Electrodiesel Class 22x?

[HSTEd]

Well I'm sure this has been done to death but I checked the first several pages of the forum and can't find anything so here I go.
East Coast currently operates 13/14 HST sets over a variety of routes, serving destinations like Lincoln, Aberdeen, Inverness and Hull. They also run diagrams on various all wired routes (personal experience indicating Leeds as one such destination) but never mind.
These destinations are for the most part operated over considerable stretches of wired railway and as such could be considered to constitute a waste of infrastructure that has been procured at significant expense.

I would propose that a ten vehicle Class 222 derivative be built with 8 diesel engine powered vehicles and two trailers containing a pantograph and transformer equipment.
Such a combination would operate with the two trailers in the middle and supplying the 4 powered vehicles on each end via a traction bus, this combination allows one pantograph to supply both transformer vehicles without running a 25kV bus through the train, this also means that the low voltage bus is as short as possible.
You could also make the two transformer vehicles the quiet coaches for the train and put the restaurant vehicle next to them to reach the load on the length of the traction bus when operating under electric traction.

I chose a Class 222 because of the increased cabin room due to the rearrangement of the internals and the apparently more advanced control system installed combined with the fact that the East Coast Main Line has no need for tilting trains.

Operationally the train would have 6000hp under diesel and electric power and if we assume the transformer-trailers are similar weight to the diesel powered ones, would weigh in at approximately ~460t. This translates to a power to weight ratio of roughly 13hp/t.
13hp/t is approaching that of a Class 390 and as such the train could probably easily exceed 125mph and might be able to reach 140mph in the future, albeit with inferior acceleration characteristics.
It should easily be able to thrash HST timings on lower speed routes like the lines to Aberdeen and Inverness, and its lower axle loadings should permit higher speeds on those routes.

So, I assume there is some blindingly obvious reason why this hasn't or isn't being done rather than waiting for the IEP which is apparently going to be a while and deliver ED sets of questionable usefulness.

EDIT: It would also be a politically wise move in the current climate with the furore over the Derby works, especially if they took the opportunity to displace the MML, XC and GWML sets as well with the impending electrifications.

 

[jopsuk]

It's all very well proposing it (indeed, I believe Bombardier themselves have said it is feasible for all the 22x classes) but who's funding this? There's your reason- it's all about money.

 

[Yew]

Roscos? How about they actually pay for trains once?

 

[jopsuk]

But they're not going to do anything without the say-so of the DfT

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Two things spring to mind.

1) DfT have basically already decided that IEP is the dog's danglies.

2) Why have quiet coaches in the middle of the train? With all the people walking through them to get to the buffet, it wouldn't be very quiet (two buffet areas would be a waste of space, especially considering the reduction in capacity of the Voyager/Meridian coaches).

 

[Nym]

You'd be better, for a 10 coach formation for it to be formed of

Diesel Driving - Diesel - Panto - Diesel HV Bus - Diesel HV Bus - Diesel HV Bus - Diesel HV Bus - Panto - Diesel - Diesel Driving

The HV Buses are easy to have, (and already exist on the pendos with no problem). That would minimize the LV Bus lengths.

Also, rather than building new ones, it would be a much better option to electrify the entire length of the Midland Mainline, convert the 222 units to ED and use them on ICEC and ICGW routes that need bi-mode units, and all of the 221 and 220 units for ICWC and ICXC. Possibly with some 221 or 220 units being sent over to ICEC or ICGW for use on their routes. With the addition of extra 390 units for ICWC.

This would minimize the number of LDPE Diesel stock and residual left over in a number of years. As it wouldn't need any LDPE Diesel stock building again for another 30 years, plenty of time to electrify all LDPE routes. Then the 22x series would be retired. Rather than having twice as many diesel LDPE units lasting for the next 30 years... Meaning a progressive electrification is harder to work round.

By 2025 the Midland Mainline can be fully electrified all the way to Leeds, this would result in all 22x stock being released for ICGW, Aberdeen will proberbly be completed by Transport Scotland and Inverness can be hauled by a 67, meaning all HST services can be retired (short of OA Operators) by 2025, without any new LDPE diesel stock being built.

Also by 2025 some major suburban networks will need to be done, all the 3rd rail gaps darn sarth should be done. Aswell as say, the Cardiff Valley Lines. It would also be nice to carry on up here aswell with pretty much everything west of Manchester being electrified and tram-trains being put on appropriate routes like the Mid Cheshire Line and East Lancs Railway. Aswell of course as a massive expansion of the Metrolink Network, again.

I'm thinking 3rd Rail extentions of all of Merseyrail... out to wigan from Kirkby and Southport and up to Preston. and Wigan - Bolton / Atherton - Manchester electrified, with through services operated in co-operation between Merseyrail and Northern, eg.

Liverpool Central - Kirkby - Wigan - Manchester Victoria
And Southports being operated by DV Stock. etc.

Anyway, direct technical questions this way if you like...

 

[cj_1985]

Roscos? How about they actually pay for trains once?

this is a bit off topic... but who do you think has paid upfront for more or less all units and locos built since privitisation...?

DfT may have more or less all the control regarding new stock orders, and where stock is allocated.

but its the ROSCOs that stump up the payment for the units once they are ordered... before they are leased to a TOC or FOC.

The DfT just AIUI provide a guarantee that a newly ordered units will have work beyond the end of the current franchise...

Its a shame that the same guarantee wasnt offered by the SRA back when the class 460s were ordered.

 

[OxtedL]

Roscos? How about they actually pay for trains once?

Same as above essentially, but:

Who did you think was paying for the trains?! You think the government bought them and just gave them to the ROSCOs to make a fortune leasing back? :roll:

Apologies for the potential appearance of aggression there... Particularly if I've misinterpreted what you are saying.

And yes, I agree that the reason that it's always the DfT announcing new rolling stock orders is that the ROSCOs aren't willing to do it of their own accord - this could lead to the stock not being utilised and them making a huge loss, so they look for the "guarantee". Hence the privatisation of rolling stock in order to introduce competition between ROSCOs has completely failed.

 

[cj_1985]

Same as above essentially, but:

Who did you think was paying for the trains?! You think the government bought them and just gave them to the ROSCOs to make a fortune leasing back? :roll:

Apologies for the potential appearance of aggression there... Particularly if I've misinterpreted what you are saying.

And yes, I agree that the reason that it's always the DfT announcing new rolling stock orders is that the ROSCOs aren't willing to do it of their own accord - this could lead to the stock not being utilised and them making a huge loss, so they look for the "guarantee". Hence the privatisation of rolling stock in order to introduce competition between ROSCOs has completely failed.

it wasnt so bad back in the early days of privitisation...
Porterbrook in particular ordered turbostars on spec.. knowing that someone, being MML, Scotrail or Central would jump at the chance to take on some extra units... remember the 3 or 4 170/3s that Porterbrook ordered that moved about as spare units!

problem now, is that back when the SRA still had control it started to limit the control that TOCs had in ordering stock...

i mean its not unknown that TOCs want extra stock.. be ig new or displaced.
but you just need to look at what the DfT are doing with the class 150s... allocating "carraiges" to operators...

its not as if (for talking sake) FGW ordering a batch of Class 172s from the cardiff-portsmouth would lead to a whole load of class 150s being left standing idle without an operator... point out the TOC that doesn't need extra stock?

another good example being when First started operating FGW under the new "Greater Western" contract (ie. FGW, FGW Link/Thames trains and Wessex trains) there were class 158s etc put into store at Eastleigh because the DfT (or was it SRA) had been so specific in the amount of units that were (basically) permitted to be used.. that it left so many services shortformed.

Yet another being SWT and wanting to move to 10 carraige operation on some routes... had quotes from Siemens for new build carraiges, and a quote from Porterbook for re-configuration of the class 458 and 460s into suitable length units... the DfT dragged its feet, and meant that the tenders/quotes were expired.. meaning more cost, and delays

the TOCs while perhaps being more interested in pleasing the shareholders than serving their passengers at times, DO know their patch, the services that need extra cappacity, or know where extra services could/should be run if the stock was available...
im sure if we moved to a set up where the DfT left the TOCs to run services, enter into agreements for enhancements ie. Chilterns "Evergreen" , and order stock when needed it would probably run a lot smoother than it is at the moment.

 

[HSTEd]

Would it really be feasible to fit a 25kV bus line to the 222 bodyshell without having to rearrange everything so much that it is a completely new design? If so I suppose that would be better.

I primarily suggested to put the quiet coaches there because they would be in the only vehicles without diesel engine noise.

Surely electrifying the entire length of the Midland Main Line is likely to improve journey times sufficiently to simply result in trains being extended further north if electro-diesel units are practically available? Perhaps even to Scotland if the carbon reduction targets the government is committed to result in the end of Transpennine coal traffic on the S&C.

EDIT: the line would support a current of roughly 91 amps @25kV so I suppose the only issue is the size of the insulation.... which is apparently a few millimetres with extruded PTFE

 

[cj_1985]

Would it really be feasible to fit a 25kV line to the 222 bodyshell without having to rearrange everything so much that it is a completely new design? If so I suppose that would be better.

I primarily suggested but the quiet coaches there because they would be in the only vehicle without diesel engine noise.

Surely electrifying the entire length of the Midland Main Line is likely to improve journey times sufficiently to simply result in trains being extended further north if electro-diesel units are practically available? Perhaps even to Scotland if the carbon reduction targets the government is committed to result in the end of Transpennine coal traffic on the S&C.

put very simply... so even a moron can understand...
Bombardier (thats the company that built the class 22X units) has looked into it, developed a plan, worked out costings... and with ROSCOs and some TOCs approached the DfT with a proposal to order a batch of newly built pantograph carraiges... and/or conversion of some existing carraiges into a pantograph fitted carraige. (with a sufficiently high order, it could also allow additional intermediate carraiges to be built to lengthen the 22X units at lower cost than if ordered seperately)

as has also been said (although i have not read any formal confirmation) the DfT are more interested in its IEP product... and so, seem to be happy to allow continued operation of diesel units under the wires.

so very very simply...
YES, its possible to built a pantograph carraige to slot into a 22X...
YES, its possible to convert an existing carriage to accept power from the OHLE

the only problems (as far as i'm aware) being...
Cost ( thats £££, $$$ or Euros)...
and the DfT actually deciding to use their brains, and agreeing to an order being placed.

 

[HSTEd]

Would such a train be capable of reaching 140mph under electric power however?
I would imagine that even if it is possible under diesels the engines would have to be run flat out for long periods of time which would decrease the service life of them significantly.

 

[Nym]

Would such a train be capable of reaching 140mph under electric power however?
I would imagine that even if it is possible under diesels the engines would have to be run flat out for long periods of time which would decrease the service life of them significantly.

Not nesseserally, remember that it's electric or diesel electric transmission that works very differently to electromechanical or electrohydrolic (the older types) of transmission.

The engines only rev to the point of creating enough power that is required, not to the point of rotational speed that is required for direct transmission of said rotational speed to the wheels.

Put simply, 125 downhill is less revs than 125 uphill, as it needs less power.

 

[HSTEd]

I meant that accelerating to 140mph would require quite a long time with the diesels at full power output.... not that theres really anywhere where you could run at above 125mph on diesel power except perhaps the approach to hull

 

[route:oxford]

I meant that accelerating to 140mph would require quite a long time with the diesels at full power output.... not that theres really anywhere where you could run at above 125mph on diesel power except perhaps the approach to hull

Why bother with 125mph under diesel power?

110mph is probably adequate away from the wires.

 

[HSTEd]

If you start cutting down the power output of the diesels to reduce the top speed you risk not having sufficient power to get high accelerations on relatively low speed lines like the route to Aberdeen and Inverness.

 

[DarloRich]

NO - no more under floor Voyager/DMU crap boxes on long distance services. Why cant we have the engines at the front?

Make a better train. Dont convert the crap ones we have already.

(Dont get me started on the IEP)

 

[HSTEd]

I'm afraid you aren't going to get non underfloor powered rolling stock other than the IEP, and I would point out that atleast on the East Coast route the vast majority of the time the engines would be switched off.

And the Norwich-Liverpool service is what a really bad DMU long distance run looks like, I would take Class 222s there with relish.

 

[DarloRich]

Why? Why cant we design a better train than the one we have? Why do we HAVE to have underfloor engines? Is it beyond us to actualy design a train that is comfortable to have to travel on?

 

[HSTEd]

Noone else makes push-pull unpowered rolling stock in significant quantities any more other than the Americans and that stock is totally unsuitable for the UK.
Such stock also suffers from relatively poor acceleration and is thus unsuitable for high speed services we have on our relatively densely populated island as they would never be able to get up to speed.

This is the age of the multiple unit

 

[DarloRich]

So because no one makes it we cant design and build some?

 

[HSTEd]

No, but we will end up in a similar situation to the US where everything costs ten times more than it should because our specifications are so out of step with everyone else, and frankly I have travelled on both MML HST sets and the 222s and the 222s aren't significantly worse as far as ride quality goes and Class 390s ride seems to be pretty similar to that on a Mark IV.

Edit: I did have the misfortune however to travel on a Hull Trains 180 once, never again.
The first class table is not secured to the carriage side and was shaking an inch each way rather rapidly as we were running flat out.......

 

[DarloRich]

And that is why we need a decent design which i dont think you will ever get with an underfloor engine. That is why i dont see why we as passengers have to settle for less comfortable stock. Why is the comfort of the passenger the most important consideration - after all WE have to travel on these things. Why is it that that is number 3965 on the list if it makes the list at all?

 

[HSTEd]

you wont get the benefits of the multiple unit operation without the underfloor engines though

 

[MCR247]

Yeah you do, look at railjet, they regularly couple like a 221 would in service. Although you then have two locos per train which is a hell of a lot of wasted space

 

[HSTEd]

Using RJ660 Vienna-Salzburg as an example, which departs Vienna at 0614 tomorrow morning. It achieves the highest stop-to-stop average speed of 142kph between St. Polten and Linz. Over a distance of approximately 128km.

The first Class 395 service from Ebbsfleet to Ashford International with a similar top speed (its slightly higher at the moment due to the higher top speed on HS1 to the Westbahn but not an order of magnitude difference) covers the 53km from Ebbsfleet to Ashford in 19 minutes, an average speed of 167kph on a hop half the length.

So there we go, although the 395 has a 140mph top speed compared to the current 125mph top speed on the Westbahn that doesn't make up for the insanely higher acceleration of the 395.

 

[jopsuk]

Yeah you do, look at railjet, they regularly couple like a 221 would in service. Although you then have two locos per train which is a hell of a lot of wasted space

As they have jumpers all the way through, can the Chiltern (for example) sets couple and technically operate both locos together, drive from a DVT etc?

 

[yorksrob]

problem now, is that back when the SRA still had control it started to limit the control that TOCs had in ordering stock...

i mean its not unknown that TOCs want extra stock.. be ig new or displaced.
but you just need to look at what the DfT are doing with the class 150s... allocating "carraiges" to operators...

its not as if (for talking sake) FGW ordering a batch of Class 172s from the cardiff-portsmouth would lead to a whole load of class 150s being left standing idle without an operator... point out the TOC that doesn't need extra stock?

another good example being when First started operating FGW under the new "Greater Western" contract (ie. FGW, FGW Link/Thames trains and Wessex trains) there were class 158s etc put into store at Eastleigh because the DfT (or was it SRA) had been so specific in the amount of units that were (basically) permitted to be used.. that it left so many services shortformed.

Yet another being SWT and wanting to move to 10 carraige operation on some routes... had quotes from Siemens for new build carraiges, and a quote from Porterbook for re-configuration of the class 458 and 460s into suitable length units... the DfT dragged its feet, and meant that the tenders/quotes were expired.. meaning more cost, and delays

the TOCs while perhaps being more interested in pleasing the shareholders than serving their passengers at times, DO know their patch, the services that need extra cappacity, or know where extra services could/should be run if the stock was available...
im sure if we moved to a set up where the DfT left the TOCs to run services, enter into agreements for enhancements ie. Chilterns "Evergreen" , and order stock when needed it would probably run a lot smoother than it is at the moment.

This is probably because the Government usually does end up paying for new rolling stock through increased subsidy (quite apart from "legacy" stock which was given over to the ROSCO's very cheaply).

It's all well and good complaining about DFT micromanagement of franchises, but what does anyone expect when:

1 There is clearly a lot of public money involved and

2 The sort of management structure which would have been able to shift resources around the system without Gmt interference has been systematically dismantled.

Quite apart from this, in a properly free market, we wouldn't expect Marks and Spencers to just organise cascades of its surplus shops to Dorothy Perkins for example. I suppose the Rosco's would be the retail estate owners in this scenario and if a TOC "vacated" its rolling stock you would expect the ROSCO to sell it's trains to another TOC.

Problem is that there are a lot fewer TOC's than high street retailers and the market is therefore a lot less fluid. I expect this is why the system doesn't work.

 

[DarloRich]

you wont get the benefits of the multiple unit operation without the underfloor engines though

I dont want the benefits of multiple units on long distance intercity trains. I want a train that is comfortbale to travel on for 3,4,5 + hours. We have those now so why cant we make a better one?

Why does modernity mean a reduction in standards for the passenger?

 

[87015]

Further to that, what benefits of MU operation on long distance trains - there isn't much in the way of splitting and joining on XC is there even with the super dooper 125mph DMU fleet?