End of the line for locos?

[jopsuk]

the jolt on leaving stations though can be sorted with tighter coupling- after all, a lot of 4-car EMUs have a single power coach and don't suffer jolting.

 

[Daimler]

At the end of the day a multiple unit will always be a superior option to locomotive hauled stock so there would be not logical reason for a new build of loco and stock.

I don't really want to get involved in this argument all over again, but I simply have to say this, Zoe - what you have presented as fact is actually an opinion. There are merits and demerits to each form of traction, and depending on your perspective/the specific duties in question, they can each be superior.

 

[jones_bangor]

Basically, apart from East Coast's 91s and NXEA's 90s, loco-hauled services are standing in for lack of units, except for the Welsh vanity services.

Vanity - more like Wales finally getting its fair share.

And believe me, you feel far better after 4 hrs on the mk2 with all table sears than 4hrs cramped up in a 158 / 175 DMU!

 

[jopsuk]

a further point- most of the loco hauled services (especially the mrk 3 and mrk4 + DVT run ones) operate effectively as if MUs- there's no routine lengthening and shortening of coaching rakes, no spare carriages sitting in sidings just outside the station, no station pilots shunting carriages around.
Even where there isn't a DVT/DBSO, there's still no additional carriages or shunters involved.

 

[Nym]

Yes, but services and exam periods are diferent for coaching stock and locomotives, the reason why we no longer have lengthening or shortening of LHCS services is because of a lack of LHCS stock (that is in a servicable condition).

As some of you may know, for intercity services I favour a mix of the two, but this would be a challenge for the makers of autocouplers to get it to work.

100mph stock is best kept in the relm of MU stock, but anything faster, now thats a diferent matter, a certain amount of space in the driving carrage of each unit cannot be occupied by passengers anyway, that at each end can make up for the locomotive.

Electric LHCS is near dead, EMU Traction motors are a lot quieter and smaller than they used to be, mainly due to the use of solid state control devices. Further advances in very recent years has seen that distributed traction currents along a busbar can be sufficently intergrated with a set of matched generators, so there is no reason that these generators need be matched, so long as there is a handshake protocol set up in the controller for how to get the best out of these generators.

New diesel units are un-economnical. There is no way to get round this thanks to emission regulations requiring the units to burn much cleaner than before (hence they will burn more fuel), any bus or HGV Engineer will be with me on this. For example the new Fiat Multi-Air Engine has very low emissions but drinks fuel like it's going out of fassion, I've seen independant reviews putting it's motorway mpg at 50mpg, I can get that from a 14 year old VW.

We need the best of both worlds for the UK's network, distributed traction and LHCS comfort levels; the only way to acceive this that I have come up with, is to have a new design of coaching stock, with intergrated traction motors.

Now, I havn't worked out the current draw or harnessing requirements of this yet, but it would work by having each coach have 600kw of tracktion packages, run from a relitavly low voltage, ie. one that does not require a massive transformer set, or where the transformer set can be intergrated into a tracktion 'package'.

These coaches would be available in several forms:

PI - Passenger Coach LDPE (Doors at end of coaches)
PC - Passenger Coach IEPC (1/3 - 2/3 Doors)
DVT - DVT/Guard Luggage & Kitchen (No passenger accomadation)
DBSO - DBSO/Guard & Luggage w/Seating

On either or both ends there would be either a 'Transformer carrage' or 'Generator Carrage' Dependant on the configuration of the power distribution system there may not be any need for a dedicated 'transformer carrage' and this could be built into the DVT

All carages within the rake will have through connections at both ends, excluding the DVT/DBSO where they have through connections at one end.

The interconnectors and control systems would be specified by one company, but diferent generator or transformer coaches would be potentially interchangable, but all interworkable. Also, each transformer carrage or a DVT with transformer etc. Would contain a small diesel, fuel cell or OCGT generator unit. OHL Failiure etc.

Say the following become available:

8MW Transformer Carrage with 600kw backup generator & OHL and 3rd rail pickup
5MW Generator Carrage
4MW DBSO Transformer Carrage with 600kw backup generator
2.5MW DBSO Generator Carrage

Examples of formations that would be appropriate for certain operators:

ICEC LDPE Passenger Express:
KX - Edinbrugh: 8MW Tran + 10 PI + DVT
KX - Hull Paragon Interchange: Either; 8MW Tran + 9PI + 5MW Gen or DBSO Either end and attach Generator at Doncater

TPE North: 4MW Tran + 6 PC + 2.5MW Gen DBSO

NT Inter Urban: 2.5MW Gen DBSO + 3 PC + DBSO

Or some variation on the above, basically, a new Mk.6 (We have had Mk5) carrage, that contains traction motors, that are fed from either a generator or transformer 'carrage', the latter may also contrain passenger accomadation, and DVTs available. With 'power giving carrages' being able to couple and uncopule within the normal calling pattern of a service, reducing the number of Diesel, OCGT or Fuel Cell generators needed.

For example, KX - Aberdeen:

Semi perminant rake formed up of DBSO - 8 PI - DVT is sat in Kings Cross with all the electric 'transformer carrages' sat at the city end and attached. Driver drives it out under electric traction up to Edinbrugh where a Diesel/Fuel Cell/OCGT generator coach is sat in the platform waiting, he drives his DBSO up to it and couples on before opening the doors. Driver gets out and gets into the generator to drive from it's front cab, when leaving the station the transformer carrage is uncoupled from the front and either left in the platfom or driven out into sidings for the corrisponding service to come down from Aberdeen or Inverness and couple back onto it and return to Kings Cross. The same could happen at Doncaster, York or Leeds for other ECML branch services, the same at Cardiff, Bristol, Swindon etc for the GWML, all stock would perform the same on electrified sections, getting the most paths possible, and as electrification stretches further out, more transformers are built, aswell as more coaching stock, and the generators are used to provide further branch services.

Long read I know, but it makes sense, honest.

 

[ChrisCooper]

With regard to Rhydgaled's post, on the Great Eastern the 360's are the fastest accelerator's, and certainly in my experience, the 90's and the 321's accelerate at almost the same rate by my reckoning, with the 90 maybe being slightly slower of the mark, but not by much, which is quite admirable for a locomotive + 10 vehicles. If you were to compare the 90's with other Intercity stock, the 390's have got to be the fastest to accelerate surely. But as far as locomotives go, the 90's are the fastest to accelerate in my experience. But I suppose the 390's are always going to accelerate the fastest as 8 out of 9 vehicles are motor coaches and so the traction is spread more evenly around the train. Also may I add in that one thing you get with Locomotive hauled services is the jolt when your leaving stations, and I've heard passengers complain about this. Compare this to a Pendo leaving the station and its just plain smooth.

When it comes to 90s vs 321, the 321s will be faster off the mark, particularly when the 90 is propelling, but the 321s acceleration will drop off quite a way before the 90. It was the same with the 86s. I don't know for certain but there is probably a point at higher speed where the 90s start out accelerating the 360s. IMHO one of the real great things about the electric locos is that shove you get when power is applied at high speed. It really is this feeling or raw, concentrated power that you don't get with units (a 90 at maximum can put down nearly 8000hp).

The jolt on departure is when propelling and is a mixture of the coupling (hauled sets have buckeye couplings which have quite a give in them, EMUs more rigid bar couplings) and the time for the brakes to release along the train. Violant jolts are usually due to bad driving (whacking the power on before the brakes have had time to release, you can get a massive jolt on a HST by going straight to notch 5 straight after releasing the brake). Another jolt is when shutting off power when propelling, as the couplings will be compressed and then become streched. Jolts are also felt on EMUs, just not as noticable since many have bar couplings (the buckeye coupled slammers used to jolt very noticably), electopnumatic brakes release much faster and simultaniously along the train, and due to different acceleration profiles the power off jolts are felt up to much lower speeds. Modern EMUs with computer control are much smoother.

As for the space issue with the loco, it's not so clear cut. Units will often have to have equipment that would normally either be on the loco or under the coaches inside the coaches. Look on the Voyagers with their big equipment spaces at the ends of the coaches. There is then another loss of space where the exhaust comes through. Toilets are bigger due to the tank being inside the coach. Even where crumple zones complicate matters, traction equipment in them will often displace other equipment into passenger space. They are a waste of space anyway IMHO, and it's not straightfoward to just stick equipment in the crumple zone as it can compromise it.
It all comes down to the idea again that units are good up to a certain length, but then loco hauled is better. Eventually you reach a point where the lost passenger space on each coach equals the lost passenger space by having a loco.

 

[tbtc]

I'm not sure that we'll see a large build of locos again for the following reasons:

1. Specialisation. British Rail used engines on both freight and passenger duties, most classes of locomotive saw both types of work (with the exception of Shunters). Nowadays stock is built for a specific purpose (e.g. 185s/460s having luggage space for use on Airport services), so there's fewer "generic" things being built

2. Improved engine quality. The improved reliability and power of engines like 66s and 67s (compared to the likes of 37s) means the days of a "Yard" with dozens of idle locomotives is long gone.

3. Electrification. The advantages of locos over units include engine noise (albeit some enthusiasts like being in the leading coach of a loco hauled rake because they enjoy the noise). However, there's no sound advantage/ difference comparing a 90 to a 350.

4. Complication. In the modern world, with time penalties etc, the complication of joining/splitting locos, shunting stock etc is something TOCs don't seem to want to get into

5. Wasted space at termini. With many services at maximum length for (some of) the stations they serve, there's little scope for a separate loco at one end and DVT at the other.

Its a shame, I think that scrapping some locos was a bad thing. I've wondered in the past whether it'd have been easier for some TOCs to order brand new locos at one time, then brand new coaches at another, rather than trying to order a brand new *everything* all at once (with greater scope for things to go wrong).

 

[ChrisCooper]

I'm not sure that we'll see a large build of locos again for the following reasons:

1. Specialisation. British Rail used engines on both freight and passenger duties, most classes of locomotive saw both types of work (with the exception of Shunters). Nowadays stock is built for a specific purpose (e.g. 185s/460s having luggage space for use on Airport services), so there's fewer "generic" things being built

2. Improved engine quality. The improved reliability and power of engines like 66s and 67s (compared to the likes of 37s) means the days of a "Yard" with dozens of idle locomotives is long gone.

3. Electrification. The advantages of locos over units include engine noise (albeit some enthusiasts like being in the leading coach of a loco hauled rake because they enjoy the noise). However, there's no sound advantage/ difference comparing a 90 to a 350.

4. Complication. In the modern world, with time penalties etc, the complication of joining/splitting locos, shunting stock etc is something TOCs don't seem to want to get into

5. Wasted space at termini. With many services at maximum length for (some of) the stations they serve, there's little scope for a separate loco at one end and DVT at the other.

Its a shame, I think that scrapping some locos was a bad thing. I've wondered in the past whether it'd have been easier for some TOCs to order brand new locos at one time, then brand new coaches at another, rather than trying to order a brand new *everything* all at once (with greater scope for things to go wrong).

5 - As I said in my post, units waste space to and it becomes more of an issue as the units get longer. DVTs are a waste, but are no longer needed as new built hauled stock would have a DT with passenger accomodation little different to a unit leading vehicle. I doubt for example a new built of unit for the GEML could have the same capacity as the Mk2 sets used to.

4 - Most hauled stock runs around as fixed formation so this is not a factor. This argument though is used against things like hauled alternatives to IEP. Falls flat when IEP will include 5 car units that will join and split!

 

[tbtc]

5 - As I said in my post, units waste space to and it becomes more of an issue as the units get longer. DVTs are a waste, but are no longer needed as new built hauled stock would have a DT with passenger accomodation little different to a unit leading vehicle. I doubt for example a new built of unit for the GEML could have the same capacity as the Mk2 sets used to.

4 - Most hauled stock runs around as fixed formation so this is not a factor. This argument though is used against things like hauled alternatives to IEP. Falls flat when IEP will include 5 car units that will join and split!

5. You say that a new build of units wouldn't offer as much capacity as Mk2s, but then a new build loco/coaches for the GEML wouldn't have as much capacity. Things like disabled toilets/ wheelchair friendly wider doors... it all adds up regardless of whether you have a loco or a DMU/EMU. The additional things you mention (toilet tanks, traction equipment) will add up too, but it'd have to be a long train before these things take up as much space as a loco and a DVT.

4. The fact that most loco hauled stock runs in fixed formation does spoil the "loco hauled is more flexible" argument that some have though

 

[Rhydgaled]

5. You say that a new build of units wouldn't offer as much capacity as Mk2s, but then a new build loco/coaches for the GEML wouldn't have as much capacity. Things like disabled toilets/ wheelchair friendly wider doors... it all adds up regardless of whether you have a loco or a DMU/EMU. The additional things you mention (toilet tanks, traction equipment) will add up too, but it'd have to be a long train before these things take up as much space as a loco and a DVT.

4. The fact that most loco hauled stock runs in fixed formation does spoil the "loco hauled is more flexible" argument that some have though

DVTs, as said, can now have passenger seating, so there's only the space the loco takes up to worry about if you build new stock. The loco can then be outside the platform (except at one terminus of the route) if the signals are in the right place, whereas gubbins of a multiple unit can't.

Just because nobody takes much advantage of the fact hauled stock is more flexible doesn't mean it isn't. What is needed is less of an 'avoid anything slightly difficult' attitude and a bit of spare cash to develop even faster coupling systems. Bring back British Rail. Hauled (push-pull) alternatives to IEP would avoid the issue of having extra weight while on either power source, just swap the loco. Hitachi's involvmet would apparantly prevent that though, except for what can be managed by using existing 225s.

 

[4SRKT]

Am I alone in remembering the days when Hitachi meant tellies? Never as a child as I struggled to tune in the black and white portable did I suspect that one day this telly might lead to the destruction of the railways as I knew them!

 

[Eng274]

Am I alone in remembering the days when Hitachi meant tellies? Never as a child as I struggled to tune in the black and white portable did I suspect that one day this telly might lead to the destruction of the railways as I knew them!

No. Mitsubishi make consumer electrical goods as well as cars, same with Daewoo.

As well as railway locomotives, apparently GM make something resembling cars..but don't quote me!




Glad Saab have escaped their evil clutches!

 

[jopsuk]

Am I alone in remembering the days when Hitachi meant tellies? Never as a child as I struggled to tune in the black and white portable did I suspect that one day this telly might lead to the destruction of the railways as I knew them!

Which possibly reveals a level of ignorance (not meant as insult, meant in the "lack of knowledge" sense) about Hitachi- in common with many of the Japanese companies you've heard of, they make a lot more than you think they make and have done for a long time. Plus, they've absorbed many other companies over the years.

A bit of searching reveals they were involved in building the original "0 series" Shinkansen

 

[4SRKT]

Which possibly reveals a level of ignorance (not meant as insult, meant in the "lack of knowledge" sense) about Hitachi- in common with many of the Japanese companies you've heard of, they make a lot more than you think they make and have done for a long time. Plus, they've absorbed many other companies over the years.

A bit of searching reveals they were involved in building the original "0 series" Shinkansen

Thank you. My post was meant as a joke, but however, let's move on.....

 

[starrymarkb]

No. Mitsubishi make consumer electrical goods as well as cars, same with Daewoo.

As well as railway locomotives, apparently GM make something resembling cars..but don't quote me!




Glad Saab have escaped their evil clutches!

Though GM don't make Locos any more. Similarly MTU is no-longer part of Daimler

 

[w1bbl3]

What is quite curious is why with operators and DfT preferring fixed rake units articulation remains unpalatable, RSSB did I recall publish a briefing note that highlighted potential crashworthyness of such configuration for end on end and derailment events.

No. Mitsubishi make consumer electrical goods as well as cars, same with Daewoo.

Hitachi do indeed still make TV's, camcorders, aircon units, white goods, power tools, construction machinery... tbh it's probably easier to list the stuff they don't make rather than items they do.