HST Re-use: Why VP185 engines not MTU

[DarloRich]

A question I have been meaning to ask out of curiosity:

Why are the majority (all?) of the HST powercars being used by COLAS/DATS/LSL et all the VP185 engined versions rather than the MTU engined version? Is it just they are the ones in best nick, most easily available and offered at best value at this point in time? Is the MTU engine not going to be easier to maintain/obtain spares for long term (seeing as MAN Paxman have closed their Colchester plant) more environmentally friendly and cheaper to run or am I missing something?

 

[Energy]

A question I have been meaning to ask out of curiosity:

Why are the majority (all?) of the HST powercars being used by COLAS/DATS/LSL et all the VP185 engined versions rather than the MTU engined version? Is it just they are the ones in best nick, most easily available and offered at best value at this point in time? Is the MTU engine not going to be easier to maintain/obtain spares for long term (seeing as MAN Paxman have closed their Colchester plant) more environmentally friendly and cheaper to run or am I missing something?

Wonder if it is availability? The MTU ones are in use while the Paxman ones are ex EMT/R having been replaced by LNER sets.

 

[Whistler40145]

Maybe the MTU Unit fitted Power Cars were already agreed in Franchises with TOCs, therefore only the VP185 fitted Power Cars were surplus to requirements first

 

[SteveM70]

I suppose once they have some that are VP185 they’re better served continuing that way rather than end up with a small but mixed fleet

 

[Whistler40145]

I suppose once they have some that are VP185 they’re better served continuing that way rather than end up with a small but mixed fleet

Maybe the FOCs involved didn't need or weren't given the option of MTU fitted Power Cars

 

[fgwrich]

What will have weighed on any new HST users mind is the engines themselves. Most of the MTU powered Power Cars have been in storage for a while (Predominately the Angel Trains - We'll store them until we might find a user for them) and therefore require maintenance to re-activate them (if they've been weather proofed, which I doubt). The VP185 Fleet has of course been in service until very recently and most wont have been in storage for that long. The MTU Engine overhauls are also rather expensive, which no doubt has put any prospective operator off, although things may change now that MAN have closed Colchester and may change their service network as a result.

 

[hwl]

A question I have been meaning to ask out of curiosity:

Why are the majority (all?) of the HST powercars being used by COLAS/DATS/LSL et all the VP185 engined versions rather than the MTU engined version? Is it just they are the ones in best nick, most easily available and offered at best value at this point in time? Is the MTU engine not going to be easier to maintain/obtain spares for long term (seeing as MAN Paxman have closed their Colchester plant) more environmentally friendly and cheaper to run or am I missing something?

Plenty of both available (MTU from Angel and Porterbrook and VP185 from Porterbrook). The VP 185 will be cheaper for maintenance costs but will be micro fleets. The choice will have been made before Colchester announcement.

 

[hexagon789]

Iirc FGW had VP185 and Valenta power cars in the early 2000s, they ultimately decided instead of fitting VP185s to replace the original Valentas to use the MTUs. MM/EMT then ended up with an all VP185 fleet.

 

[Domh245]

Iirc FGW had VP185 and Valenta power cars in the early 2000s, they ultimately decided instead of fitting VP185s to replace the original Valentas to use the MTUs. MM/EMT then ended up with an all VP185 fleet.

It's been said before that those FGW conversion suffered the Alstom curse (non-existent customer support) as Paxman was owned by them at the time, which led to the MTU decision. By some accounts the Paxman is the better unit as it will go longer between overhauls and beats the MTU on fuel and oil consumption - all of which would appeal to a Freight operator without the same sort of government support as a TOC! There was a thread with some discussion on MTU vs VP here

 

[43096]

In simple terms, the VP185 uses less oil, has similar fuel consumption to the MTU and goes longer between overhauls. It is, technically, the better engine.

 

[Richard Scott]

Also the VP185 doesn't need pre-heat to start.

 

[43096]

Also the VP185 doesn't need pre-heat to start.

It's not a great fan of cold mornings though! Technically the MTU can be cold started, it's just got an engine hours penalty attached to it which costs if you're locked in to MTU's maintenance support.

 

[cakefiend]

It's not a great fan of cold mornings though! Technically the MTU can be cold started, it's just got an engine hours penalty attached to it which costs if you're locked in to MTU's maintenance support.

Think this is probably why people are going for VP185s. If you can’t guarantee a shore supply every night, you’re gonna have to leave a PC running or incur a costly hours penalty.

 

[Bosch91]

Think this is probably why people are going for VP185s. If you can’t guarantee a shore supply every night, you’re gonna have to leave a PC running or incur a costly hours penalty.

Fairly certain leaving power cars running was not uncommon, heard that from a former Paxman/Man fitter who used to cover up at Neville Hill.

 

[hexagon789]

It's been said before that those FGW conversion suffered the Alstom curse (non-existent customer support) as Paxman was owned by them at the time, which led to the MTU decision. By some accounts the Paxman is the better unit as it will go longer between overhauls and beats the MTU on fuel and oil consumption - all of which would appeal to a Freight operator without the same sort of government support as a TOC! There was a thread with some discussion on MTU vs VP here

I've seen arguments either way, one suggestion was the VP185 was much slower to load for instance

 

[D365]

In simple terms, the VP185 uses less oil, has similar fuel consumption to the MTU and goes longer between overhauls. It is, technically, the better engine.

That’s the long and the short of what I have heard.

 

[DarloRich]

In simple terms, the VP185 uses less oil, has similar fuel consumption to the MTU and goes longer between overhauls. It is, technically, the better engine.

Thanks that is interesting - is there any environmental difference between the two engines?
EDIT: Also is the MTU servicing regime more complex/costly/time consuming?

 

[hwl]

Thanks that is interesting - is there any environmental difference between the two engines?

MTU is cleaner and could be upgraded to be even cleaner still which potentially looks better for NR yellow use in the long term...

 

[43096]

MTU is cleaner and could be upgraded to be even cleaner still which potentially looks better for NR yellow use in the long term...

VP185 can be upgraded to be Stage 3B compliant. Indeed the VP185 in 43076 is the cleanest/greenest HST engine: it was re-fitted with electronic fuel injection a while back. Just needs exhaust after treatment to make it compliant.

125 Group members would have seen the article about this in their magazine a while back.

 

[DarloRich]

thank you - interesting information