%. http://www.eminox.com/news/eminox-teams-up-with-swr-and-porterbrook-for-world

However, as been stated before for new unit builds, it would be prudent to go down the diesel-electric route as the diesel generator can be swapped out for alternative power sources as they become available.

Looking at a the bigger picture, it is alarming that since 1992, around 40% of forests have been lost, the global population has risen by around 35% and an area of rain forest the size of Wales is being cut down every day. Yet nothing constructive seems to be being done to curb all this. However, this would be for another thread.

 

[sprinterguy]

On the basis the combination of 15x I am currently sat on at Meols Cop is currently stuck because the guard doesn't seem to be able to close the bloody doors maybe they could be thrown in the bin as soon as possible?

Where does the class currently stand in terms of reliability compared to other classes I wonder. That is clearly a material fact and my impression is that reliability is declining.

It depends which class you're referring to, but the Northern 150s have typically been achieving around 7,500 miles between technical incidents (Causing a delay of three minutes or more) for the past four years: This is pretty typical for 150 fleets in general and in fact for the most recent full year of data, up to October last year, represented "Best in class" reliability compared to those operated by Transport for Wales, West Midlands Trains and GWR.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It depends which class you're referring to, but the Northern 150s have typically been achieving around 7,500 miles between technical incidents (Causing a delay of three minutes or more) for the past four years: This is pretty typical for 150 fleets in general and in fact for the most recent full year of data, up to October last year, represented "Best in class" reliability compared to those operated by Transport for Wales, West Midlands Trains and GWR.

That's not terrible as a comparison - I doubt many 30-odd year old cars would manage that.

 

[cjmillsnun]

battery hybrid is probably the easiest option of these.battery capacity will improve over the next few years so range should become less of an issue.

hydrogen..we will see, but it has to be cooled/stored under high pressure..and R101 springs to mind.lots of safety issues to consider.

electric powered planes...possible I guess, if used for domestic flights with fast-charge capability at terminals.I would not be at all confortable half way to tenerife with the pilot saying we'd run out of juice!

as for bi-modes...they have their uses, but what is the use of carting around hundreds of gallons of diesel if it is not going to be deployed?it is dead weight otherwise.
bi mode is a nice,funky buzz-word, unless real use will be made of the capability.
I think better use of engine power(ie use as 750vdc genset) to power battery ,would be a more viable alternative here.then use the electricity supply as a backup source of power- be it 25kvac/750vdc.
this also means power can be harnessed when coasting

As far as battery cars goes, we already have nearly 300 mile range vehicles (Hyundai Kona, Kia E-Nero, Tesla Model 3) with more coming within the next 12-18 months. We also have 300kW charging posts coming on-line (Ionity although they are currently restricted to 150kW until the cars come that are capable of taking it). This should charge to 80% in 15-20 minutes (so stop for a coffee and charge up).

Hydrogen is easy. The gas networks are looking to convert definitely within that time. You then have a ready made pipeline system that can store it under HP.

Electric planes would operate the same as any other commercial flights. They'd leave with enough charge to get to their destination, an alternate plus a margin for dealing with traffic and weather

 

[Killingworth]

As far as battery cars goes, we already have nearly 300 mile range vehicles (Hyundai Kona, Kia E-Nero, Tesla Model 3) with more coming within the next 12-18 months. We also have 300kW charging posts coming on-line (Ionity although they are currently restricted to 150kW until the cars come that are capable of taking it). This should charge to 80% in 15-20 minutes (so stop for a coffee and charge up).

Hydrogen is easy. The gas networks are looking to convert definitely within that time. You then have a ready made pipeline system that can store it under HP.

Electric planes would operate the same as any other commercial flights. They'd leave with enough charge to get to their destination, an alternate plus a margin for dealing with traffic and weather

According to Hyundai's website the range of the electric Kona is up to 180 miles, a bit short of 300. There's a waiting list for one of them stretching into 2020 so it will be a long time before we see masses of electric cars going over the 600 miles that my car does on a tank.

 

[Ken H]

battery hybrid is probably the easiest option of these.battery capacity will improve over the next few years so range should become less of an issue.

hydrogen..we will see, but it has to be cooled/stored under high pressure..and R101 springs to mind.lots of safety issues to consider.

electric powered planes...possible I guess, if used for domestic flights with fast-charge capability at terminals.I would not be at all confortable half way to tenerife with the pilot saying we'd run out of juice!

as for bi-modes...they have their uses, but what is the use of carting around hundreds of gallons of diesel if it is not going to be deployed?it is dead weight otherwise.
bi mode is a nice,funky buzz-word, unless real use will be made of the capability.
I think better use of engine power(ie use as 750vdc genset) to power battery ,would be a more viable alternative here.then use the electricity supply as a backup source of power- be it 25kvac/750vdc.
this also means power can be harnessed when coasting

batteries use lots of rare metals
There is this about the fact the UK will need twice the current world production of cobalt
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-n...ll-require-twice-the-world-s-supply-of-cobalt

Scientists warn of “huge implications for our natural resources” as government pushes for rapid adoption of electric cars
A team of scientists has written to the Committee of Climate Change warning that if the UK’s 31.5 million cars are replaced by electric vehicles by 2050, as is currently planned by the Government, this will require almost twice the current annual global supply of cobalt
...

 

[Ken H]

...

Hydrogen is easy. The gas networks are looking to convert definitely within that time. You then have a ready made pipeline system that can store it under HP.

...

This is why carting hydrogen around is a bad idea
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/aqnQvzCaKEY/maxresdefault.jpg
(R101 airship exploding)

 

[Chester1]

batteries use lots of rare metals
There is this about the fact the UK will need twice the current world production of cobalt
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-n...ll-require-twice-the-world-s-supply-of-cobalt

"Rare earth metals" are not actually that rare. The restriction on supply occurs due to the environmental issue processing them. Its hugely expensive to do it properly thats why China with its lower environmental standards has become the main supplier to the west.

Its certainly not an issue for battery powered trains. The cost of the rare earth metals for batteries will be dwarfed by the cost of the coach. The 230 battery powered train will have a range of 60 miles. A longer train will need more batteries but will also have more space for them. Back to the thread topic, its likely that most people sprinters stay in service until battery technology has matured and electrification has spread.

 

[Ken H]

"Rare earth metals" are not actually that rare. The restriction on supply occurs due to the environmental issue processing them. Its hugely expensive to do it properly thats why China with its lower environmental standards has become the main supplier to the west.

Its certainly not an issue for battery powered trains. The cost of the rare earth metals for batteries will be dwarfed by the cost of the coach. The 230 battery powered train will have a range of 60 miles. A longer train will need more batteries but will also have more space for them. Back to the thread topic, its likely that most people sprinters stay in service until battery technology has matured and electrification has spread.

I still think actually bunging wires up is more environmentally friendly. The reason we are not doing it is because of the clusterf*ck that Network rail made of GWR. York-Manchester should be a no brianer but government just dithers. If we cant justify electrification for TP we might as well pack up and go home.

Right now
Dorridge/Earslwood- Kiddderminster
Leeds - Manchester(vicc and pic) via Huddersfield
Leeds/Doncaster - Birmingham
Bedford - Sheffield
Fife circle
Should have been done by now, and we should be looking at Manchester -Leeds via calder valley, to Hull, fill-ins round nottingham/derby, and Crewe-Chester.

With that lot we would need a lot less DMUs

 

[Chester1]

I still think actually bunging wires up is more environmentally friendly. The reason we are not doing it is because of the clusterf*ck that Network rail made of GWR. York-Manchester should be a no brianer but government just dithers. If we cant justify electrification for TP we might as well pack up and go home.

Right now
Dorridge/Earslwood- Kiddderminster
Leeds - Manchester(vicc and pic) via Huddersfield
Leeds/Doncaster - Birmingham
Bedford - Sheffield
Fife circle
Should have been done by now, and we should be looking at Manchester -Leeds via calder valley, to Hull, fill-ins round nottingham/derby, and Crewe-Chester.

With that lot we would need a lot less DMUs

Electrification is the solution for lines with medium and high use. Battery EMUs are a better solution for many branches. For instance switching a Blackpool North EMU to Blackpool South would allow plenty of time for charging.

 

[Ken H]

Electrification is the solution for lines with medium and high use. Battery EMUs are a better solution for many branches. For instance switching a Blackpool North EMU to Blackpool South would allow plenty of time for charging.

Yes, using batteries for 'the last mile' is a good idea. A small diesel engine to rescue a unit with flat batteries maybe a good idea.

but we need to know how much under the wires we need for a unit to charge before the capacity of the batteries becomes a problem. Would Manchester - Rose Hill Marple work? its about 50/50. Preston - Windermere?
What about leeds - lancaster, with Leeds- Skipton and Carnforth -Lancaster under the wires

 

[xotGD]

This is why carting hydrogen around is a bad idea
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/aqnQvzCaKEY/maxresdefault.jpg
(R101 airship exploding)

That photograph shows the flammable skin of an airship burning. Not a hydrogen explosion.

 

[Bevan Price]

Electrification is the solution for lines with medium and high use. Battery EMUs are a better solution for many branches. For instance switching a Blackpool North EMU to Blackpool South would allow plenty of time for charging.

The problem with most batteries is that their recharge capacity diminishes with age (or the number of "recharges"), and then they need to be replaced by new (expensive) batteries. There are various technical / scientific reasons (which I will not detail here), but one common effect is the gradual dispersion of particles of electrically conducting material inside the battery. This allows leakage of electrical charge between the battery electrodes ("self-discharge"), which gets worse as the battery gets older.

(You can test the consequences yourself if you use rechargeable batteries and have an electrical multimeter; compare how long it takes for the output current of new & old batteries to decline after they have been recharged - but not used to power your equipment.)